SES Performance Scheme : Driving Performance Improvement in European ATM /ANS

Performance Review Bodydesignated bythe European Commission

SES Performance Scheme: Driving Performance Improvement in European ATM /ANS

CIPFA Meeting

Peter Grififths

PRB Chairman15/10/2014

Performance Review Body 2

Content of the presentation

• The Performance Scheme (PS)

• The Performance Review Body (PRB)

• The Theory

• ANS in aviation context

• Performance Plans

• US- EU OPS Comparison

• Future performance improvements

• Human Factor

• Conclusions


The Performance Scheme (PS)

• One of the key pillars of the SES by setting EU-Wide and Local targets, performance monitoring and corrective actions .

• The PS is organised around fixed Reference Periods (RP). RP1 runs 2012-2014, RP2 runs 2015-2019.

• Targets set are legally binding for EU Member States.

• The Performance Regulation principles:

– 4 Key Performance Areas (KPAs): Safety, Capacity, Environment, Cost Efficiency.

– Incentives/cost efficiency linked with Charging Sch.

– Staff representation consultation .


The Performance Review Body (PRB)

• The PRB Reports to the EC in accordance with provisions of 390/2013 (the Performance Regulation).

• The purpose of the PRB is to assist the EC in PS implementation and NSAs on request.

• Competence, impartiality and independency.

• Main key tasks are:– Advise EC in setting EU-wide performance targets.

– Asses National/FAB Performance Plans (and the NM).

– Monitor the performance of the system in the 4 KPAs.


ANS in aviation context

Orders of magnitude of turnover

3 4 3 3 1 2 1 2 105

101520253035404550

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

(P)

Num

ber o

f acc

iden

ts

Source: EASA Accidents with ANS contribution

Total commercial air transport (CAT) accidents and accidents with ANS contribution (fixed wing, weight > 2250Kg MTOW)

3.5%6%

Share of aviation related CO2 emissions (Europe)Share of aviation emissions actionable by ANS

Total anthropogenic

CO2 emissions

in Europe

Estimated share of ANS-related CO2 emissions in Europe (2011)

6% 6-12%

6% 6%

Orders of magnitudefor illustrative purposes

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2010 2011 2012 2013

min

ute

s pe

r de

par

ture

ATFCM (en route)

ANS-related(airports)

ATFCM (Weather)

Weather (nonATFCM)

Local Turn around(airline, airport, etc.)

Reactionary

Change 2013 vs. 2012 (min./dep.)

-0.06

0.00

-0.01

0.07

-0.16

-0.10

Source. PRU analysis; CODA

Air Transport€200 B

Airports€40 B GA

ANS€ 8 B

MIL

Safety Punctuality

FinancialEnvironment


Basic Adams Model of RiskFor further reading the reference text is: Risk John Adams UCL London 1995 ISBN 1-85728-067-9 HB and 1-85728-068-7 PB

Management Process

Opportunity

Balancing Decisions

Reward

Unwanted Event’s

Risks


We make decisions on opportunities and risks based on perceptions from our culture. These perceptions

apply filters to our model.


The operating loops provide mechanisms which provide systemic management of our companies. The

two loops must balance within a risk tolerance boundary.


The two loops must balance within a risk tolerance envelope. Corporate reporting systems ensure we

remain within the risk tolerance boundaries.


At the same time others are making similar decisions all of which impact on others and you. Thus constant review is

necessary to ensure that the original decisions are still correct.


For further reading the reference text is: Reasons Accident Causation Model, Prof Jim Reason, University of Manchester email: [email protected].

Reasons causation (Swiss Cheese) model suggests when these events line up unwanted events occur. Along with the Adams model we can see how this would happen. His investigation into accidents holds true for other company internal or external

situations.


