PRR 2009 - May 2010

PRR 2009
Performance Review Report
An Assessment of Air Traffic Management in Europe
during the Calendar Year 2009

Performance Review Unit, 96 Rue de la Fuse,

B-1130 Brussels, Belgium

Performance Review Report

For any further information please contact:

Tel: +32 2 729 3956

Fax: +32 2 729 9108
pru@eurocontrol.int
http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc

Performance Review Commission I May 2010

EUROCONTROL

PRR_2009 428x297.indd 1

EUROCONTROL

19/05/10 16:58

Background

About the Performance Review Commission

The Performance Review Commission (PRC) provides independent advice on European Air Traffic Management (ATM) Performance to
the EUROCONTROL Commission through the Provisional Council.

This report has been produced by the Performance Review Commission (PRC). The PRC was established by the Permanent Commission
of EUROCONTROL in accordance with the ECAC Institutional Strategy 1997. One objective of this strategy is to introduce a strong,
transparent and independent performance review and target setting system to facilitate more effective management of the European
ATM system, encourage mutual accountability for system performance

T he PRC was established in 1998, following the adoption of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) Institutional Strategy the
previous year. A key feature of this Strategy is that an independent Performance Review System covering all aspects of ATM in the
ECAC area will be established to put greater emphasis on performance and improved cost-effectiveness, in response to objectives set
at a political level.

All PRC publications are available from the website: http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc

The PRC reviews the performance of the European ATM System under various Key Performance Areas. It proposes performance targets,
assesses to what extent agreed targets and high-level objectives are met and seeks to ensure that they are achieved. The PRC/PRU analyses and benchmarks the cost-effectiveness and productivity of Air Navigation Service Providers in its annual ATM cost-effectiveness
(ACE) Benchmarking reports. It also produces ad hoc reports on specific subjects.

Notice
The PRC has made every effort to ensure that the information and analysis contained in this document are as accurate and complete as
possible. Only information from quoted sources has been used and information relating to named parties has been checked with the
parties concerned. Despite these precautions, should you find any errors or inconsistencies we would be grateful if you could please
bring them to the PRUs attention.

Through its reports, the PRC seeks to assist stakeholders in understanding from a global perspective why, where, when, and possibly
how, ATM performance should be improved, in knowing which areas deserve special attention, and in learning from past successes and
mistakes. The spirit of these reports is neither to praise nor to criticise, but to help everyone involved in effectively improving performance in the future.
The PRC holds 5 plenary meetings a year, in addition to taskforce and ad hoc meetings. The PRC also holds consultation meetings with
stakeholders on specific subjects.
The PRC consists of 12 Members, including the Chairman and Vice-Chairman:

The PRUs e-mail address is PRU@eurocontrol.int

Copyright notice and Disclaimer

Mr. John Arscott Chairman

Mr. Ralf Berghof
Mr. Carlo Bernasconi
Mr Hannes Bjurstrom
Mr. Jean-Yves Delhaye
Mr. Dragan Draganov

Mr. Fritz Feitl Vice-Chairman

Dr Ricardo Genova
Mr Mustafa Kilic
Mr Keld Ludvigsen
Mr. Jaime Valadares
Mr Jan Van Doorn

EUROCONTROL

PRC Members must have senior professional experience of air traffic management (planning, technical, operational or economic aspects) and/or safety or economic regulation in one or more of the following areas: government regulatory bodies, air navigation services, airports, aircraft operations, military, research and development.

European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)

Once appointed, PRC Members must act completely independently of States, national and international organisations.

This document is published by the Performance Review Commission in the interest of the exchange of information.

The Performance Review Unit (PRU) supports the PRC and operates administratively under, but independently of, the EUROCONTROL Agency. The PRUs e-mail address is PRU@eurocontrol.int.

It may be copied in whole or in part providing that the copyright notice and disclaimer are included. The information contained in this
document may not be modified without prior written permission from the Performance Review Commission.
The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of EUROCONTROL, which makes no warranty, either
implied or express, for the information contained in this document, neither does it assume any legal liability or responsibility for the
accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information.
Printed by EUROCONTROL, 96, rue de la Fuse, B-1130 Brussels, Belgium. The PRCs website address is http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc.
The PRUs e-mail address is PRU@eurocontrol.int.

The PRC can be contacted via the PRU or through its website http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc.

PRC PROCESSES
The PRC reviews ATM performance issues on its own initiative, at the request of the deliberating bodies of EUROCONTROL or of third
parties. As already stated, it produces annual Performance Review Reports, ACE reports and ad hoc reports.
The PRC gathers relevant information, consults concerned parties, draws conclusions, and submits its reports and recommendations for decision to the Permanent Commission, through the Provisional Council. PRC publications can be found at www.eurocontrol.int/prc where copies
can also be ordered.

PRR_2009 428x297.indd 2

19/05/10 16:58

DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION SHEET

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
Document Title
Performance Review Commission
Performance Review Report covering the calendar year 2009 (PRR 2009)
PROGRAMME REFERENCE INDEX
PRC Performance Review Report

EDITION:

FINAL
SUMMARY

EDITION DATE:
06 May 2010

This report of the Performance Review Commission analyses the performance of the European
Air Traffic Management System in 2009 under the Key Performance Areas of Safety,
Punctuality & Predictability, Capacity & Delays, Flight Efficiency, Environmental impact, and
Cost-Effectiveness.
Keywords
Air Traffic Management
Performance Measurement
Performance Areas
Performance Indicators
ATM
ANS
Performance Review Unit, EUROCONTROL, 96 Rue de la Fuse,
CONTACT: B-1130 Brussels, Belgium. Tel: +32 2 729 3956, E-Mail: pru@eurocontrol.int
http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc
DOCUMENT STATUS AND TYPE
STATUS
Draft
Proposed Issue
Released Issue
INTERNAL REFERENCE NAME:

DISTRIBUTION
General Public
EUROCONTROL Organisation
Restricted
PRR 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EUROPEAN LEVEL - AVIATION PERSPECTIVE

12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

TRAFFIC ~ 9.4 M

1999

million IFR flights

TRAFFIC
DATA

MEASURE

KPIs

FLIGHTS

Yearly variation

DATA
2008

2009

TARGET

ACTUAL

10.1 M

9.4 M

YEARLY
VARIATION
VARIATION

YEARLY %
VARIATON
TREND

-6.6%

IFR flights

2009 is marked by an unprecedented drop in air

traffic (-6.6% in 2009 vs. 0.4% in 2008). 2010 is
forecast to show a slight positive growth.
ESRA 2008

AVIATION SAFETY
18

KPIs

Total number of acccidents

16

TARGET

14
12

Direct ATM

10

Accidents

ATM-Induced
accidents

Trend

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

DATA

ACTUAL

DATA
2009

VARIATION

YEARLY
VARIATION
TREND

0
1998

2008

There was no ATM-induced accident in 2009.

6
2

MEASURE

data source: Flight Safety Foundation

- Aviation Safety Net

PUNCTUALITY
30%

KPIs

Flights to/from Europe

% of flights

25%
DEPARTURES delayed by
more than 15 min. (%)

20%

ARRIVALS delayed by more

than 15 min. (%)

15%

DATA
2008

2009

TARGET

ACTUAL

VARIATION

Arrivals > 15
min %

21.6%

17.9%

YEARLY
VARIATION
TREND

YEARLY %
VARIATON

-17%

Air transport punctuality was driven by the severe traffic

reduction and showed a considerable improvement
compared to 2008.

10%
ARRIVALS more than 15
min. ahead of schedule (%)

5%

MEASURE
DATA

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001*

1999

2000*

0%
Source:AEA* & CODA

Arrival time (compared to schedule )

in minutes

PREDICTABILITY
25

KPIs

20

20th Percentile

MEASURE
TARGET

Standard
Deviation

15

2008

DATA

ACTUAL

19.2 min

DATA
2009

VARIATION

18.4 min

YEARLY
VARIATION
TREND

YEARLY %
VARIATON

-4.3%

80th Percentile

10
5

Standard Deviation

0
-5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

-10

In line with other operational indicators, the variability of

arrival times decreased further in 2009 and more flights
arrived ahead of their scheduled arrival time which is
consistent with a higher share of "early arrivals" in
Punctuality.

PRR 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EUROPEAN LEVEL - ANS PERSPECTIVE

KPIs
KPIs

35
33
30

30

28

25

ANSPs

22

18

19

15

11

11

Target
2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

0
2000

ACTUAL
ACTUAL

YEARLY
VARIATION
VARIATION

Reg: 11
ANSP: 7

TARGET
MET
TREND

No

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 2009.

Regulators

13

10

DATA 2008
DATA

TARGET
TARGET

<70%
MATURITY

24

20

1999

N of entities maturity below 70%

SAFETY

ATFM DELAYS (EN-ROUTE)

En-route ATFM delay/ flight (min.)

5.5

OTHER (Special event,

military, etc.)

Summer

WEATHER

KPIs

KPIs

3.6

DATA

TARGET

TARGET
ACTUAL

MINUTES/
FLIGHT

1.0

DATA

ACTUAL
VARIATION

Summer
VARIATION
TREND

TARGET
MET

No

1.2

3.1
3

1.8

1.2 1.2

1.3 1.4

1.6

ATC Other (strike, equipment,

etc.)

