Performance Review Commission
Draft Final Report - PRR 2008
Consultation Meeting Thursday 05 March 2009
Today’s Agenda
10h00: Opening 10h10: PART I - BACKGROUND - Introduction (Chapter 1) - Traffic (Chapter 2) 10h30: PART II - ANS PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT - Safety (Chapter 3) 11h15: Coffee Break 11h30: PART II - ANS PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (continued) - Air transport Punctuality/Predictability (Chapter 4) - En-route Operational Performance (Chapter 5) - Operational Performance at main airports (Chapter 6) - Comparison of US/Europe Operational Performance (Chapter 7) 13h00: Lunch 14h00: PART II - ANS PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (continued) - Cost-Effectiveness (Chapter 8) 14h30: PART III - TRADE-OFFS AND OVERALL ASSESSMENT - Environmental Assessment (Chapter 9) - Economic Assessment (Chapter 10) 15h00: Coffee Break 15h15: PART IV - GOING FORWARD - Going-forward/Driving Performance (Chapter 11) - Conclusions and draft recommendations of PRR 2008 16h00: Conclusions 16h30: Close of meeting
2
Performance Review Commission
3
Process
21 January: PCC
– Advance information on key messages
05 February - 05 March : Draft PRR 2008 circulated for comments 17 February: MILHAG 5 March: Consultation meeting 6 March: PRC meeting
Finalises report Adopts recommendations
11 March: PCC 19-20 March: CMIC 7 May: Presentation to PC
Performance Review Commission
4
PART I – BACKGROUND
Performance Review Commission
5
Introduction
• New features of PRR 2008
– Overview of European ANS performance and targets in Executive summary – New report structure – Operational performance by flight phase rather than by KPA
– Specific chapter for airside operational performance at main airports – A first assessment of the KPA Access, addressing civil-military aspects – Comparison of operational performance in the US and in Europe – Environmental and economic assessments, trade-offs – Draft recommendations
• SES II Performance scheme being negotiated by EU institutions
– Impact on performance review to be anticipated
Performance Review Commission
6
Overview of European ANS performance and targets
EUROPEAN LEVEL - AVIATION PERSPECTIVE
TRAFFIC
N° of entities with maturity below 70%
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
EUROPEAN LEVEL - ANS PERSPECTIVE
SAFETY
33 30 28 24 22 19 11 18 13 9 Target Regulators
14 12
30%
MEASURE
TRAFFIC ~ 10.1 M
KPIs
DATA
TARGET
KPIs KPIs
<70% MATURITY
DATA 2007
TARGET TARGET
DATA
25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5%
DATA 2007
ACTUAL
2008
YEARLY VARIATION VARIATION
YEARLY % VARIATON TREND
ACTUAL ACTUAL
YEARLY VARIATION VARIATION
TARGET MET TREND
million IFR flights
ANSPs
0
Reg: 13 ANSP: 9
▼
Awaiting survey
10 8 6 4 2 0
Yearly variation IFR flights
FLIGHTS
10.0 M
10.1 M
▲
0.4%
Traffic growth has slowed down in 2008 (0.4% in 2008 vs. 5% in 2007) and is expected to be negative in 2009 (-3%).
ESRA 2008
The Provisional Council target is "to raise the framework safety maturity level of ANSPs and National Regulators to a minimum of 70% in each State by end of 2008". The number of ANSPs and Regulators below acceptable maturity decreased but was still far from 0 in the survey conducted in March 2008.
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
ATFM DELAYS (EN-ROUTE)
En-route ATFM delay/ flight (min.)
6 5
2013
5.5 4.1
Summer
KPIs
OTHER (Special event, military, etc.) WEATHER ATC Other (strike, equipment, etc.)
KPIs
TARGET
AVIATION SAFETY
18
TARGET ACTUAL
DATA
DATA
YEARLY VARIATION TREND TARGET MET
ACTUAL VARIATION
4 3 2 1 0
3.6 3.1 1.9
MINUTES/ FLIGHT
1.0
1.9
▲
No
Total number of acccidents
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
KPIs
MEASURE
TARGET
ACTUAL
2007
DATA
DATA
2008
YEARLY VARIATION TREND
1.8
VARIATION
1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4
1.6
The target was not met in 2008 in spite of low traffic growth. En-route ATFM delays increased for the fourth consecutive year and exceeded the agreed target by 90%.
Target
ATC Capacity & Staffing
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Accidents Trend
There was no ATM-induced accident in 2008.
1
1998 1999
1
2000 2001
2
FLIGHT - EFFICIENCY
1
2003 2004 2005 2006
1
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2013
Direct ATM
ATM-INDUCED ACCIDENTS
1
0
▼
2002
route extension (km/flight)
data source: Flight Safety Foundation - Aviation Safety Net
60 48.7 48.2 48.9 48.8 40
KPIs
- 2 km per flight (agreed target)
KPIs
TARGET
TARGET ACTUAL
DATA
DATA
YEARLY VARIATION TREND TARGET MET
ACTUAL VARIATION
Direct en-route extension TMA Interface
KM / FLIGHT
44.4
48.8
=
No
PUNCTUALITY
30% 25%
20
Agreed target
The Provisional Council target was not met in spite of the Flight Efficiency initiative. The average route extension has increased since 2006, mainly due to increasing average flight distance (+3% in 2008).
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2009
2010
2011
2012
KPIs
DEPARTURES delayed by more than 15 min. (%) ARRIVALS delayed by more than 15 min. (%) ARRIVALS more than 15 min. ahead of schedule (%)
MEASURE DATA
TARGET
DATA
ACTUAL
2007
VARIATION
2008
YEARLY VARIATION TREND
YEARLY % VARIATON
% of flights
20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
ARRIVALS > 15 MIN %
22.1%
21.5%
▼
- 3%
1.0
COST - EFFECTIVENESS
Total en-route ANS costs (€2007)/ km
250
Air transport punctuality slightly improved in 2008, but remains unsatisfactory.
2013
PRC notional target
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 130 0.4 0.3 100
KPIs
KPIs DATA
TARGET
DATA 2007
TARGET ACTUAL ACTUAL VARIATION YEARLY VARIATION TREND TARGET MET
PC adopted target
220 190
Costs Per Km Total Costs (1998=index 100)
REAL UNIT COST/ KM
-3.0%
-1.8%
▼
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Source:AEA & CODA
* preliminary estimate for December 2008
160
Traffic (1998=index 100)
On track to meet the PRC notional target over 20032008 period (-14%, i.e. 3% per year). Based on forecast data of November 2008, the PC target for 2008-2010 (3% per year) will not be met.