ANS in Aviation context

All KPAs but Safety expressed in economic terms SES targets address all 3 KPAs (en-route) and Safety Estimated TEC ≈ €10.5 B (SES area, 2012)

ANS-related Airborne equipment to be added TEC fully borne by users of European airspace

Performance improvements, more accurate data, different area (SES): lower TEC estimates

ATFM delay and flight-efficiency cost estimates must not be interpreted as ANS inefficiency Trade-offs between KPAs Optimum is not 0: Minimise TEC

within acceptable bounds of safety and security

2.2 B

0.8 B

2.0 B

3.5 B

0.8 B

TotalUser cost(ground)

€ 10.5 B

Flight-efficiency

En-route: 1.0 BTMA, taxi: 1.2 B

ATFM DelaysER: 0.5, Apt: 0.3

ATCO

Other costsECTL, MET, NSA

UserCharges

€7.5 B

Estimated TEC 2012 (SES)

Support costsOther staff

Other operating

CAPEXDepreciation Cost of capital

1.2 B

Airborne ANS


Performance Plans

1st Reference period (RP1)Targets set

European targetsRP1

(EC/PRB)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

RP2

National/FAB performance plans RP1 (States)

Consistency with European

targets(EC/PRB)

European targets

RP2(EC/PRB)

Nat./FAB performance plans RP2

(States)

Consistency with

European targets

(EC/PRB)

1st Reference period (RP1)Targets set

European targetsRP1

(EC/PRB)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

RP2

National/FAB performance plans RP1 (States)

Consistency with European

targets(EC/PRB)

European targets

RP2(EC/PRB)

Nat./FAB performance plans RP2

(States)

Consistency with

European targets

(EC/PRB)

Monitoring

SES targets for all 4 KPAs in RP2(En-route)

Performance also monitored in TMA


Performance Plans

Reactive policy in the 90’s: delays going up while costs going down, and vice-versa Balanced performance-oriented approach; both delays and unit costs down since 2000 Enforceable SES targets apply from 2012 onwards Fast traffic growth until 2008: challenge for capacity, but helps cost-efficiency

Traffic growth much lower now, even negative: Easier for capacity, harder for cost-efficiency

Flight-efficiency

Delays

Charges

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.119

90

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

€200

9 pe

r kilo

met

re

En-route unit costsTraffic in km (index: 1990=1)En-route delay (summer)

All States in Route Charges system

data source : EUROCONTROL/CRCO, CFMU (delay)

Min

utes

of e

n-ro

ute

AT

FM

del

ay p

er fl

ight

and

traf

fic in

dex

PerformanceReview

Commission

ECAC Institutional

Strategy

Single European Sky 1st package

Start of SESPerformance

Scheme

Start of SES PS RP1

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

20

10

20

12

20

14

20

16

20

18

% a

nn

ua

l g

row

th (

ba

rs)

IFR

fli

gh

ts (

mil

lio

n)

STATFOR7-year forecast

(SEP. 2013)

( before 1997, estimation based on Euro 88 traffic variation)

2013 TRAFFIC 9.45 M (-0.8%)

source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR (ESRA2008)

Max. (2008)


(Feb. 2008)


(Feb. 2011)


Performance plans

Challenging SES targets for 2012-2013 were met and even exceeded Best level ever achieved in ATFM delays! Challenging target for 2014 and beyond (0.5 min/flight), close to optimum

SES States

Flight-efficiency

Delays

Charges


Performance Plans

• Excellent routing efficiency of ANS, certainly best of all transport modes (~ 3%)

– Yet significant economic impact (fuel burn, flight time)

– Impossible to reach 0% with full civil-military traffic load

• Improvement in KEA compensates traffic growth (-21% from 2011 to 2019)

• Carbon-neutral growth of aviation (IATA goal due in 2020) already being met by ANS!