1.9
1.2

ATC Capacity & Staffing

Target

Due to poor performance in a small number of

ACCs, the European target was not met in 2009.

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

0
1999

Aided by the unprecedented drop in traffic, en-route

ATFM delays show a strong improvement compared
to 2008.

FLIGHT - EFFICIENCY

route extension (km/flight)

60

- 2 km per flight
(agreed target)

40

Direct en-route extension

TMA Interface

DATA
DATA ACTUAL

KPIs

KPIs
48.7 48.2 48.9 48.8 47.6

TARGET

TARGET
ACTUAL

KM / FLIGHT

42.2

VARIATION

YEARLY
VARIATION
TREND

TARGET
MET

No

47.6

Although the European horizontal flight efficiency

target could not be met in 2009, flight efficiency
improved in terms of relative additional flight
distance.

20

Agreed target

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

COST - EFFECTIVENESS
Total en-route ANS costs (2008)/ km

1.0

220

PRC notional target

PC adopted
targe t

0.9

KPIs
DATA

KPIs

0.8

180

0.7

160

0.6

140

0.5

120

0.4

100

Costs Per Km

DATA 2008

TARGET

TARGET
ACTUAL

REAL UNIT
COST/ KM

-3.0%

200

ACTUAL
VARIATION

-2.0%

YEARLY
VARIATION
TREND

TARGET
MET

Yes

Total Costs (1999= index 100)

2014P

2013P

2012P

2011P

2010P

2009P

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

Traffic (1999=index 100)

PRC Target

All States in CRCO system

The PRC notional target over 2003-2008 period (-14%,

i.e. 3% per year) has been met.
Based on forecast data of November 2009, the PC
target for 2008-2010 (3% per year) will not be met.

TOTAL ANS USER COSTS (EN-ROUTE)

KPIs
DATA

-6
%

1%

-1
%

1.2

-1
%

-2
%

1.4

2008/km

1
0.8

Cost of route extension

0.6

Cost of ATFM delay

Cost of capacity

0.4
0.2

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

DATA

TARGET

TARGET
ACTUAL

TOTAL UNIT
COST/ KM

None

ACTUAL
VARIATION

1.1 /km
(2008)

YEARLY
VARIATION
TREND

TARGET
MET

N/A

Despite an increase in capacity related costs, total

economic en-route unit cost decreased by 6% in
2009 which was due to a substantial reduction in
service quality related costs.

Figure 1: Key Performance indicators in 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ii

PRR 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
PRR 2009 presents an assessment of the performance of European Air Navigation Services (ANS) for the
calendar year 2009, which was marked by an unprecedented traffic downturn.
Key Performance Indicators corresponding to both aviation and ANS perspectives are shown in Figure 1
together with approved targets.

Traffic
Due to the economic crisis, the number of controlled flights in Europe dropped to 9.4 million in 2009, an
unprecedented decrease of minus 6.6% compared to 2008, which reduced traffic to 2005-2006 levels.
Average daily traffic in Europe was around
25,800 flights a day, compared to 27,500 in
2008. However, a small number of States,
notably in the South-Eastern part of
Europe, recorded positive growth of up to
+9%.

16

All market segments shrank, in particular

Business Aviation (-14%), Cargo and
charter flights (-13%) and Scheduled
flights (-7%). Low cost flights decreased
by -2%.

For 2010, EUROCONTROL forecasts that

the number of flights in Europe will grow
by +0.8%, compared to a long-term
average of +2.8% annual growth, reflecting
continued uncertain economic growth.

TRAFFIC 9.4 M (-6.6%)

14
12
10
8

FEB 2010
Medium Forecast

4
2

million IFR flights per year

10%

2016

2014

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

FEB 2010 FORECAST

5%
0%

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

-5%

% annual growth

-10%

source : EUROCONTROL

source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR (ESRA2008)

Safety
There was no accident with direct ATM contribution in 2009 involving commercial aviation.
ESARR 2 data for 2008 shows a decrease in the number of high-severity Separation Minima Infringements
and runway incursions being reported. However, the number of not investigated ATM safety occurrences
remains high. It is noteworthy that, even in 2010, the ESARR2 data for 2008 remains provisional. This is why
the PRC considers that the current manual reporting should be complemented by independent monitoring
based on automatic safety data acquisition tools.
There is a continuous increase in the reporting of incidents in many States. However, it remains of major
concern that the number of reporting States remains relatively low (29) and has not increased in the last five
years.
The PC target of all Member States reaching at least 70% safety maturity by the end of 2008 was not met by
11 Regulators and 7 ANSPs. However, the average safety maturity at the end of 2008 was 82% for ANSPs and
76% for Regulators.
Just culture is a key element to enhance safety levels in all areas of aviation. However, not all the States have
taken the necessary measures to achieve a fully non-punitive reporting system. All States should be urged by
EUROCONTROL and the EC to have an appropriate legal, cultural and institutional structure to enable
harmonised safety measurement and reporting.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

iii

PRR 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In accordance with SES II legislation, safety targets will be set and monitored for EU and associated States
starting from 2012, which represents significant progress. This could be extended to all EUROCONTROL
Member States by decision of the Provisional Council.
Aviation is a global industry with accountabilities and obligations at international, regional, national and local
levels. A clear structure with well defined accountabilities at each level is essential to develop comprehensive
and well considered initiatives to improve safety across Europe and the world.
There is an urgent need to clarify the institutional, legal and organisational aspects related to the deployment
of automatic safety data acquisition, with close cooperation between ICAO, the EU, EUROCONTROL and
States

Air Transport Network performance

Virtually all performance indicators related to operational air transport performance show a notable
improvement in 2009.
The share of flights delayed by more than 15
minutes compared to schedule decreased
from 21.6% in 2008 to 17.9% in 2009. This
needs to be seen in context with the
significant drop in traffic (-6.6%) which
reduced traffic to 2006 levels.

10.1%

17.9%

21.6%

22.1%

20.4%

18.8%

20%

17.2%

18.3%

25%

21.8%

All flights to/from Europe

25.2%

26.9%

30%

6.7%

6.4%

6.8%

7.4%

2005

2006

2007

2008

10%

7.2%

15%

2004

% of flights

The unprecedented drop in traffic reduced

demand far below planned capacity levels in
2009. The resulting spare capacity in most
areas (airlines, airports, ATC) translated into
better turnaround performance (airlines,
airports, security, etc.), a reduction of ATFM
en-route delays and resulting positive effects
for the network.

35%

5%
Source: AEA*/ CODA

2009

2003

2002

2001*

0%
2000*

In 2009, ANS-related delays (including

weather related delays handled by ANS)
accounted for some 25% of total departure
delays, compared to 28% in 2008.

DEPARTURES delayed by more than 15 min. (%)

There is a high correlation between the ANS

delays reported by airlines in CODA and the
ATFM delay calculated by the CFMU.

ARRIVALS delayed by more than 15 min. (%)

ARRIVALS more than 15 min. ahead of schedule (%)

Although ATFM slot adherence shows a continuous improvement between 2003 and 2009, departures outside
ATFM slots remain disproportionately high at some airports. Improvements are expected with application of
the ATFM Regulation and oversight by the Network Management function.
Flight plan adherence is still a major concern: it should be monitored with appropriate tools and encouraged to
avoid over deliveries and waste of resources

Operational En-route performance

Although ATFM en-route delay decreased from 1.9 to 1.2 minutes per flight in summer 2009, the en-route
delay target of 1 minute per flight was not met in 2009, notwithstanding the significant decline in traffic which
reduced traffic levels far below planned ANSP capacity in 2009.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

iv

PRR 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
En-route ATFM delay/ flight (min.)
traffic growth (%)

Summer ATFM en-route delay target (May-Oct.)

6

10%

Actual: 1.2min/flight

OTHER (Special
event, military, etc.)

Target: 1.0min/flight

WEATHER

PC Target

ATC Other (strike,

equipment, etc.)

2.9

4.1

5.5

3.6

3.1

1.8

1.2

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.6

1.9

1.2

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

1
0

ATC Capacity &

Staffing

5%
Traffic growth
(Summer)

0%
-5%

-10%

source: EUROCONTROL/CFMU

For the full year, the percentage of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes due to en-route ATFM restriction
decreased from 4.0% in 2008 to 2.6% in 2009.
While most European ACCs provided sufficient capacity, overall en-route ATFM delay did not decrease in
line with traffic, which was due to only a limited number of ACCs. The six most congested ACCs (out of 71)
accounted for 50% of all en-route ATFM delay in 2009.
En-route ATFM delays originated mainly from Warsaw ACC (10%), Madrid ACC (8%) and the South-east
axis stretching from Austria via Croatia, Greece and Cyprus (28%). The German ACCs Rhein/Karlsruhe and
Langen together accounted for some 18% of total en-route delays in 2009.
Shortcomings in the planning and deployment of staff appear to be the main drivers of en-route ATFM delays
at the most congested ACCs. The planning and management of capacity is the core responsibility of ANSPs.
At present, there is limited information for the review of capacity plans and their execution, e.g. staff
availability.
The unprecedented drop in traffic helped to close existing capacity gaps. It is important to continue to close
existing capacity gaps, to match capacity plans with forecast demand and to have some flexibility in
accommodating unforeseen changes in traffic.
In view of the staffing issues and the high number of planned ATM system upgrades over the next three years,
an adequate and pro-active capacity planning at local and ATM network level is essential to make sure that
delay targets are met. The network management function has an important role to play.
The SES II package, especially capacity target setting and the network management function, is expected to
improve the capacity planning process at local and network levels.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PRR 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Even though the European horizontal en-route flight
efficiency target could not be met in 2009,
improvements are notable. Total savings in
European airspace due to improved en-route design
and flight planning amounted to approximately
36 000 tonnes of fuel in 2009 which corresponds to
120 000 tonnes of CO2.