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
PREDICTABILITY
Arrival time (compared to schedule ) in minutes
25 20 15 10
All States in CRCO system
KPIs
20th Percentile
MEASURE
TARGET
ACTUAL
2007
DATA
DATA
2008
YEARLY VARIATION TREND YEARLY % VARIATON
1.4
TOTAL ANS USER COSTS (EN-ROUTE)
VARIATION
STANDARD DEVIATION
19.8 min
19.1 min
▼
-3.5%
€/km
1.2 1
-1.2% -1.0%-1.5% 1.9%
KPIs
KPIs DATA
TARGET
DATA
TARGET ACTUAL ACTUAL VARIATION YEARLY VARIATION TREND TARGET MET
80th Percentile
5 0 -5
Standard Deviation
The variability (standard deviation) of the gate-to-gate flight time improved in 2008.
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Cost of route extension Cost of ATFM delay Cost of capacity
TOTAL UNIT COST/ KM
None
1.16 €/km
▲
N/A
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Performance Review Commission
2013
-10
The total en-route unit cost borne by airspace users for en-route (charges + delays + route extensions) decreased slowly from 2003 to 2007 and increased in 2008 (+1.9%)
Performance Review Commission Chapter 2 – Traffic demand
8
Traffic demand
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
32
TRAFFIC ~ 10.1 M
FEB 2008 Forecast
30 28 26 24 22
GROWTH : + 0.4%
2006 thousands daily flights 2007 2008
million IFR flights per year
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
20 18
Jan
Feb
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Nov
May
10% 5% 0% -5%
( before 1997, estimation based on Euro 88 traffic variation)
FEB 2008 FORECAST
% annual growth
source : EUROCONTROL
10% 5% 0% -5% -10%
% 2008/2007 growth
data source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR (ESRA2008)
source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR (ESRA2008)
Negative growth was recorded from September onwards
Performance Review Commission
Dec
Mar
Apr
Oct
9
Factor influencing traffic growth
200 180
2008 US dollar per barrel
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Price in € 2008 per barrel
1 Jan 1987
1 Jan 1988
1 Jan 1989
1 Jan 1990
1 Jan 1991
1 Jan 1992
1 Jan 1993
1 Jan 1994
1 Jan 1995
1 Jan 1996
1 Jan 1997
1 Jan 1998
1 Jan 1999
1 Jan 2000
1 Jan 2001
1 Jan 2002
1 Jan 2003
1 Jan 2004
1 Jan 2005
1 Jan 2006
1 Jan 2007
data source : US Department of Energy (Rotterdam Jet Fuel Spot Price)
100 90 80 70
33% FUEL COST SHARE
22.8%
2008 € per barrel
Striking correlation with economic growth Wide variations in fuel price Traffic demand becoming more volatile, less predictable Need for improved ANS flexibility
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
14.8%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1 Jan 2008
Performance Review Commission
2008
10
PART II – ANS PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
Performance Review Commission
Performance Review Commission Chapter 3 – Safety
12
Safety - PRC approach
Safety performance review
Occurrence reporting and investigation
Surveys (e.g. maturity) Risk management
Audit findings and recommendations
Mandatory Other TCAS Incident incident reports reporting reporting
Risk Risk assessment modelling and mitigation
Maturity CIP State surveys reports CAPs (REG)
Peer reviews
Safety Management
Safety regulation & oversight
PRC approach to reviewing ANS safety performance
Target setting and monitoring of safety performance should be harmonised in ECAC, taking account of all aspects of safety, including regulation, oversight, accident/incident investigation and SMS.
Performance Review Commission
13
Safety: accidents
20 Direct ATM 18 Accidents Trend
Total number of acccidents
16 14 12 10 8 6 4
2
2 0
19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08
Data source: Flight Safety Foundation - Aviation Safety Net
1
1
1
1
1
No accidents with direct ATM contribution in 2008 in Europe.
Performance Review Commission
14
Reported high-risk incidents
500 400
Severity A 42%
Severity B
% : Proportion of Severity A+B 23% 22%
Classified events
Severity A 80
Severity B 16%
% : Proportion of Severity A+B 10% 9% 6%
Classified events
60 9% 40 9% 20
27% 300 200 100 0 2002 2003
20%
19%
0
2004
2005
2006
2007P
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007P
Data source : EUROCONTROL SRU
Data source: EUROCONTROL SRU
Separation Minima Infringement
Runway Incursions
In 2007, ATM safety appears to have improved, in a context of growing traffic (+5.3%).
Performance Review Commission
15
Results of ESIMS audits in 15 ECAC States
CE1
CE-1
Primary Aviation Legislation
St a S a Sy te A fet ste via Fu y O m a ti on n c ve n d tio rsi ns gh t
CE2
100
90
S R e Ope pec gu r a ific la tin tio g ns
CE -2
CE3
-3 CE
80
Technical Guidance, Tools & Provision of Safety Critical Information
70
Qualified Technical Personnel & Training
CE-4
ESTABLISH IMPLEMENT
CE-5
CE4
60
CE5
CE -7
g, , in n ns tio ion l ce ca at a Li rtifi ris rov s n o C e th App tio Au nd liga a Ob
Resolution of Safety Concerns
S O urve bli il ga lan tio ce ns
-6 CE
CE6
CE7
CE-8
CE8
Performance Review Commission
16
ESARR Implementation in EUROCONTROL Member States
ANSP implementation of ESARRs
100% 100%
REG implementation of ESARRs
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
0% ESARR2 ESARR3 ESARR4 ESARR5
0% ESARR1 ESARR2 ESARR3 ESARR4 ESARR5
Ok
Partial
Late
Ok
Partial
Late
Safety regulations are not fully implemented in all States. A structured ANS safety oversight scheme tailored to the European environment is needed, based on a combination of surveys, peer reviews and audits.