• Network Manager’s flight-efficiency initiative, aimed at reaching SES targets

– Role of airlines in closing gap between FPL and actual route (predictability)

• Further environmental indicators needed (Vertical, CO2 efficiency…)

– Would require inputs on optimum flight from AOC

Great Circle broken up using Achieved distance

Flight-efficiency

Delays

Charges

4.67

4.10

2.60

5.42 5.385.18 5.15 5.11

3.29 3.17 3.12

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

ineffi

cien

cy (%

)

Flight plan (KEP) - actual Flown trajectory (KEA) - actual

Source: PRU analysis

Indicative KEP profile

Indicative KEA profile

Target RP1 Target RP2

SES area

KEP (FPL) and KEA (actual) vs great circle


63.7

58.457.8

56.7

54.9

56.6

55.0

53.0

51.0

49.1

58.1

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

2009A 2010A 2011A 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

RP1 (2012-2014) RP2 (2015-2019)

€200

9 pe

r SU

Actual en-route unit costs €2009/SU DURs from RP1 NPPs €2009/SU

Adopted RP2 cost-efficiency targets (Feb. 2014) €2009/SU Starting point for RP2 cost-efficiency targets €2009/SU

Performance PlansHigher DUC starting point (€58.1) than DUR arising from aggregated RP1 plans (€54.9) in 2014, mainly due to traffic being significantly lower than planned.

% change in DUC

Annual % change in DUC

2009-2019 -22.9% -2.6%2012-2019 -16.0% -2.5%2014-2019 -15.5% -3.3%

Flight-efficiency

Delays

Charges

Significant improvement under binding SES cost-efficiency targets Spain played a large role in improvements from 2009 to 2012


Performance plans

Major savings from RP1-2 targets:

Some € 7.6B vs. 2012 baseline over RP2

€600

€650

€700

€750

€800

€850

€900

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

TEC

per

flig

ht (

€20

09)

TEC/flight (Base Traffic) TEC/flight (Low traffic)

Flight-efficiency

Delays

Charges

~ 7.6B


US-EU OPS comparison



• European unit costs decreased -13% over 2002-2011• But still some 50% above US in absolute terms (US 34% below Europe)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

US 265 271 260 267 279 285 310 346 358 354

SES 595 596 583 564 548 547 542 592 556 534

Europe 591 591 572 550 533 529 522 567 529 511

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

€20

11

Total ATM/CNS provision Costs per Flight-Hour (€ 2011)(% difference corresponds to US vs SES)

55% lower42% lower

34% lower

Source: PRC analysis


Flight-hours controlled

ATM/CNS provision costs

Unit ATM/CNS provision costs- 34% in US

EUROCONTROL/PRU

ATCOs in OPS working hours

ATCO-hour productivity

+55% in US

ATCOs in OPSEmployment

costs

ATCOs employment

Cost / flight-hour

- 48% in USATCO in OPS cost / ATCO-hour

-25% in US €85 €163 €354 €511

Support costs per flight-hour

- 25% in US

Support costs

€269 €348

+


Flexibility is key to ATCO productivitySupport costs: high share, mostly fixed, opportunity for rationalisation, must be addressed!


Future performance improvements

Efficiency gains in individual ANSPs Airspace improvements (e.g. free routes) More flexible management of capacity to match

demand (ATCO contracts) New Technology

PCP investment mostly on ground, can fit within current CAPEXMain impact expected in TMA, airport traffic

Future deployment must have clear positive CBA, including Airborne ANS part of TEC

Efficient SESAR deployment, e.g. joint procurement, maintenance

Rationalisation of service provision and oversight, including restructuring

Very significant further performance improvements achievable in true Single Sky

2.2 B

0.8 B

2.0 B

3.5 B

0.8 B

TotalUser cost(ground)

€ 10.5 B

Flight-efficiencyEn-route: 1.0 BTMA, taxi: 1.2 B

ATFM DelaysER: 0.5, Apt: 0.3

ATCO

Other costsECTL, MET, NSA

UserCharges

€7.5 B

Estimated TEC 2012 (SES)

Support costsOther staff

Other operating

CAPEXDepreciation

Cost of capital1.2 B

Airborne ANS


Human Factor (Cultural Filters)

• One of SES 5 pillars

• Staff consultation principle in PR

• Key to any system drive to change

• ATCO active involvement key to PS success:

– Consultation process

– Participation in safety improvement

– Introduction of new technology

– Process optimisation


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.520

08

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

(JAN

-SE

P)

En ro

ute

ATFM

del

ay p

er fl

ight

(min

.)