Flight distance com pared to great circle

8%

6,0% 5,9% 5,8% 5,8%

5,6% 5,4%
3,9%
2008

3,7%

4,0%

4,0%
2006

2007

4,1%
2005

En-route airspace design is by far the most

important driver of en-route extension. The
improvement of flight efficiency is a pan-European
issue which requires the development and the
implementation of a Pan-European network
improvement plan in cooperation with States and
ANSPs.

4,1%

4%

2004

6%

2%

TMA interface

2009

0%

Direct route extension

Implementation of indicators by more States and sharing of best practice should be further encouraged.
Progress still needs to be made both in developing and offering routes through shared airspace and ensuring
that these routes are effectively used by civil users, especially during weekends when military activity is
minimal.
With a view to the start of the SES performance scheme in 2012, more work is required to ensure that all
parameters necessary for the evaluation of the effective use of shared airspace are available.

ANS Performance at main airports

There have been some improvements in ANS performance at airports in 2009
Air Navigation Services at the top 20 major airports can adequately sustain the declared airport capacity in
daily operations during favourable conditions, with the exception of Vienna, Athens and partially Madrid.
Overall, the performance in Athens, Istanbul, Madrid and Wien has significantly deteriorated, mainly due to
capacity constraints.
There were significant improvements in the approach phase at London LHR (20% reduction of additional
time) without increase in ATFM delay, under slightly reduced traffic (-2%).
ANS performance at airports is more affected by weather conditions than traffic changes with the European
system of airport slot allocation.
The implementation of operational concepts, systems and procedures to improve ANS performance during
unfavourable weather conditions, especially high winds, should be expedited. The application of time-based
separation in final approach instead of distance-based separation will certainly improve the situation. This will
require, inter alia, Meteorological infrastructures, AMAN/DMAN tools and CDM.

Environment
Sustainable development and global emissions are on the top of the political agenda. The significant fuel
efficiency improvements in global aviation over the past were not sufficient to realise carbon neutral growth
which subsequently resulted in an increase in aviation related CO2 emissions over the years.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

vi

PRR 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Aviation represents 3.5% of man made CO2 emissions
in Europe. Long-haul flights (>3 hours), for which
there is virtually no substitute, account for 13% of
flights, but 60% of fuel burn. Flights shorter than one
hour, which could possibly be substituted, represent
23% of flights, but only 4% of total fuel burn in
Europe.

Estimated average
fuel efficiency
Horizontal enroute flight
path
3.6%
Vertical enroute flight
profile
0.6%

94%

The average ATM fuel efficiency is estimated to be

close to 94%. This is good news but means that there is
limited scope for improvement from ANS.

6%

Total ANS actionable CO2 are estimated to be around

6% of total aviation related emissions and account
therefore of some 0.2% of total CO2 emissions in
Europe. Due to inherent necessary (safety) and desired
(noise, capacity) limitations, the ANS actionable
inefficiencies cannot be reduced to zero.

Airborne
terminal
1.1%
Taxi-out phase
0.7%

Source: PRC analysis

The extension of the horizontal en-route flight path is the main component (3.6% of total fuel burn) followed
by delays in the terminal area (1.1% of total fuel burn).
Significant fuel efficiency improvements could be realised by optimising arrival flows into main airports. In
the short term, high priority should be given (1) to the optimisation of the route network and (2) to the
implementation of arrival managers at main airports. In the longer term (SESAR), the focus should move to a
more integrated management of the flight trajectory geared to optimising arrival time.
Noise and local air quality are major concerns of residents in the vicinity of major airports. The
implementation of local restrictions implies complex trade-offs between noise, emissions, capacity and safety
which need to take into account local specificities.
The implementation of Airport Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) at more European airports would help
to improve taxi efficiency and hence local air quality and improve the accuracy and timeliness of information
locally and at network level.

Cost-effectiveness
The PRC cost-effectiveness target proposed in 2003 (i.e. -14% decrease in unit costs for the period 20032008) has been achieved.
220
PRC notional target
0.9
0.8

200
180

Total Costs (1999= index 100)

2014P

2013P

2012P

2011P

2010P

2008

2009P

2007

100
2006

0.4
2005

120

2004

0.5

2003

140

2002

0.6

2001

160

2000

0.7

Costs Per Km

Traffic (1999=index 100)

So urce : EUROCONTROL

All States in CRCO system

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PC adopted target

-2.8%
-4.3%
-3.5%
-3.5%
5.5% -1.0%
-2.0%

1999

Total en-route ANS costs (2008)/ km

1.0

vii

PRR 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This achievement directly translates into savings of some 3 billion with respect to constant 2003 unit costs.
The positive traffic growth during the 2003-2008 period has greatly contributed to this achievement, along
with greater cost-effectiveness awareness among a majority of ANSPs.
According to benchmarking findings, the decrease in unit costs between 2004 and 2008 is mainly due to the
fact that support costs remained fairly constant while traffic increased by +17%. This is consistent with
expectations of scale effects in the provision of ATC services. A main part of support costs, which represent
70% of ATM/CNS provision costs, are generally fixed costs in the short and medium terms and are not
expected to change proportionally with traffic volumes.
However, 2008 marks the end of a positive business cycle for the European ANS system and en-route unit
costs are planned to sharply increase in 2009 and 2010. As a result, the Pan-European target adopted by the
Provisional Council in Nov. 2007 (-6% reduction of unit costs between 2008 and 2010) will not be met.
The economic downturn, which became apparent in summer 2008, has affected the aviation community
throughout 2009 with unprecedented severity, requiring greater flexibility on ANSPs and EUROCONTROL
to adjust to new unfavourable economic conditions. In this context, no doubt that the pressure to genuinely
improve cost-effectiveness is high on the agenda of airspace users expectations.
Several European ANSPs have revised their plans accordingly and implemented cost-containment measures
for 2009 and 2010. All the five largest States plan to decrease their en-route cost-base in 2009 or in 2010.
EUROCONTROL has decided to freeze its 2010 cost-base at 2008 levels. It is important that these planned
cost reductions materialise in order to minimise under-recoveries that will negatively impact airspace users
through higher charges in future years.
It is however important that the implementation of cost-containment measures does not contribute to
jeopardize the provision of future ATC capacity. The decrease in traffic offers some breathing space for
ANSPs to prioritise the projects with the most promising capacity outcomes, taking into account trade-offs, so
that there is a better match between capacity and demand when traffic growth resumes.
The current economic crisis clearly shows the limits of the full cost-recovery regime where the underrecoveries generated in 2008 and 2009 will have to be borne by airspace users in future years. In the context
of SES II, the EC is developing Implementing Rules on the performance scheme and also amending the
Implementing Rules on the Charging Scheme. These Implementing Rules foresee the introduction of an
incentive scheme based on risk sharing and on the principle of determined costs. This should contribute to
better incentivise performance improvements and balance risks between States/ANSPs and airspace users.
The transparency of terminal ANS costs charged to airspace users is gradually improving with the setting of
the 2010 terminal navigation charges according to the EC Charging Scheme Regulation. However, the quality
and completeness of data provided vary significantly across States. This information is now analysed for the
first time in a PRR to provide an overview and an initial assessment of terminal ANS cost-effectiveness.
The PRC considers that, in the context of SES II performance scheme, it is important to start effective
monitoring of terminal ANS cost-effectiveness in order to pave the way for the setting of future EU-wide costefficiency targets.