Performance Review Commission
17
Number of ANSPs and Regulators with maturity below target level
35 30 25 20 15 11 10 ANSPs 5 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Regulators 9 33 30 28 24 19
22
18 13
Target
2008 2009
Performance Review Commission
18
Conclusions and Recommendations
• No accidents with direct ATM contribution in 2008 in Europe. • ATM safety appears improved in 2007, in a context of growing traffic (+5.3%). • Safety regulations are not fully implemented in all States. A structured ANS safety oversight scheme is needed in Europe beyond 2011. • Target setting and monitoring of safety performance should be harmonised in ECAC, taking account of all aspects of safety. • The PRC supports confidentiality applied in a just culture environment but maintains that the safety performance of ANS providers should be transparent. The PRC is minded to recommend:
a. the public availability of States’ ESIMS and USOAP audit reports concerning ANS safety (including Corrective Action Plans);
b.
c. d.
that EUROCONTROL presents a plan to ensure a permanent oversight of ANS safety in Europe beyond 2010, in liaison with EASA;
that each State adopts a “just culture” in relation to the reporting of ATM safety incidents; the use of automated tools, wherever possible, to complement manual reporting of losses of separation.
Performance Review Commission
Performance Review Commission
Chapter 4 - Punctuality/ Predictability
20
Quality of service chapters
CHAPTER 4
Air Transport Performance (Network)
Scheduled departure
CHAPTER 5
ANS-related contribution (En-route)
CHAPTER 6
ANS-related contribution (Airport)
ANS related predeparture delays
Local dep. delays ATFM delays Reactionary delay En-route ATFM delays
Departure Punctuality
Airport ATFM delays
Actual Off-block time
Gate-to-gate performance
Excess time in the taxi-out phase Actual take-off time Flight efficiency Actual landing time Actual in-block time Arrival Punctuality Scheduled arrival time En-route Flight efficiency Airborne holding & sequencing
Scheduling
Excess time in the taxi-in phase
Performance Review Commission
Punctuality and Predictability
30% DEPARTURES delayed by more than 15 min. (%)
21
25%
20%
% of flights
20th Percentile
80th Percentile
Standard Deviation
25
ARRIVALS delayed by more than 15 min. (%)
15%
20 15
minutes
10% ARRIVALS more than 15 min. ahead of schedule (%)
10 5 0
5%
0% 2001 2002 (AEA data) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Source: Coda
-5 -10
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Departure time (compared to schedule)
Taxi-out + holding Flight time (cruising Taxi-in + waiting for + terminal) the gate
Arrrival time (compared to schedule) Source: CODA
Gate-to-gate phase
• Although slightly improving, air transport punctuality remains unsatisfactory in Europe (21%). • Predictability is important for scheduling purposes. • There is a clear interrelation between airport capacity utilisation, variability of operations and quality of service.
Performance Review Commission
22
Departure punctuality trend
Primary departure delay causes (all delay from 1 minute)
100% 90% 80% 70%
delay per flight (minutes)
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Jan-02
Flights with a departure delay>15 min. Turnaround (Airline, Airport, Security, etc.) Airport ATFCM (capacity & weather) En-route ATFCM Reactionary delay
50% 45%
% of flights delayed by more than 15 min.
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
2005 2006 2007 2008 Security Misc. Airline Weather (Non-ATFM) ATFCM-Weather Airport (Non-ATFM) Source: ATFCM-Airport CODA ATFCM-En-route
Jan-03
Jan-04
Jan-05
Jan-06
Jan-07
Jan-08
Jul-02
Jul-03
Jul-04
Jul-05
Jul-06
Jul-07
• 73% of late departures are caused by airline and airport processes
• ATFM-related departure delays caused by en-route or airport constraints account for approximately 27%, but show an increasing trend in 2008 despite the overall improvement of departure punctuality.
Performance Review Commission
Jul-08
Performance Review Commission
Chapter 5 – En-route Operational Performance
24
En route Operational Performance
En-route ATFM delay/ flight (min.)
Summer ATFM en-route delay target 6 5
4.1 5.5
Actual: 1.9min/flight Target: 1.0min/flight
OTHER (Special event, military, etc.) WEATHER
4 3 2 1 0
1997 1998 1999
2.9
3.6 3.1 1.8 1.2
Target
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6
1.9
ATC Other (strike, equipment, etc.) ATC Capacity & Staffing
350
Traffic volume (km)
7
Forecast
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
300
km index 1990=100
Traffic growth (Summer)
traffic growth (%)
10% 5% 0% -5%
Effective Capacity En-route ATFM delay per flight (summer) Traffic forecast
6 5 4 3 2 1
ATFM delay in minutes per flight
250 200 150 100 50
source: EUROCONTROL/CFMU
Closing capacity gap
Widening capacity gap
Closing capacity gap
Widening capacity gap
0
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
0
Source : EUROCONTROL
•ATFM En-route delay target was not achieved (1.9 min. against 1.0 min.) •Insufficient capacity delivery which continues lagging behind demand •Even if traffic decreases in 2009, capacity should continue increasing Performance Review Commission
25
Capacity planning in the 12 ACCs generating most delays
traffic growth (%)
Traffic growth Actual and forecast (SUMMER)
Traffic forecast (band between baseline and high) Actual traffic (Summer)
14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4%
3
million minutes of en-route delay
Elementary Sectors Combined Sectors
2% 0% -2% -4%
Zagreb Rhein Wien Madrid Kobenhavn London AC Zurich Nicosia Reims Geneva Athinai+ Macedonia Maastricht Warszawa Canarias
2 1 0
Summer Summer Summer Summer Summer Summer Summer 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Top 25 most penalising en-route delay sectors
ATFM en-route delay Actual and forecast (SUMMER)
Delay forecast (band between baseline and high) Actual delay (Summer)
minutes/ flight
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Sources: NOP, CFMU
so urce : EUROCONTROL
• The failure to meet or keep below forecast delay levels is surprising in view of the significantly lower than expected traffic growth for most ACCs. The main reason for this failure was the unexpected staffing issues that were not made known by these ACCs during the planning period. • Capacity plans need to take account of collective agreements and those agreements need to be valid for the duration of the plans. Performance Review Commission
Flight-efficiency performance
route extension (km/flight)
26
60
48.7 km 48.2 km 48.9 km 48.8 km
- 2 km per flight (agreed target)
40
Direct en-route extension TMA Interface
20
Agreed target
0 2005 900 880 860 840 820 800 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009
km/flight
2006
2007
2008
2009
2009
Great circle distance
Source: PRC Analysis/CFMU
• Flight Efficiency has both an environmental and cost impact. Direct routing is unachievable because airspace structure is a key element of safety and capacity design. • In May 2007, the Provisional Council of EUROCONTROL adopted the horizontal flight efficiency target aims at an annual reduction of the average route extension per flight by two kilometres until 2010 (8 Km in total) The target was not achieved, although there have been some improvements which were offset by an increase in average flight distance Performance Review Commission
•
27
Improving en-route flight efficiency
6%
Direct route extension
5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 2004 2005
Week Days
0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%
FAB interfaces 26% Routing within state 63%
State interfaces within FAB 11%
2006
2007
Week End
2008
• The joint initiative to improve European flight efficiency (IATA, EUROCONTROL, CANSO), is expected to bring a reduction which represents 1 km from airspace design and 6Km from route availability and airline flight planning. However the latter is already offset by ATC routing reductions. • Approximately 63% of route extension is due to domestic airspace design issues, but 26% is linked with cross-FAB airspace design, which illustrates the need for a network approach to airspace design. • Although there is virtually no military activity during weekends, only little improvement in performance can be observed Performance Review Commission
28
Conclusions and draft Recommendations
Network management (Chaper 4, 5 and 6)
The PRC is minded to recommend: l. that detailed requirements and associated performance indicators be defined for the network management functions; m. the accelerated implementation of functions which improve network performance, such as airport collaborative decision-making.