Other [all other codes]

Weather [codes W,D]

ATC other [codes IRTV]

Capacity/staffing [codes CSG]

Reference value (2012,2013), Target (2014)

Capacity (1/6) – Jan.-Sep.

• JAN-SEP – not

on track to meet

the annual

target!

• JAN-SEP – not

on track to meet

the annual

target!


4.5%

4.6%

4.7%

4.8%

4.9%

5.0%

5.1%

5.2%

5.3%

5.4%

JAN

FEB

MAR APR

MAY JU

NJU

LA

UG

SEP

OCT

NO

VD

EC JAN

FEB

MAR APR

MAY JU

NJU

LA

UG

SEP

OCT

NO

VD

EC JAN

FEB

MAR APR

MAY JU

NJU

LA

UG

SEP

2012 2013 2014

SES Area

RP1

AREA_NAME

YEAR MONTH

Sum of KPI_CALC

MODEL_TYPE

Environment – Jan.-Sep.

KPI shows notable

improvement in 2014KPI shows notable

improvement in 2014

5.42% 5.38%

5.17% 5.13% 5.11%

4.91%

4.0%

4.2%

4.4%

4.6%

4.8%

5.0%

5.2%

5.4%

5.6%20

09

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

(Ja

n.-S

ep.)

Indicative profile Baseline Target Actual


Cost-Efficiency – SU’s Jan-AUG

• +4.2% actual 2014 vs. 2013

• -4,7% actual 2014 vs. PP

• 5 States below -10%

• 3 States above +10%

• +4.2% actual 2014 vs. 2013

• -4,7% actual 2014 vs. PP

• 5 States below -10%

• 3 States above +10%

JAN-AUG ACT (2014) 2014 vs. 2013 (ACT) ACT vs. PP (2014)Finland 518,775 1.8% -16.6%Spain Canarias 991,363 -0.8% -16.2%Greece 3,040,725 3.7% -13.3%Austria 1,746,657 5.2% -12.3%Spain Continental 5,927,507 4.4% -10.6%Germany 8,561,267 2.2% -9.5%Switzerland 957,830 2.8% -9.0%United Kingdom 6,749,403 3.3% -8.6%Italy 5,726,059 3.6% -7.3%Slovenia 304,734 7.6% -6.7%Estonia 518,541 4.0% -6.6%Poland 2,712,752 -0.3% -4.5%Denmark 1,030,752 2.0% -3.2%Belgium/Lux 1,575,998 3.1% -3.1%Czech Republic 1,628,958 2.4% -2.8%Ireland 2,640,357 2.2% -2.6%Sweden 2,179,647 3.0% -2.6%France 12,549,102 3.6% -2.6%Netherlands 1,854,724 3.1% -0.3%Romania 2,726,359 8.4% 1.5%Latvia 513,440 6.5% 2.2%Portugal 2,032,428 7.3% 2.3%Cyprus 947,795 4.5% 3.5%Lithuania 322,549 7.4% 3.6%Slovak Republic 709,424 7.5% 4.1%Hungary 1,560,582 11.5% 7.1%Norway 1,464,654 9.3% 21.7%Bulgaria 1,758,499 27.7% 24.1%Malta 502,700 2.7% 24.4%SES AREA (RP1) 73,753,578 4.2% -4.7%


Conclusions

• Significant progress in European ANS performance• Best ever ATFM delays achieved in 2013• Flight-efficiency target leads to carbon-neutrality of aviation for ANS• Unit costs going down significantly

• But margins exist for significant further improvements• European unit costs still nearly 50% above US’s• SES targets for RP1-RP2 bring very significant further improvements• Balance between KPAs is essential

• Human factor • Staff is the main asset to drive the change• Win-win opportunity• Change management is key to PS success

SES Performance Scheme : Driving Performance Improvement in European ATM /ANS

Documents

Transcript of SES Performance Scheme : Driving Performance Improvement in European ATM /ANS