Economic Assessment
The indicators related to ANS performance at airports are not yet available with a sufficient level of precision
and therefore the economic assessment is limited to en-route ANS. Work is needed to include ANS
performance at airports in the economic assessment as soon as possible. This is particularly important in the
context of the SES II performance scheme.
With the exception of safety where minimum agreed levels must be guaranteed, it is important to develop a
consolidated view in order to monitor overall economic performance for those KPAs for which economic
trade-offs are possible (costs related to capacity provision vs. costs associated with service quality).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

viii

PRR 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The significant improvements observed for direct en-route ANS costs between 2004 and 2008 were almost
cancelled-out by increases in en-route ATFM delays and en-route extension. This indicates the importance of
managing the entire system performance.
1.4
1.2

2008/km

1.0

-2%

-1%

-1%

1%

-6%

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.3

0.07

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.8

Cost of route
extension

0.6
0.4

Cost of ATFM
delay

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

2006

2007

2008

2009P

Cost of capacity

0.2
0.0
2004

2005

Source:
PRC analysis

Notwithstanding an increase of the unit costs for en-route ANS capacity provision in 2009, total economic enroute unit costs show a significant decline (-6%) due the reduction of en-route ATFM delays and flight
efficiency improvements which were to a large extent driven by the significant reduction of traffic in 2009.
The first reference period of the SES II performance scheme starting in 2012 will mark a significant change
for European ANS performance and it is important to ensure the development of sound and relevant key
indicators which serve as a foundation for target setting

Outlook
After a continuous traffic growth for a number of years, at very high rates in some parts of Europe, the
unprecedented downturn due to the economic crisis in 2008/09 cancelled-out three full years of traffic growth.
Air traffic dropped by 6.6% in 2009, which cut traffic back to 2006 levels.
Airlines already in a highly competitive market were forced to quickly adapt to the drastic changes in market
conditions by quickly cutting costs and capacity. Despite all cost cutting measures and capacity reductions in
response to the drop in demand, airlines expect the highest annual loss ever reported for the industry in 2009.
The Association of European Airlines (AEA) forecasts an aggregate loss for its members of 3 billion which
is more than 50% higher than the losses following the events of 11 September 2001.
Despite specific cost containment measures, ANSPs showed a limited ability to adjust costs in line with the
exceptional fall in air traffic in 2009. The limited degree of flexibility to quickly adjust to changing conditions
is partly due to the characteristics of the cost structure which is largely fixed in the short term but also due to
the lack of incentives provided by the current ANS funding system which is based on the full cost recovery
principle.
The ANS system response to the drop in traffic shows the limitations of the current ANS funding system.
Significant under-recoveries generated in 2008 and 2009 will have to be borne by airspace users in future
years, resulting in an increase of the unit rates in a time when the industry starts to recover.
In the context of the SES II performance scheme, the EC is developing implementing rules which require the
setting of binding national/FAB performance targets in four performance areas (Safety, Cost-effectiveness,
Capacity, Environment) and the introduction of corresponding incentive schemes.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ix

PRR 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The first reference period of the SES II performance scheme starting in 2012 will mark a significant change
for European ANS performance and it is important to ensure the development of sound and relevant key
indicators which serve as a foundation for target setting.
The incentivisation of ANS performance would need to be linked to a mechanism which balances the risks
between States/ANSPs and airspace users. ANSPs should be allowed to build up financial reserves when they
perform well (service quality, cost efficiency) but should have to bear a risk when traffic falls below planned
levels or when their costs are above pre-determined levels.
Despite the unprecedented drop in traffic and the resulting need to contain costs, adequate and pro-active
capacity planning at local and ATM network level is essential to continue to close existing capacity gaps and
to be able to cope with future traffic demand while managing all the planned ATM system upgrades without
excessive and costly service quality penalties.
A proactive capacity planning and management is especially important considering the fact that structural
decisions concerning capacity (recruitment, investment, major airspace redesign, and operational agreements
within FABs) typically have an operational effect after 3-5 years.
In this context, the setting of binding capacity performance targets as part of the SES performance scheme will
need to be supported by locally drawn up performance plans and a reinforced network management function
to be established within the Single European Sky initiative.

Recommendations
The Provisional Council is invited to:
a.

note the PRCs Performance Review Report (PRR 2009) and to submit it to the Permanent Commission;

b.

request States and ANSPs whose maturity level is below 70% to urgently resolve the related issues and
to request the Director General to support them as appropriate;

c.

request States and Air Navigation Service Providers to implement just culture where this is not
already the case;

d.

encourage States and ANSPs to use automatic detection and reporting tools and to further improve the
transparency of ANS safety;

e.

note the importance of a balanced approach to performance: increases in en-route delays over the period
2003-2008 nearly cancelled out the benefits of improvements in cost-effectiveness;

f.

urge the ANSPs concerned to resolve urgently the issues leading to high delays in the top 30 delaygenerating sectors, and to request the Director General to assist them in this respect;

g.

urge ANSPs, given the severe economic downturn, to effectively implement the planned costcontainment measures so that:
i.

they materialise into genuine cost-savings for airspace users in the cost bases for 2010 and
subsequent years and that;

ii. they contribute to improving the total economic cost of ANS and do not compromise the provision
of future ATC capacity;
h.

i.

urge:
i.

States, ANSPs, airspace users and the Agency to further improve the design and use of airspace for
both civil and military needs, and

ii.

ANSPs and airlines to make more effective use of airspace released to civil operations;

encourage airport stakeholders (Airport operators, coordinators, ANS providers and airlines) to
constructively engage in the PRC-led process of development of indicators and targets addressing
operational performance at and around airports and in the building of a comprehensive and reliable data
base that can adequately support it.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PRR 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... I
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... III
TRAFFIC ...................................................................................................................................................... III
SAFETY ....................................................................................................................................................... III
AIR TRANSPORT NETWORK PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................ IV
OPERATIONAL EN-ROUTE PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................... IV
ANS PERFORMANCE AT MAIN AIRPORTS..................................................................................................... VI
ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................................................ VI
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ................................................................................................................................VII
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ..........................................................................................................................VIII
OUTLOOK.................................................................................................................................................... IX
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................... X
PART I- BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................ 1
1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT ................................................................................................................ 1

STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT ............................................................................................................ 1
INSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 2
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF PC DECISIONS ON PRC RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 3

TRAFFIC .............................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 5
AIR TRAFFIC STATISTICS................................................................................................................. 5
TRAFFIC GROWTH........................................................................................................................... 7
TRAFFIC FORECASTS ....................................................................................................................... 9
TRAFFIC PREDICTABILITY AND ANS FLEXIBILITY ......................................................................... 10
TRAFFIC COMPOSITION ................................................................................................................. 12
COMPLEXITY AND TRAFFIC VARIABILITY ..................................................................................... 12
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 15

PART II - KEY PERFORMANCE AREAS ............................................................................................. 16

3

SAFETY .............................................................................................................................................. 16
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10

AIR TRANSPORT NETWORK PERFORMANCE....................................................................... 29

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 16
KEY SAFETY INDICATORS.............................................................................................................. 17
SAFETY MATURITY SURVEYS ....................................................................................................... 19
NEW SAFETY INDICATORS PROPOSED BY SAFREP ....................................................................... 21
EC SAFETY LEGISLATION AND SES II ........................................................................................... 22
ICAO CONTINUOUS MONITORING AND SES II PERFORMANCE SCHEME ....................................... 23
JUST CULTURE .............................................................................................................................. 24
TRANSPARENCY AND SHARING OF SAFETY INFORMATION ............................................................. 25
AUTOMATIC SAFETY DATA ACQUISITION ..................................................................................... 26
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 27

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 29
AIR TRANSPORT PUNCTUALITY .................................................................................................... 30
SCHEDULING OF AIR TRANSPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................. 31
PREDICTABILITY OF AIR TRANSPORT OPERATIONS ........................................................................ 33
DRIVERS OF DEPARTURE DELAYS .................................................................................................. 34
REACTIONARY DELAYS ................................................................................................................. 37
NETWORK MANAGEMENT (ATFM)............................................................................................... 39
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 42

OPERATIONAL EN-ROUTE PERFORMANCE .......................................................................... 43

xi

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
6

ANS PERFORMANCE AT MAIN AIRPORTS.............................................................................. 61

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 61
HIGH LEVEL ANS-RELATED PERFORMANCE AT AIRPORTS (2008-2009) ....................................... 63
ANS-RELATED SERVICE QUALITY OBSERVED AT THE ANALYSED AIRPORTS ................................. 65
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 70

ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................................... 72
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 43
EN-ROUTE ATFM DELAYS ............................................................................................................ 43
EN-ROUTE FLIGHT EFFICIENCY ..................................................................................................... 51
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL IMPACT ON HORIZONTAL FLIGHT EFFICIENCY ..................................... 56
ACCESS TO AND USE OF SHARED AIRSPACE ................................................................................... 57
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 59

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 72
REDUCING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF AVIATION................................................................ 72
ATM CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS REDUCING CO2 EMISSIONS IN EUROPE ....................................... 78
REDUCING AVIATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AT/AROUND AIRPORTS .................................... 82
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 86

COST-EFFECTIVENESS ................................................................................................................. 87
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 87
EN-ROUTE COST-EFFECTIVENESS KPI FOR EUROCONTROL AREA............................................ 88
SES II PERFORMANCE SCHEME ..................................................................................................... 93
EN-ROUTE ANS COST-EFFECTIVENESS KPI AT STATE LEVEL ....................................................... 94
THE COMPONENTS OF EN-ROUTE ANS COSTS (EUROPEAN AND STATE LEVEL) ............................. 98
TERMINAL ANS COST-EFFECTIVENESS KPI FOR EU STATES ...................................................... 102
ANSPS COST-EFFECTIVENESS BENCHMARKING ......................................................................... 105
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 108

PART III - OVERALL ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 110

9

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................... 110

9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 110

CONSOLIDATED ASSESSMENT OF ANS PERFORMANCE................................................................ 110
ESTIMATED ECONOMIC ANS COSTS AT AIRPORTS ....................................................................... 111
ESTIMATED ECONOMIC EN-ROUTE ANS COSTS ........................................................................... 112
EVOLUTION OF TOTAL ECONOMIC EN-ROUTE ANS COSTS .......................................................... 113
CHALLENGES AND DEVELOPMENTS AHEAD ................................................................................. 115
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 118

ANNEX I - SES II PERFORMANCE SCHEME................................................................................... 119