En-route Capacity (Chapter 5)
The PRC is minded to recommend: k. that States and Air Navigation Service Providers take advantage of the current crisis to close current existing capacity gaps where possible, to improve system flexibility and to prepare for traffic recovery.
Flight efficiency-environment (Chapter 5)
The PRC is minded to recommend:
e. that States actively support the implementation of the joint EUROCONTROL-IATA-CANSO Flight-Efficiency Plan;
f. that the CFMU and airspace users co-operate to increase the use of shorter alternative routes at the flight planning stage, including conditional routes;
g. further development Networkparticularlyof route structures coordinated by EUROCONTROL, and that conditional routes are open as often management as possible, at week-ends.
Performance Review Commission
Performance Review Commission
Chapter 6: Operational Performance at main airports
30
Operational performance at airports • Airports are key nodes of the aviation network, therefore airport system performance is a main challenge for future air traffic growth • Provides analysis of airport airside performance at 20 airports and identifies some influencing factors • Significant improvements from previous PRRs, further refinements will follow
ARRIVALS (inbound)
Upstream ATFM delays (at gate) Excess time within the ASMA (airborne)
DEPARTURES (outbound)
Airport
Pre-departure delays (at gate)
Excess time in the taxi-out phase (ground)
Performance Review Commission
31
Airport arrival ATFM delays
5 4 3 2 1
ATFM delay per arrival (min.)
Avg. arrivals per day 1,000 800 600 400 200 0
2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008
0
Frankfurt (FRA) 5 4 3 2 1 0
2006 2007 2008 2006
London (LHR)
Vienna (VIE)
Rome (FCO)
Amsterdam (AMS)
Dublin (DUB)
Zurich (ZRH)
Brussels (BRU)
Munich (MUC)
Copenhagen (CPH) 1,000 800 600 400 200 0
2007
2008
2006
2007
2008
2006
2007
2008
2006
2007
2008
2006
2007
2008
2006
2007
2008
2006
2007
2008
2006
2007
2008
2006
2007
Palma (PMI)
Madrid (MAD)
Paris (ORY) Paris (CDG)
Barcelona (BCN)
Milan (MXP) Lisbon (LIS)
Prague (PRG)
London (LGW)
Helsinki (HEL)
ATC & Aerodrome Capacity WEATHER Avg. Arrivals per day
ATC Other (strike, equipment, etc.) OTHER (Special event, military, etc.)
Source: PRC Analysis CFMU
Performance Review Commission
2008
32
Excess (transit) times in the ASMA area - methodology
EGLL Jet
50
0
2
4
6
8 10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
ASMA transit times are affected by a number of parameters such as aircraft type, congestion level, airspace design, airport configuration, pilot performance, environmental restrictions, and to some extent the objectives agreed by the airport scheduling committee.
Performance Review Commission
0
10
20
30
40
Arrival congestion
33
Excess (transit) times in the ASMA area - measurement
Average excess time within the last 100 NM (ASMA)
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Rome (FCO) London (LHR) London (LGW) Madrid (MAD) Zurich (ZRH) Milan (MXP) Vienna (VIE) Munich (MUC) Frankfurt (FRA)
Average excess time between 100 and 40NM Average excess time within the last 40 NM
minutes
European System Average (2.1 min.)
Lisbon (LIS)
Barcelona (BCN)
Brussels (BRU)
Copenhagen (CPH)
Prague (PRG)
Paris (CDG)
Dublin (DUB)
Palma (PMI)
Paris (ORY)
Source: PRC analysis/ CODA/ CFMU
Performance Review Commission
Amsterdam (AMS)
34
Measurement of excess times in the taxi-out phase
Average excess time in the taxi-out phase (min.)
9
minutes per departure
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Copenhagen (CPH) London (LHR) London (LGW) Barcelona (BCN) Madrid (MAD) Vienna (VIE) Amsterdam (AMS) Prague (PRG) Lisbon (LIS) Frankfurt (FRA) Munich (MUC) Brussels (BRU) Helsinki (HEL) Dublin (DUB) Zurich (ZRH) Rome (FCO) Palma (PMI) Milan (MXP) Paris (CDG) Paris (ORY)
European average (2.5 min.)