ANNEX II - FRAMEWORK FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS .................................................................. 122
ANNEX III - ACC TRAFFIC AND DELAY DATA (2006-2009) ........................................................ 123
ANNEX IV - TRAFFIC COMPLEXITY................................................................................................ 124
ANNEX V - ATFM DELAYS................................................................................................................... 126
ANNEX VI - TOP 50 MOST-CONSTRAINING POINTS ................................................................... 127
ANNEX VII - PEOPLE AFFECTED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE AT MAIN AIRPORTS.................... 128
ANNEX VIII - CHANGE IN REAL EN-ROUTE UNIT COSTS......................................................... 129
ANNEX IX - LIST OF AIRPORTS APPLYING TERMINAL CHARGES ....................................... 130
ANNEX X - ANSP PERFORMANCE SHEETS .................................................................................... 131

xii

ANNEX XI - GLOSSARY........................................................................................................................ 133

ANNEX XII - REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 141

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Key Performance indicators in 2009.................................................................................ii
Figure 2: EUROCONTROL and SES States.................................................................................... 2
Figure 3: PC action on PRC recommendations in PRR 2008 .......................................................... 4
Figure 4: Implementation status of PC decisions on PRC recommendations .................................. 4
Figure 5: Traffic levels and variations.............................................................................................. 5
Figure 6: Key traffic data and indices in Europe.............................................................................. 6
Figure 7: Key Traffic indicators and indices .................................................................................... 6
Figure 8: Monthly comparison (passengers, freight)........................................................................ 6
Figure 9: Passenger load factors....................................................................................................... 7
Figure 10: Yearly traffic variation per charging area ....................................................................... 7
Figure 11: Largest traffic variation per charging area in terms of movements ................................ 8
Figure 12: Movements at the top 20 airports.................................................................................... 8
Figure 13: Airports with largest variation in average daily movements .......................................... 9
Figure 14: STATFOR Medium Term Forecast (dated Feb. 2010)................................................... 9
Figure 15: Medium term traffic forecast ........................................................................................ 10
Figure 16: Medium-term forecasts with publication dates ............................................................. 10
Figure 17: World real GDP and RPK............................................................................................. 11
Figure 18: Average fuel cost (deflated).......................................................................................... 11
Figure 19: Distribution of IFR flights by type ............................................................................... 12
Figure 20: Evolution of low-cost flight movements ................................................................... 12
Figure 21: Aggregated complexity scores at ATC-Unit level ........................................................ 13
Figure 22: Seasonal traffic variations at ATC-Unit level............................................................... 14
Figure 23: Within week variability ................................................................................................ 14
Figure 24: Peak day and average daily traffic ................................................................................ 15
Figure 25: Commercial air transport accidents in EUROCONTROL States ................................. 17
Figure 26: Reported High-Risk Separation Minima Infringements in ECAC Member States....... 18
Figure 27: Reported High-Risk Runway Incursions in ECAC Member States.............................. 18
Figure 28: Reported versus not investigated ATM safety occurrences ....................................... 19
Figure 29: ANSPs and ATM Regulators with maturity below target level.................................... 20
Figure 30: ECAC ANSP Maturity Profile...................................................................................... 20
Figure 31: ECAC Regulator Maturity Profile ................................................................................ 21
Figure 32: Scope of Safety Maturity Survey Framework .............................................................. 22
Figure 33: Publication of USOAP audit results on ICAO public web site..................................... 23
Figure 34: Implementation of Just Culture environment in 2009 .................................................. 25
Figure 35: Public availability of information on ATM safety........................................................ 26
Figure 36: States with automatic reporting tools............................................................................ 26
Figure 37: Conceptual framework for the analysis of operational air transport performance........ 29
Figure 38: Punctuality of Operations ............................................................................................. 30
Figure 39: On time performance between 2000-2009.................................................................... 30
Figure 40: Punctuality at the top 20 airports in terms of movements............................................. 31
Figure 41: Evolution of scheduled block times in Europe (intra-European flights)....................... 32
Figure 42: Block times on inbound flights to London ................................................................... 33
Figure 43: Variability of flight phases on Intra European flights................................................... 34
Figure 44: Drivers of departure delays between 2007 and 2009.................................................... 35
Figure 45: Correlation between CODA and CFMU data ............................................................... 36
Figure 46: Distribution of average daily ATFM delays by cause of delay .................................... 37
Figure 47: Types of reactionary delays .......................................................................................... 38
Figure 48: Sensitivity of the Air Transport Network to primary delays ........................................ 38
Figure 49: Impact of airport operations on its own performance ................................................... 39
Figure 50: ATFM over-deliveries .................................................................................................. 40
Figure 51: ATFM slot adherence ................................................................................................... 40
Figure 52: ATFM slot adherence at airports .................................................................................. 41
Figure 53: Delay due to inappropriate ATFM regulations ............................................................. 41

xiv

Figure 54: Summer ATFM en-route delay target........................................................................... 44

Figure 55: Matching effective capacity and air traffic demand...................................................... 44
Figure 56: Evolution of en-route ATFM delays (2006-2009)........................................................ 45
Figure 57: Most en-route ATFM delay generating ACCs.............................................................. 46
Figure 58: Cumulative distribution of en-route ATFM delays by sector ....................................... 47
Figure 59: ATFM en-route delay drivers (most delay generating ACCs)...................................... 47
Figure 60: Geographical distribution of most delay-generating ACCs .......................................... 48
Figure 61: Accuracy of capacity planning (Summer 2009) ........................................................... 49
Figure 62: ATFM delays due to combined/elementary sectors...................................................... 49
Figure 63: ACC plans to implement new ATM systems (2010-13)............................................... 50
Figure 64: Horizontal flight efficiency target.................................................................................52
Figure 65: En-route flight efficiency indicator............................................................................... 53
Figure 66: Direct route extension by components.......................................................................... 54
Figure 67: Examples of national and local flight efficiency initiatives.......................................... 55
Figure 68: free route selection - Portugal ....................................................................................... 55
Figure 69: Additional en-route distance per FAB in 2009 ............................................................. 56
Figure 70: Additional en-route distance per State in 2009............................................................. 57
Figure 71: Direct route extension -week/weekend ......................................................................... 58
Figure 72: Performance indicators on access to shared airspace.................................................... 58
Figure 73: Measuring additional time and off-block delays" in different flight phases............ 63
Figure 74: Global peak service rate and declared capacity at top 20 airports ................................ 64
Figure 75: Global throughput over 90% of the declared capacity.................................................. 65
Figure 76: European average of arrival ATFM regulations (top 20 airports) ................................ 65
Figure 77: Arrival ATFM regulations at the top 20 airports .......................................................... 66
Figure 78: Approach (ASMA) additional time (40 NM-landing) at top 20 airports ...................... 67
Figure 79: European Pre-departure delays (top 20 busy airports).................................................. 67
Figure 80: Pre-departure delays at top 20 busy airports................................................................. 68
Figure 81: Taxi-out additional time at top 20 airports ................................................................... 69
Figure 82: Estimated total additional time related to airport airside operations in 2009................ 70
Figure 83: Airport slot utilisation/additional times ........................................................................ 70
Figure 84: Contribution of CO2 emissions by sector in EU27 area (2007) .................................... 73
Figure 85: Aviation emissions in ETS (2009)................................................................................ 75
Figure 86: Fuel burn by duration of flight (2009) .......................................................................... 75
Figure 87: Framework for the evaluation of industry driven fuel efficiency improvements ......... 76
Figure 88: Factors contributing to aviation CO2 efficiency ........................................................... 77
Figure 89: Schematic evolution of CO2 emissions ......................................................................... 77
Figure 90: Aviation efficiency ....................................................................................................... 77
Figure 91: CO2 emissions from aviation ........................................................................................ 77
Figure 92: ANS contribution to reduce aviation related CO2 emissions ........................................ 78
Figure 93: Aviation emissions within European airspace in 2009 ................................................. 78
Figure 94: Share of CO2 emissions actionable by ANS in 2009 .................................................... 79
Figure 95: ANS fuel efficiency ...................................................................................................... 79
Figure 96: Considerations for optimising the arrival flow ............................................................. 81
Figure 97: ATM concept today ...................................................................................................... 81
Figure 98: Integrated trajectory management................................................................................. 81
Figure 99: Contribution to Local Air Quality at Manchester airport ............................................. 83
Figure 100: Strategic noise map for Paris Orly airport .................................................................. 84
Figure 101: People affected by aircraft noise................................................................................. 85
Figure 102: Breakdown of gate-to-gate ANS costs, 2008.............................................................. 87
Figure 103: En-route ANS cost-effectiveness KPI for EUROCONTROL Area (2008 prices) ... 88
Figure 104: Real en-route unit costs per km (KPI), total costs and traffic..................................... 89
Figure 105: Comparison of real en-route unit costs (data planned in Nov 08 & Nov 09)........... 89
Figure 106: Summary of main cost-containment measures implemented by States ...................... 90
Figure 107: ANSPs balance sheet structure, 2008 ......................................................................... 91
Figure 108: Liquidity ratios per ANSP, 2008 ................................................................................ 92

xv

Figure 109: Trend in en-route ANS real unit costs for the five largest States (2004-2013) in 2008
................................................................................................................................................ 95
Figure 110: Changes in planned en-route costs and traffic for the five largest States (2008)...... 96
Figure 111: Changes in planned en-route costs and traffic for the five largest States versus the
remaining 25 States (2008)................................................................................................... 98
Figure 112: Breakdown of en-route ANS costs at European system level (2008)......................... 98
Figure 113: Changes in en-route MET costs at European level (2004-2010) in 2008 ................. 99
Figure 114: Arrangements for provision of MET services............................................................. 99
Figure 115: Share of en-route MET costs in total en-route national cost base (2008)................. 100
Figure 116: EUROCONTROL Agency costs relative to total European en-route ANS costs..... 100
Figure 117: EUROCONTROL Agency costs per establishment & expenditure (Parts I & IX) .. 101
Figure 118: EUROCONTROL costs forward-looking projections (Nov. 2008- Nov. 2009) ...... 101
Figure 119: Status of 2008 terminal ANS data provision ............................................................ 102
Figure 120: Breakdown of terminal ANS costs at European system level (2008) ....................... 103
Figure 121: Terminal ANS unit costs at European system level (2008) .................................... 103
Figure 122: Terminal IFR ANS costs per IFR airport movement, 2008 ...................................... 104
Figure 123: Breakdown of gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (2008) ................................ 105
Figure 124: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs, traffic and ATFM delays (2004-2008) ...... 106
Figure 125: ATM/CNS cost-effectiveness comparisons, 2004-2008 (real terms) ....................... 107
Figure 126: Breakdown of changes in cost-effectiveness, 2004-2008 (real terms)...................... 108
Figure 127: Perspectives on ANS performance ........................................................................... 111
Figure 128: Estimated costs of ATFM delay ............................................................................... 112
Figure 129: Estimated costs of sub-optimal horizontal flight efficiency ..................................... 113
Figure 130: Total economic en-route costs .................................................................................. 114
Figure 131: Real unit economic en-route cost.............................................................................. 114
Figure 132: Evolution of en-route ATFM delays, unit costs and traffic ...................................... 115
Figure 133: FDPS system upgrades and planned replacements ................................................... 117

xvi

Chapter 1: Introduction
PART I- BACKGROUND
1

Introduction

1.1

Purpose of the report

1.1.1

Air Navigation Services (ANS) are essential for the safety, efficiency and sustainability
of civil and military aviation, and to meet wider economic, social and environmental
policy objectives.

1.1.2

This Performance Review Report (PRR 2009) has been produced by the independent
Performance Review Commission (PRC) of EUROCONTROL. The PRC and its
supporting Unit the Performance Review Unit (PRU) were established in 1998 and have
been conducting performance review, target-setting and cost-effectiveness benchmarking
since then.

1.1.3

The purpose of this report is to provide policy makers and ANS stakeholders with
objective information and independent advice concerning European ANS performance in
2009, based on research, consultation and information provided by relevant parties.

1.1.4

The draft final report was made available to stakeholders for consultation and written
comment from 23 February-19 March 2010. The PRC considered every written comment
received and amended the Final Report where warranted.

1.1.5

The PRCs recommendations can be found in the Executive Summary.

1.2

Structure of the report

1.2.1

PRR 2009 is structured as follows:

Executive Summary
Part I: Background
Introduction (Chapter 1)
Traffic demand (Chapter 2)
Part II: Key Performance Areas
Safety (Chapter 3)
Operational Performance
Air Transport Network Performance (Chapter 4)
En-route Operational Performance (Chapter 5)
Operational Performance at main airports (Chapter 6)
Environment (Chapter 7)
Cost-effectiveness (Chapter 8)
Part III: Economic Assessment and Outlook (Chapter 9)

1.2.2

1.2.3

New features of the report include:

a focus on environmental performance in Chapter 7;

consideration of terminal charges in Chapter 8;

a consolidated economic assessment of ANS performance in Chapter 9.

Unless otherwise indicated, PRR 2009 refers to ANS performance in the airspace
controlled by the 38 Member States of EUROCONTROL in 2009 (see Figure 2),
hereinafter referred to as Europe, and all data refer to the calendar year 2009.

PRR 2009

Chapter 1: Introduction

EUROCONTROL
ECAA
EU 27
Bilateral agreement with EU

Figure 2: EUROCONTROL and SES States

1.3

Institutional background

1.3.1

In 1998, the EUROCONTROL Organisation established performance review in order to

introduce a strong, transparent and independent performance review and target setting
system to facilitate more effective management of the European ATM system, encourage
mutual accountability for system performance and provide a better basis for investment
analyses. This was achieved through the creation of the independent PRC [ECAC
Institutional Strategy for Air Traffic Management (ATM) in Europe, Ref. 1].

1.3.2

In October 2009, the Single European Sky (SES) II Regulation [Ref. 2] was adopted by
the European Community and came into force on 4 December 2009. It amends the four
existing SES regulations adopted in 2004 [Ref. 3, 4, 5, 6].

1.3.3

This SES II Regulation is the first pillar of a wider initiative of the European Commission
called the second package of legislation for a Single European Sky - SES II, which was
adopted by the European Commission in June 2008. This package is based on four
pillars:
A Performance pillar (the SES II Regulation adopted in October 2009), the main
features of which are:

a Performance Scheme (Art. 11 FR, see text in Annex I), including European Unionwide performance targets adopted under European Commission authority and
national/FAB performance plans (targets + incentives) adopted under States
responsibility, and consistent with European targets, in the fields of Safety, Capacity,
Cost efficiency and the Environment. The first reference period for which EU and
national/FAB targets will be set is 2012-2014.

Extension of Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB) to the full ANS, not only airspace;

Establishment of a Network Management and Design (NMD) function.

PRR 2009

Chapter 1: Introduction

A Safety pillar (the EASA Regulation adopted in October 2009) [Ref. 7] - extending the
competence of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to aerodromes, air traffic
management and air navigation services.
A Technical innovation pillar (the ATM Master plan was endorsed in March 2009) through the SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research) programme.
An Airports pillar - an observatory of airport capacity was created in November 2008.
The Observatorys task is to advise the Commission on the development of measures to
improve the capacity of the European airport network.
1.3.4

More details on SES II are available from the European Commissions website [Ref. 8].

PERFORMANCE REVIEW IN A PAN-EUROPEAN CONTEXT

1.3.5

Within the EUROCONTROL Organisation, the PRC has been discharging performance
review duties as defined in its Terms of Reference [Ref. 9] since 1998.

1.3.6

In addition, the PRC has undertaken work for the European Commission with the prior
authorisation of the EUROCONTROL Organisation. This work has included:

Evaluation of the Impact of the Single European Sky Initiative on ATM

Performance (December 2006) [Ref. 10];

Evaluation of Functional Airspace Block (FAB) initiatives and their contribution to

performance improvement (October 2008) [Ref. 11];

Review of local and regional Performance Planning, consultation and management

processes (December 2009) [Ref. 12].

1.3.7

All of this work has been funded by the European Commission. These reports can be
consulted on the PRC website.

1.3.8

The PRC has developed a Discussion Paper [Ref. 13] to provide input to the draft
Commission Regulation laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services
and network functions. The Discussion Paper was developed in close consultation with
stakeholders. It is a "living" document to be used by interested parties when
implementing the performance scheme in their respective areas. The Discussion Paper can
be consulted on the PRC website [Ref. 14].

1.4

Implementation status of PC decisions on PRC recommendations

1.4.1

Article 10.7 of the PRCs Terms of Reference states that, the PRC shall track the followup of the implementation of its recommendations, and report the results systematically to
the Provisional Council.

1.4.2

The Provisional Council (PC 31, May 2009) took the following decisions on PRC
recommendations arising out of PRR 2008. Deletions made by PC 31 are shown in
strikethrough. Additions made by PC 31 are shown in bold.
The Provisional Council (PC 31, May 2009):
Safety
(a) requested States to provide greater further improve the transparency of ANS safety data,
and particularly the public availability of States ESIMS and USOAP audit reports
concerning ANS safety, including Corrective Action Plans;
(b) requested the Director General to present a plan to ensure the continuity of safety oversight,
taking due account of any future EASA responsibilities;
(c) is invited to require encouraged the use by States/ANSPs to use of automated detection and
reporting tools to complement manual reporting of incidents as deemed appropriate.
Flight efficiency-Environment

PRR 2009

Chapter 1: Introduction

(d) confirmed the already agreed target for flight efficiency of an annual reduction of the
average route extension per flight of 2 Km, and related environmental impact (May 2007);
(e) requested that the CFMU and airspace users co-operate to further increase the use of shorter
alternative routes at the flight planning stage, including conditional routes;
(f) requested further development of route structures coordinated by EUROCONTROL, and
that conditional routes are open as often as possible, particularly at week-ends
Cost effectiveness
(g) is invited to agree urged States/ANSPs to do their utmost to try to ensure that there
should would be no mid-term upward revision by States of the 2009 unit rates and that
States/ANSPs implement necessary measures to take action to deal with any revenue
shortfall in 2009;

CAPACITY
(h) urged States and Air Navigation Service Providers to do their utmost not to jeopardise
future capacity provision during the current economic situation.