Source: PRC analysis/ CODA/ CFMU
• CDM improves performance in the maneuvering area
• At CDM airports, AOs need to commit to a TOBT
Performance Review Commission
35
Total excess times related to airport airside operations
Lo ndo n (LHR) Frankfurt (FRA ) Ro me (FCO) Vienna (VIE) Lo ndo n (LGW)
Arrivals
Dublin (DUB ) M adrid (M A D) M unich (M UC) Zurich (ZRH) P aris (CDG) A msterdam (A M S) B arcelo na (B CN) P aris (ORY) B russels (B RU) M ilan (M XP ) P alma (P M I) Co penhagen (CP H) Lisbo n (LIS) P rague (P RG)
Departures
15
10
5
0
0
5
10
15
m inutes per arrival
minutes per departure Departure Congestion (IATA Codes 87, 89) DEP Weather (IATA Codes 71, 75, 76) Excess time in the taxi-out phase
ATFM - OTHER (Equipment, Special event, Strike, etc.) ATFM - ATC & Aerodrome Capacity ATFM- WEATHER ASMA excess time (airborne)
Performance Review Commission
36
Factors affecting operational performance at airports
Congestion level
Operational constraints Technical constraints Environmental constraints
Coordination Committee
- Slot Coordinator - Airport authority - Air carriers - ATC - Regulator
Declared airport capacity
Number of allocated slots/ Saturated hours
Traffic patterns (variability)
Quality of service
Ability to sustain capacity in bad weather
Weather conditions
• Significant progress has been made, but more work is needed to assess all affecting factors
• Airport Community (Airport Operators, Airlines, ANSPs and Airport Slot Coordinators) are welcomed to provide contributions to PRC
Performance Review Commission
Performance Review Commission
Chapter 7 – US/ Europe Comparison
38
Airspace Density Comparison (CONUS & European Centers)
*Note due to Mercator projection, northern areas appear larger
Density (flight Hr per Sq.Km)
<1 <2 <3 <4 <5 >= 5
•
Actual sizes are comparable (USA 10.4 vs Europe 11.5 M km2)
•
Relative density (flight hours per km2) is 1.2 in Europe and 2.4 in US
Europe: EUROCONTROL States plus Estonia and Latvia, but excluding oceanic areas and Canary Islands. US: Area, flight hours and center count refer to CONUS only. The term US CONUS refers to the 48 contiguous States located on the North American continent south of the border with Canada, plus the District of Columbia, excluding Alaska, Hawaii and oceanic areas.
Performance Review Commission
39
Some facts about the 34 main airports in the US and in Europe
Main 34 airports in 2007 Europe US Difference US vs. Europe
Average number of annual movements per airport (‘000) Average number of annual passengers per airport (million) Passengers per movement Average number of runways per airport Annual movements per runway (‘000) Annual passengers per runway (million)
267 25 94 2.5 108 10.0
441 32 72 4.0 110 8.0
+65% +28% -23% +60% +2% -20%
The list of the Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP) airports - 35 in total – was compiled in 2000, by agreement between the FAA and Congress, drawing on a study that identified the most congested airports in the US. That list has remained unchanged since then. Key FAA performance measures are based on data from this set of airports. For comparison reasons, Honolulu (HNL) was removed from the sample.
Performance Review Commission
40
On-time performance in the US and in Europe
On-time performance compared to schedule (flights to/from the 34 main airports)
90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70%
Source: E-CODA
90%
Intra-Europe
88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70%
US (conus)
Arrivals/ departures delayed by more than 15 minutes versus schedule
Source: ASQP data
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Departures (<=15min.)
2008
Arrivals (<=15min.)
Similar pattern in US and Europe with a comparable level of arrival on time
performance;
The gap between departure and arrival punctuality is significant in the US and
quasi nil in Europe suggesting differences in flow management strategies
Performance Review Commission
2008
41
Efficiency: Trends in the duration of flight phases
Trends in the duration of flight phases
(flights to/from main 34 airports)
6 5 4 3 DEPARTURE TIMES TX-OUT TIMES AIRBORNE TIMES TX-IN TIMES TOTAL
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 EUROPE -3
Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jul-03 Jul-04 Jul-05 Jul-06 Jul-07 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jul-03 Jul-04 Jul-05 Jul-06 Jul-07 Jul-08 Jul-08
2 1 0 -1 -2 -3
Actual times are compared to the long term average for each city pair.
minutes
US
Data Source: CODA/ FAA
Europe: Performance is driven by departure delays with only very small changes
in the gate-to-gate phase.
US: In addition to a deterioration of departure times, there is a clear increase in
average taxi times and airborne times.
Performance Review Commission
42
Airline Scheduling: Evolution of block times
Evolution of Scheduled Block Times (flights to/from 34 main airports)
4 4
Europe
3 2 3 2 1 0 -1 -2
US (conus)
1 0 -1 -2
Scheduled block times compared to the long term average at city pair level.
minutes
Jan-00
Jan-01
Jan-02
Jan-03
Jan-04
Jan-05
Jan-06
Jan-07
Jan-00
Jan-01
Jan-02
Jan-03
Jan-04
Jan-05
Jan-06
Jan-07
Jan-08
Source: FAA/PRU
Europe: Block times remain relatively stable (left side) US: In addition to decreasing on time performance, there is a clear increase in
scheduled block times (right side)
Seasonal effects are visible in the US and in Europe
Performance Review Commission
Jan-08
43
Analysis by phase of flight
IFR flights To/from Main 34 airports
DEPARTURE
ANS-related Holding at the Gate (ATFM/ EDCT) Taxi-out efficiency
GATE-to-GATE
En-route Flight efficiency Efficiency In last 100NM Taxi-in efficiency
IFR flights To/from Main 34 airports
Analysis is broken down by phase of flight to better understand the ATM
contribution and differences in air traffic management systems
Performance Review Commission
DEPARTURE
GATE-to-GATE
Taxi-out efficiency En-route Flight efficiency Efficiency In last 100NM
44
Excess time within the last 100NM
Average Excess Minutes within the last 100NM miles
(only top 20 airports in terms of movement 2007 are shown) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Milan (MXP) Manchester (MAN) London (LHR) London (LGW) Vienna (VIE) Madrid (MAD) Frankfurt (FRA) Munich (MUC) Dusseldorf (DUS) Zurich (ZRH) Rome (FCO)
ANS-related Holding at the Gate (ATFM/ EDCT)
Source: FAA/ PRC analysis
minutes
Europe Top 34 Average (3.2 min.)
Barcelona (BCN)
Copenhagen (CPH)
Amsterdam (AMS)
Paris (ORY)
Paris (CDG)
Oslo (OSL)
New York (JFK)
New York (LGA)
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Newark (EWR) Philadelphia (PHL)
minutes
US OEP 34 Average (2.5 min.)