NETWORK MANAGEMENT
(i) requested the Director General to propose to commence work to define the role of the
envisaged network management function, and to propose relevant performance indicators;
for, the network management function;

(j) requested the States to promote the use of airport collaborative decision-making.
Figure 3: PC action on PRC recommendations in PRR 2008
1.4.3

In the past five years, the PRC has made 27 recommendations requiring action to the
Provisional Council. The implementation status of the associated PC decision is shown in
the table below:

KPA/Decision

Implemented

Partially
implemented

Not
implemented

No action
needed, or
recent decision

1
10
Safety
4
1
1
Environment/flight efficiency
2
4
1
Capacity
2
1
Cost-efficiency
Total
7
17
3
Figure 4: Implementation status of PC decisions on PRC recommendations
1.4.4

Total

11
6
7
3
27

Details of these recommendations can be found in previous performance review reports.

A more detailed evaluation of the status of these recommendations is on the PRC website:
http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc.

PRR 2009

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Traffic
2

Traffic

KEY MESSAGES OF THIS CHAPTER

There was an unprecedented downturn in air traffic in 2009 (-6.6%) in the wake of the world economic
and financial crises. However, there was positive traffic growth in South East Europe

The economic crisis leads to more uncertainty and as a consequence there is a wide margin in traffic
forecasts.

Traffic levels in 2009 were very close to 2006 levels. Three to four years of traffic growth were
cancelled-out.

2.1

Introduction

2.1.1

This chapter provides statistics and forecasts on IFR General Air Traffic (GAT) in
Europe, with a specific focus on the unprecedented traffic downturn in 2009.

2.2

Air Traffic statistics

2.2.1

Traffic decreased to 9.4 million flights in 2009 (-6.61%) in the ESRA 2008 area2. This
drop by far exceeds that following the events of 11 September 2001 as shown on left side
of Figure 5. This represents a major crisis for the industry.
32

16

TRAFFIC 9.4 M (-6.6%)

14

30

12

28

10

26
8

FEB 2010
Medium Forecast

22

-10%

10%

2008

2009

% 2009/2008 growth

-10%
-20%

source : EUROCONTROL

source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR (ESRA2008)

data source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR (ESRA2008)

Figure 5: Traffic levels and variations

2.2.2

2.2.3

1
2
3

As can be seen in Figure 5, traffic levels in 2009 were very close to 2006 levels. This has
two implications for this report:

Three to four years of traffic growth were cancelled-out at once, which has a positive
impact for delays (-36% of total ATFM3 delays compared to 2008).

Year 2006 constitutes an interesting reference to analyse ANS performance in 2009

as the monthly traffic was quite similar to 2006 until August and then followed more
the 2005 trend.

Key traffic data and indices are given in Figure 6. The methodological framework
showing the different indicators and their relationships can be found in Annex II. More
detailed traffic data can be found in Annex III.

Minus 6.4% taking into account the leap year.

ESRA 2008 area (see Glossary).
En-route and airport ATFM delays.

PRR 2009

Dec

Nov

Oct

Sep

Aug

Jul

Jun

May

Apr

Mar

Feb

2016

2014

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

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

% annual growth

2007

18

0%

0%
-5%

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

FEB 2010 FORECAST

5%

2006

thousands daily flights

10%

2005

20

million IFR flights per year

Jan

24

Chapter 2: Traffic

Year 2009

Variation
2009/2008
-6.6%
-6.1%
-6.3%

Actual

IFR flights in Europe4

IFR flight-hours in Europe4
Distance charged in RCS5 (Km)

9.4 M
13.5 M
8 296

Index
100 in 2003
112
118
120

Data source: EUROCONTROL/STATFOR/CRCO/CFMU

Figure 6: Key traffic data and indices in Europe

2.2.4

As can be seen in Figure 7, there was a major drop of traffic in 2009. In Europe, MTOW
continued to grow slowly as well as the average flight length (see Figure 64 on page 52).
140
index 100 in 2003
135

Passengers

130

Distance Charged

125
120
115

Flight
hours

110

Flights

105

MTOW

100
95
2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

data so urce : passengers: A CI - flights, flight ho urs : STA TFOR (ESRA 2008) , distance charged, M TOW: CRCO

Figure 7: Key Traffic indicators and indices

2.2.5

Air freight has been more heavily affected than passenger traffic in Europe. The end of
the year showed recovery for freight and some recovery for passenger traffic, even if it
started from a deeply negative base at the end of 2008. Freight recovery is generally seen
as an advance indicator of economic recovery.
30%
Total freight in metric tonnes (Europe)

% Change

20%

Total n of passengers (Europe)

10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
08
09
data source: ACI

Figure 8: Monthly comparison (passengers, freight)

4
5

ESRA 2008 area (see Glossary).

States in EUROCONTROL Route Charges System in 2009 excluding Santa Maria (see Glossary).

PRR 2009

Chapter 2: Traffic

2.2.6

In the first half of 2009, load factors decreased but, by cutting capacity, airlines managed
to restore high load factors during the second half of 2009, close to the record breaking
load factors of 2007.
Passenger Load Factor

80
75
70
65
60
55
50
2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

data source: AEA (Total Scheduled)

Figure 9: Passenger load factors

2.3

Traffic Growth

2.3.1

Traffic growth was again quite contrasted across States in 2009, ranging from -13% to
9%, as can be seen in Figure 10. The vast majority of the States experienced large
decline. Among the busiest States, UK and Spain recorded around 10% decrease while
Turkey saw a moderate increase of +4%.

Annual growth in IFR Movements 2009

Annual growth in IFR Movements 2008
Below 0%
0% to 3%

Below 0%

3.% to 6%
6% to 9%

0% to 3%

9% to 12%
Above 12%

3.% to 6%
-8%

-4%

6% to 9%
9% to 12%

-11%

Above 12%
-12%

Azores

Canarias

-8%

data source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR

-8%

-12%

-12%
-9%
-8%

-9%
-8%
-7%

-7%

-5%
-7%

-7%

-2%

-8%

7%

-2%

-2%

-4%0%

-7%

3%
-5%
-7%

3%

3%
0%
9%

-10%

0%
4%

-1%
-2%
-3%

Azores

-13%

1%

Canarias

data source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR

Figure 10: Yearly traffic variation per charging area

2.3.2

Figure 11 shows the charging areas with the highest variations in terms of absolute
movements (overflights, international and domestic traffic). Year on year, the United
Kingdom, Germany and France showed the highest drop in actual movements. Of the

PRR 2009

Chapter 2: Traffic

seven countries with a positive growth in terms of absolute movements, only growth in
Turkey is not due totally to overflights.
200

1 00%

7%

1%

0%
Croatia

3%

Malta

3% 9%

Moldova

4%
0%

-300
-400

Switzerland

Sweden

Belgium/Lux.

Italy

Austria

Netherlands

Spain

France

Germany

UK

Bosnia-Herzegovina

-200

Albania

-100

Serbia and Montenegro

Turkey

Variation in movements 2009 vs 2008 (per day)

100

TOP DECREASE

TOP INCREASE

-5% -8%
-9% -8%

-1 00%

-11% -7%

-2 00%

-3 00%

-10%

-500
-600

Overflight
International
Internal
% Movement Growth

-7% -7%
-9%

-700

-4 00%

data so urce : EUROCONTROL/STA TFOR

-5 00%

Figure 11: Largest traffic variation per charging area in terms of movements
2.3.3

Figure 12 shows the top 20 airports in term of movements (departures plus arrivals). The
figure shows that 18 out of the top 20 airports have lost traffic. Traffic only increased in
Athens and Istanbul (+7% and +4% respectively). The average variation of traffic at the
top 20 airports is -7% which is in line with the total traffic decrease.

1600
1400

2009

-6%
-2% -4% -7%

1200

2008

-9% -8%
-6% -13%

1000

4% -10% -4% -5% -10% -11%

-4% -8%

800

-6%

600

7% -13% -14%

400

Milan/Malpensa

Stockholm/Arlanda

Athens

Dusseldorf

Oslo/Gardermoen

Paris/Orly

Brussels

Zurich

Copenhagen/Kastrup

data so urce : EUROCONTROL/CFM U

London/Gatwick

Vienna

Istanbul/Ataturk

Munich

Amsterdam

Madrid/Barajas

Frankfurt

London/Heathrow

Paris/Charles-DeGaulle

Barcelona

200
Rome/Fiumicino

Airport movements per day

1800

Figure 12: Movements at the top 20 airports

2.3.4

Figure 13 shows airports with largest absolute variations in movements. For the top 10
airports showing an increase in traffic movements, many of these airports are served by
low cost carriers. 2009 shows significant decreases in traffic at main airports (see also
Figure 24 - Peak day and average daily traffic).