Denver (DEN)
Minneapolis (MSP)
Charlotte (CLT)
Phoenix (PHX)
Las Vegas (LAS)
Atlanta (ATL)
Boston (BOS)
Orlando (MCO)
San Francisco
Houston (IAH)
Chicago (ORD)
Washington (IAD)
Average excess time for main 34 airports is higher in Europe Mainly driven by London Heathrow (LHR) which is clearly an outlier
Performance Review Commission
Salt Lake City (SLC)
Los Angeles
Detroit (DTW)
Dallas (DFW)
Stockholm (ARN)
Brussels (BRU)
Istanbul (IST)
DEPARTURE
GATE-to-GATE
Taxi-out efficiency En-route Flight efficiency Efficiency In last 100NM
45
En-route efficiency: Direct Route Extension
Direct en-route extension ((A-D)/G)
(flights to/from the 34 main airports 2007)
5.0%
ANS-related Holding at the Gate (ATFM/ EDCT)
Direct route extension (%)
4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0%
0-199 NM 200-399 NM 400-599 NM 600-799 NM
European top 34 average (4.0%) US OEP 34 average (2.9%)
800-999 NM
>1000 NM
Great Circle Distance between 40NM circles (D40-A40)
% of all flights
40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
0-199 NM 200-399 NM 400-599 NM 600-799 NM 800-999 NM >1000 NM
Europe
USA
Direct route extension is approximately 1% lower in the US
US: Impact of Miles in trail restrictions, passed back from constrained
airports?
Europe: Impact of fragmentation of airspace, military airspace?
Performance Review Commission
DEPARTURE
GATE-to-GATE
Taxi-out efficiency En-route Flight efficiency Efficiency In last 100NM
46
Excess time in the taxi out phase
Average excess time in the taxi out phase 20
ANS-related Holding at the Gate (ATFM/ EDCT)
(Top 20 in terms of annual movements in 2007 are shown)
Europe Top 34 Average (3.7 min.)
15 10
minutes per departure
5
Madrid (MAD) Barcelona (BCN) Munich (MUC) Istanbul (IST) Amsterdam (AMS) Copenhagen (CPH) Milan (MXP) Dusseldorf (DUS) Manchester (MAN) Vienna (VIE) Zurich (ZRH) Paris (CDG) Paris (ORY) Oslo (OSL) Brussels (BRU) Stockholm (ARN) London (LHR) Rome (FCO) London (LGW) Frankfurt (FRA)
0
20 15 10 5 0
US OEP 34 Average (6.8 min.)
Excess times in the taxi out phase are higher in the US For the US, excess times also include delays due to local en-route
departure and miles in trail restrictions.
Performance Review Commission
New York (JFK) Newark (EWR) New York (LGA) Philadelphia (PHL) Atlanta (ATL) Chicago (ORD) Minneapolis (MSP) Detroit (DTW) Boston (BOS) Charlotte (CLT) Salt Lake City (SLC) Las Vegas (LAS) Houston (IAH) Phoenix (PHX) Denver (DEN) Washington (IAD) San Francisco Dallas (DFW) Los Angeles Orlando (MCO)
Source: FAA/ PRC analysis/ CODA/ CFMU
DEPARTURE
GATE-to-GATE
Taxi-out efficiency En-route Flight efficiency Efficiency In last 100NM
47
ANS-related departure delays
2007 IFR flights (M) % of flights delayed En-route related (EDCT/ATFM) delay per flight (min.) delay per delayed flight (min.)
ANS-related Holding at the Gate (ATFM/ EDCT)
Airport related (EDCT/ATFM) delay per flight (min.)
delay per delayed flight (min.)
% of flights delayed
US Europe
9.7 5.7
0.2% 7.8%
0.1 1.4
53 18
1.7% 6.8%
1.1 1.4
68 21
US: En-route delays are much lower per flight, but the delay per delayed flight is
significantly higher; Europe: Higher share of flights affected than US, but with a lower average delay. In the US, ground delays (EDCT) are used when other options are not sufficient, whereas, in Europe ground delays (ATFM) are the main ATM tool for balancing demand with capacity.
Performance Review Commission
48
Estimated total benefit pool
Estimated excess time on flights to/from the main 34 airports (2007) Gate/ departure holdings Taxi-out phase Horizontal en-route flight efficiency Terminal areas (ASMA/TMA) Total estimated excess time per flight en-route-related airport-related TIME per flight (minutes) EUR 1.4 1.4 3.7 2.2-3.8 3.2 11.9-13.5 US 0.1 1.1 6.8 1.5-2.7 2.5 12.0-13.2 Low Low Medium High Medium Predictability
The benefit pool represents a theoretical optimum. Safety and capacity
constraints limit the practicality of ever fully recovering these “inefficiencies” Similar total estimated excess times in US and Europe but with differences in the distribution along the phase of flight
Inefficiencies have a different impact (fuel burn, time) on airspace users,
depending on the phase of flight (airborne vs. ground) and the level of predictability (strategic vs. tactical).
Performance Review Commission
Performance Review Commission
Chapter 8 – Cost-Effectiveness
50
Costs of ANS system in 2007
2007 Gate-to-gate ANS costs (European level) ~€8 300M En-route ANS costs (European level) ~€6 500M ATM/CNS ~€5 550M MET ~€320M Payment to regulatory & governmental authorities ~€110M EUROCONTROL ~€520M Terminal ANS costs (European level) ~€1 800M ATM/CNS ~€1 730M MET ~€60M Payment to regulatory & governmental authorities ~€10M
ANSP How much it Benchmarking = costs to provide analysis ATM/CNS?
Latest actual costs figures relate to the year 2007
En-route ANS costs analysis (State level) = How much is charged to airspace users?
Performance Review Commission
En-route cost-effectiveness KPI
• Cost-effectiveness improvement for European system between 2003 and 2007 in line with PRC target
–
51
En-route unit costs reduction of -3% p.a. between 2003 and 2007 significant outcome as a result of robust traffic growth and greater cost-effectiveness awareness
•
Positive business cycle will end in 2008 and PC cost-effectiveness objective (-3% p.a. between 2008-2010) will not be met
– As a result of the economic downturn, traffic growth will significantly slow down in 2009 (if not negative)
–
The rise in 2009 unit costs (+0.7%) will certainly be larger since traffic increases planned in some countries for 2009 (e.g. Spain, +13%) will not materialise
Changes in chargeable service units (planned 2009 vs actual 2008)
1.0 250 PRC notional target 0.9 0.8 0.7 160 0.6 0.5 0.4 130
4% -2% 2% 3% 19% 4% 7% 2% 1%0% 4% 13% 3% 5% 8% -4% 6% 8% -1% 0% 14% -1% 6% -12%
0 woleB %3 ot %0 %6 ot %3
Total en-route ANS costs (€2007)/ km
PC adopted target 220
1% 5% -2%
-2.6% -4.4% -3.6% -3.2% -1.8% 0.7% -1.8%
%9 ot %6 %21 ot %9 %21 evobA
190
Canarias 14%
0%
100
2%
3%
2%
1 999
2 000
2 001
2 002
2 003
2 004
2 005
2 006
2 007
2 008
2 009
2 010
2 011
2 012
2 013
8%
Costs Per Km
Total Costs (1999= index 100)
Traffic (1999=index 100)
So urce : EUROCONTROL
All States in CRCO system
4% 2% data source : EUROCONTROL/CRCO
Performance Review Commission
52
Trend in cost-effectiveness at ANSP level (2003-2007)
Changes in gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs (%)
25%
15%
5%
-5%
-15%
-25%
European system average (2003-2007): -8.8%
Skyguide Avinor Oro Navigacija Finavia DCAC Cyprus
-35%
Belgocontrol NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) ANS CR HungaroControl Slovenia Control MUAC DFS DHMI NAVIAIR DSNA LFV/ANS Sweden Austro Control Croatia Control ATSA Bulgaria UkSATSE ROMATSA NATA Albania MK CAA MATS EANS LVNL ENAV IAA LPS Aena NATS LGS MoldATSA
61% of European system ATM/CNS provision costs
•
Cost-effectiveness improvement at European system level between 2003 and 2007 (-8.8%) results from unit costs decrease in a majority of States/ANSPs
• •
The 5 largest States/ANSPs nearly represent 2/3 of the European system traffic and costs Without significant costs increases in some States/ANSPs (e.g. Spain) during the 2003-2007 period the improvement at European system level would have been even greater
Performance Review Commission
53
Trend in cost-effectiveness at European system level (2003-2007)
Weight 31%
+24.2%
Decrease in unit ATM /CNS provision costs 2003-2007
Weight 69%
+20.7%
+11.9%
+11.0%
decreased support costs per composite flight-hour
+1.8%
"Support costs effect" "Traffic effect"
increased increased ATCO-hour employment productivity costs per ATCO-hour
increased ATCO employment costs per composite flighthour
-8.8% -15.6%
•
Main driver for performance improvement at European system level was containment of support costs while traffic increased by more than 20%
•
This more than compensated for the increase in unit ATCO employment costs (+11%)
Performance Review Commission
54
Forward-looking cost-effectiveness projections (2008-2012) (1/2)
1.25 1.20 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00
Euro 2007 / km
0.95 0.90
2007 sample average
0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012
2007 EUROCONTROL Area average
United Kingdom
Spain Canarias
Spain Continental
Germany
Italy
France
•
When setting 2009 unit rates (November 2008), not all the States/ANSPs seem to have reflected the impact of the economic downturn into their plans Will those planned cost-effectiveness improvements materialise?
•
Performance Review Commission
55
Forward-looking cost-effectiveness projections (2008-2012) (2/2)
United Kingdom 2 000 1 500
En-route national costs (M€)
1 500
-1% -3% -10% -11% -10% -10%
1 000
1 000
0% -2% -3% -3% -7% -7%
500
Kilometres (M)
Germany 2 000 1 500
2 007
2 008
2 009
2 010
2 011
2 012
1 500
0%
-2%
-8%
-10%
-9%
1 000
Costs planned in Nov.07 Traffic planned in Nov.07
Costs planned in Nov.08 Traffic planned in Nov.08
1 000
3% -4% -1% 7% 8% 8%
500
500
2 007 2 008 2 009 2 010 2 011 2 012
0
Costs planned in Nov.08 Traffic planned in Nov.08
Costs planned in Nov.07 Traffic planned in Nov.07
•
Several States/ANSPs revised their planned costs upwards despite the expected slowdown in traffic
Performance Review Commission
Kilometres (M)
500
0
En-route national costs (M€)
-8%
Measures to improve flexibility and cost management
• The economic downturn requires ANSPs to review their plans to ensure that they are consistent with more straitened economic circumstances A number of ANSPs are considering different measures: – – –
56
•
– –
•
Setting of collective agreements with wages conditions valid for three years Review of current pension arrangements (retirement age, pension scheme, etc.) Reassessment of investment programmes to focus on projects which have the most promising safety and capacity outcomes Measures to ensure flexible deployment and use of operational staff to meet demand Etc.
States could also implement transitional measures to stabilise/decrease the chargeable cost-base: – – – Provide subsidies to finance part of the cost-base Limit/defer costs relating to income tax & dividends Instruct ANSPs to make use of reserves to finance potential under-recoveries
•
Forthcoming SES II performance scheme is expected to drive performance improvements – – Setting of performance targets for European ANS system Local/regional performance plans including binding performance targets
–
Explicit incentive on ANSP to achieve performance targets
Performance Review Commission
57
Draft Recommendation on cost-effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness
The PRC is minded to recommend:
h. that the enlarged Committee for Route Charges develops alternatives to full cost-recovery, in addition to the independent economic regulation option, taking account of risk-sharing between airspace users and Air Navigation Service Providers;
i. that unit rates be set in advance for a period of three to five years, as provided for in the EUROCONTROL “Principles for establishing the cost-base for en route charges and the calculation of the unit rates” and in Regulation 1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services; j. that a balanced incentive mechanism be developed to define the treatment of the cumulated under/over-recoveries arising from differences between actual costs and revenues, so as to ensure a fair sharing of the traffic volume risk and financial risk between users and providers.
Performance Review Commission
58
PART III – TRADE-OFFS AND OVERALL ASSESSMENT
Performance Review Commission
Performance Review Commission
Chapter 9 – Environmental Assessment
Environment assessment (1/5): Setting the scene
60
Sustainable development of aviation is an important objective
Top of political agenda
Aviation continues to make significant effort to reduce its impact on environment
Important to have reliable facts and figures to make informed decisions
Performance Review Commission
61
Environment assessment (2/5): Main emissions
Main aviation emissions is a two fold issue: - Greenhouse Gases (GHG) and - Local air quality
Affect local air
CO2
H 2O N 2O
…
CO NOx PM …
quality (LAQ) at and around airports
CO2 is directly proportional to fuel consumption, so easier to measure CO2 is part of the Kyoto Protocol (but international aviation is excluded) CO2 from aviation will be included in EU ETS by 2012 Some complex trade-offs between CO2 and NOx ! EU Directives on LAQ setting clear limits and terms. Performance Review Commission
62
Environment assessment (3/5): Breakdown by sector
Contribution of CO2 emissions by sector (EU27 area, 2006 base year)
CO2 Emissions from Biomass 7,0% Other 4,3% Manufacturing and Construction 14,3% Road 19,7% Transport 29% Energy Industries 34,4% Other 0,2% Railways 0,2% Residential 8,8% Institutional Commercial 3,5%
Marine 4,2% Aviation 3,4%
3.4% of total CO2 emissions in EU area related to aviation Aviation is not the major contributor, but the issue is that its relative share is growing !
Performance Review Commission
63
Environment assessment (4/5): Duration of flight
Distribution of flights and fuel burn by duration of the flight
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% >14h >13h >12h >11h >10h 13% of the flights burn 60% of the fue l
Flights Fuel
>9h
>8h
>7h
>6h
>5h
>4h
>3h
>2h
>1h
>0h
Flight duration in hours
Most CO2 emissions originate from flights for which there are no real substitutes! Flights <1 hour represent 3% of the total fuel burn – equivalent to the reduction imposed by the EU/ETS on 2012 (allowances capped at 97% of 2004-2006 average level). Performance Review Commission
64
Environment assessment (5/5): What is actionable by ATM?
Share of aviation emissions (CO2) actionable by ATM from improvement in flight-efficiency
Fuel/flight Aviation emissions within the European airspace Actionable by ATM Horizontal flight path Vertical Flight profile Airborne delays Taxi delays Total flight efficiency 4400 kg 160 kg 25 kg 76 kg 30 kg 287 kg Fuel Total 44 Mt 1.6Mt 0.3Mt 0.7Mt 0.3Mt 2.9Mt CO2 total 140 Mt 5.1 Mt 0.8 Mt 2.2 Mt 1.1 Mt 9.1 Mt 3.6% 0.6% 1.6% 0.8% 6.6% %
Airborne delays Taxi delays Vertical Horizontal
Messages: 1. 6.6% × 3.4% ≈ 0.2% which is actionable by ATM. Small, but has to be managed; 2. Main scope for improvement lies with horizontal component and airborne delays; 3. If EUROCONTROL horizontal flight-efficiency was met clear environmental benefits; 4. Due to trade-offs with safety, capacity, environmental (noise) constraints, the 6.6% cannot be reduced to 0%.
Performance Review Commission
Performance Review Commission
Chapter 10 – Economic Assessment
66
Economic assessment: Trade-offs “La raison d’être” Safety
The counterpart for being given a statutory monopoly
Economic costeffectiveness Costeffectiveness Quality of service
Delays KPA Flight-efficiency KPA
Must satisfy minimum agreed levels through appropriate regulation and oversight
Economic objective: “to reduce the direct and indirect ATM-related costs per unit of aircraft operations” (ATM 2000+ Strategy)
Performance Review Commission
67
Monetary assessment of economic ANS costs (en-route)
En-route Cost to provide ANS capacity Cost of ATFM delay Cost of route extension Basic assumptions € 6 400 M € 81 per minute for delays > 15’ € 900 M € 5.6 per extra km € 2 700 M
In 2008 total economic costs for en-route assessed to be around 10 Billion Euros
27%
9%
Cost to provide ANS capacity Cost of route extension Cost of ATFM delay
64%
Performance Review Commission
68
Trend of unit economic cost (KPI, en-route)
1,40 1,20 1,00 -1,2% -1,0% -1,5% 1,9%
Cost of route extension Cost of ATFM delay Cost of capacity
€/km
0,80 0,60 0,40 0,20 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Messages: 1. Economic unit costs remained fairly stable; 2. Improvements from lower unit costs of capacity have been cancelled-out by deterioration in the quality of service; 3. Importance to manage the entire system performance; 4. Given lower traffic expected in forthcoming years, importance to improve quality of service as reduction in unit cost of capacity likely to be challenging. Performance Review Commission
69
PART IV – GOING FORWARD
Performance Review Commission
70
Driving Performance
Political long term target
Tecchnology
Governance
Legislation
SES II
SESAR
Binding targets FABs Network mgt & design
5 years plan Operation
Performance
Performance Review Commission
71
Conclusions and draft Recommendations
Safety
The PRC is minded to recommend:
a. the public availability of States’ ESIMS and USOAP audit reports concerning ANS safety (including Corrective Action Plans);
b. that EUROCONTROL presents a plan to ensure a permanent oversight of ANS safety in Europe beyond 2010, in liaison with EASA;
c. that each State adopts a “just culture” in relation to the reporting of ATM safety incidents; d. the use of automated tools, wherever possible, to complement manual reporting of losses of separation.
Performance Review Commission
72
Conclusions and draft Recommendations
The PRC is minded to recommend: Capacity k. that States and Air Navigation Service Providers take advantage of the current crisis to close current existing capacity gaps where possible, to improve system flexibility and to prepare for traffic recovery. Flight efficiency/environment
e. that States actively support the implementation of the joint EUROCONTROL-IATACANSO Flight-Efficiency Plan;
f. that the CFMU and airspace users co-operate to increase the use of shorter alternative routes at the flight planning stage, including conditional routes; g. further development of route structures coordinated by EUROCONTROL, and that conditional routes are open as often as possible, particularly at week-ends.
Performance Review Commission
73
Conclusions and draft Recommendations
The PRC is minded to recommend: Network management l. that detailed requirements and associated performance indicators be defined for the network management functions; m. the accelerated implementation of functions which improve network performance, such as airport collaborative decision-making. Cost-effectiveness h. that the enlarged Committee for Route Charges develops alternatives to full cost-recovery, in addition to the independent economic regulation option, taking account of risk-sharing between airspace users and Air Navigation Service Providers; i. that unit rates be set in advance for a period of three to five years, as provided for in the EUROCONTROL “Principles for establishing the cost-base for en route charges and the calculation of the unit rates” and in Regulation 1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services; j. that a balanced incentive mechanism be developed to define the treatment of the cumulated under/over-recoveries arising from differences between actual costs and revenues, so as to ensure a fair sharing of the traffic volume risk and financial risk between users and providers.
Performance Review Commission
74
QUESTIONS?
Performance Review Commission