PRR 2009

Chapter 2: Traffic

TOP 10 DECREASE

60

1 00%

38%
7%

40

4%
0%

-100
-9%
-120
-140

Airport Movements

-8%

-7%

-13%-14%
-6% -16%-15%

Vienna (VIE)

Milan/Malpensa (MXP)

Stockholm (ARN)

Manchester (MAN)

Dublin (DUB)

Paris (CDG)

Amsterdam (AMS)

Barcelona (BCN)

Zadar (LD)

Reus (LE)

Bucuresti Baneasa (LR)

-80

Berlin Schoenefeld (ED)

Riga (EV)

Niederrhein (ED)

-60

Charleroi (EB)

-40

Istanbul Ataturk (LT)

-20

Athens (LG)

Madrid (MAD)

11% 9% 39%
49% 14%
Munich (MUC)

34% 54%

20

Sabiha Gokcen (LT)

Variation in airport movements 2009 vs 2008 (per day)

TOP 10 INCREASE

-1 00%

-2 00%

-3 00%

-10%
-4 00%

-13%

% Movement Growth

data so urce : EUROCONTROL/CFM U

-5 00%

Figure 13: Airports with largest variation in average daily movements

2.4

Traffic forecasts

2.4.1

Traffic is in line with the short term forecast published in Feb 2009 (-5%, with wide
uncertainty -1.5% to -8% as a consequence of the global financial crisis and economic
downturn).

2.4.2

In the medium term, forecast traffic growth is quite contrasted across Europe, as
illustrated in Figure 14, with highest relative growth expected in Eastern Europe.

Figure 14: STATFOR Medium Term Forecast (dated Feb. 2010)

PRR 2009

Chapter 2: Traffic

2.4.3

EUROCONTROLs updated medium term traffic forecast (dated Feb.2010) is shown in

Figure 15.
15

30%
Long-Term
Trend

IFR traffic in Europe

1960-2009 historical figures
2010-2016 forecast

10

Flights in Europe (Million)

25%
20%

Actual
Traffic

Forecast
Traffic

Annual
Growth

15%
10%

Long-Term
Average Growth

5%

0%
source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR

1960
-5

1965

1970

1975

-5%
1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015
-10%

Figure 15: Medium term traffic forecast

2.5

Traffic predictability and ANS flexibility

TRAFFIC FORECAST ACCURACY

2.5.1

Figure 16 shows the successive medium term forecasts and actual traffic at European
level. While forecasts are quite good in stable situations, they are necessarily relatively
far off in case of unforeseen changes, such as the 2001 events and the economic crisis in
2008. In February 2006, the forecast for 2009 was almost 10% above the actual traffic.
13.0

Forecast published in :

Feb 2010

IFR Movements in European Statistic Reference Area (Millions)

(High)
12.0

Feb 2009
Feb 2006

(Baseline)

(Baseline)

Feb 2010

11.0

(Baseline)

Feb 2010

10.0

(Low)

Feb 2004

9.0

(Baseline)

Actual Traffic

8.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Source :EUROCONTROL/ STATFOR

Figure 16: Medium-term forecasts with publication dates

2.5.2

A degree of unpredictability of traffic demand in time and space is inevitable. This is not
a failure of forecasting, rather a background against which ANS planning must operate,
and respond through flexibility.

PRR 2009

10

Chapter 2: Traffic

FACTORS INFLUENCING TRAFFIC GROWTH

2.5.3

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is understood to be a main driver of aviation growth.

Figure 17 illustrates a correlation between passenger kilometres flown and real GDP
growth rates

2.5.4

In 2009, the GDP variation in Europe was -4%. The yellow bars correspond to crisis
periods.
Growth in global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Revenue Passenger Kilometres ( RPK)
1980-82

1991-93

% change over year (RPKs)

12

2008-10

2001-03

Global RPKs
(left scale)

10

7
5

8
6

4
2

World GDP
(right scale)

0
-1

-2
-4

-3

-6
source : IATA

-5

19
7
19 1
7
19 3
7
19 5
77
19
7
19 9
8
19 1
8
19 3
8
19 5
8
19 7
8
19 9
9
19 1
9
19 3
9
19 5
9
19 7
9
20 9
0
20 1
0
20 3
0
20 5
07
20
0
20 9
1
20 1
1
20 3
15

-8

Figure 17: World real GDP and RPK

2.5.5

Compared to GDP, fuel price would appear to have had a moderate impact on traffic
demand: there was strong traffic growth in 2007, when fuel prices had more than doubled.
Conversely, there was a strong traffic downturn in 2009, in spite of relatively low average
fuel prices compared to recent years. The average jet fuel price per barrel (Rotterdam spot
price) was $90 (65) in 2007, $127 (85) in 2008 and $71 (51) in 2009.
200

2009 US dollar per barrel

180
160
140
Price in 2009 per barrel

120
100
80
60
40
20

1 Jan 2009

1 Jan 2008

1 Jan 2007

1 Jan 2006

1 Jan 2005

1 Jan 2004

1 Jan 2003

1 Jan 2002

1 Jan 2001

1 Jan 2000

1 Jan 1999

1 Jan 1998

1 Jan 1997

1 Jan 1996

1 Jan 1995

1 Jan 1994

1 Jan 1993

1 Jan 1992

1 Jan 1991

1 Jan 1990

1 Jan 1989

1 Jan 1988

1 Jan 1987

data source : US Department of Energy (Rotterdam Jet Fuel Spot Price)

Figure 18: Average fuel cost (deflated)

PRR 2009

11

Chapter 2: Traffic

% change over year (GDP)

14

2.6

Traffic Composition

2.6.1

Figure 19 shows the user mix in controlled General Air Traffic (GAT) in 2008 and 2009
using the STATFOR classification. Cargo flights and Charter decreased by 13% and
traditional scheduled flights by 7%. Low cost flights decreased by only 2% and now
account for 20.8% of the traffic share (19.9% in 2008) as shown in Figure 20.
Traditional
Scheduled

2009
58.5%

24 %
22 %

2008

2.6 % 2.8%
1.7% 1.8 %
3.4 %

All IFR
Flights

3.2%

6.4%
5.9%

14 %
12 %

Low-cost traffic (righthand scale)

10 %
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%

6.9%

Business Aviation

Earlier years are estimated from data for a smaller geographical region.

Low-Cost
source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR (ESRA2008)

Figure 19: Distribution of IFR flights by type6

Figure 20: Evolution of low-cost flight

movements

2.6.2

After 3 years of strong growth (up to +10% in 2007), Business Aviation traffic showed a
gradual decline in 2008 and the highest decrease of all market segments in 2009 (-14%).
As a consequence, the business aviation market share fell from 7.5% in 2008 to 6.9% in
2009.

2.7

Complexity and Traffic Variability

2.7.1

Traffic characteristics vary considerably across Europe. Traffic complexity and variability
are two factors that can influence service provision costs and quality of service.

COMPLEXITY

2.7.2

Traffic complexity is generally regarded as a factor to be considered when analysing

ATM performance. In 2006, the PRC produced a specific report on air traffic complexity
indicators, prepared in close collaboration with ANSPs [Ref. 15].

2.7.3

An aggregated complexity has been defined, which is the product of adjusted density and
structural complexity.

Adjusted Density measures the volume of traffic in a given volume of airspace taking
into account the concentration of the traffic in space and in time.

Structural Complexity reflects the structure of traffic flows. It is defined as the sum of
interactions between flights: horizontal interactions (different headings), vertical
interactions (climb/descend) and interactions due to different speeds.

See STATFOR classification of GAT in glossary. Note that the Military IFR segment does not include a
substantial portion of military traffic under military control. Similarly, Other does not include General Aviation
flying purely under Visual Flight Rules (VFR).

PRR 2009

12

Chapter 2: Traffic

01/09

01/08

01/07

01/06

01/05

01/04

01/03

01/02

01/01

01/00

01/99

01/98

01/97

01/96

01/95

01/94

Charter

01/93

20.8%

Cargo

16 %

01/92

19.9%

Military

Low-cost market share (lefthand scale)

18 %

01/91

7.5%

Other

Low-cost share of IFR movements in Europe

20 %

58.5%

Traffic complexity score 2009

DUB

<2
>2
>4
>6
>8

MAN
BREM

ROV

BOD

AMS

LON TC

BRU
LAN

STO
TAM
STA OSL
SCO

TAL

Lower Airspace

RIG

MAL

VIL

COP
SHA
LON

WAR

MAA
RHE

PAR
BOR

MAD

MAR
BRI

LIS

KHA

BRAT
CHIODE
MUN
WIE
SIM
BUD
ZUR
BUC
LJU
GEN
PAD
ZAG BEO
SOF

REI
BRE

KIE
LVO

PRA

BAR

SKO
TIR

YER

ANK
IST

ROM

SEV

ATH+MAK
NIC
MAL
PAL

CAN

Lower Airspace
source : EUROCONTROL

Figure 21: Aggregated complexity scores at ATC-Unit level

2.7.4

Figure 21 shows the aggregated complexity scores for the different area control centres
(ACCs) for the year 2009. London TC (40) has the highest score, followed by Langen
ACC (14), Brussels ACC (13) and Manchester ACC (12). In other words, for each hour
flown within the respective airspace, there were on average in Langen 14 minutes of
potential interactions with other aircraft. The average European aggregated complexity
score is close to 6 minutes of interaction per flight-hour.

2.7.5

Updated complexity indicators for ANSPs and some more information on complexity
indicators can be found in Annex IV.

TRAFFIC DEMAND VARIABILITY

2.7.6

Variability in traffic demand makes it more difficult to make best use of resources while
providing the required capacity. A distinction is made between seasonal, within-week and
hourly variability. Figure 22 presents the seasonal variability indicator, which is
computed as the ratio between the peak weekly traffic demand and the average weekly
traffic demand over the year.

2.7.7

Higher variability is observed in South-East Europe, especially in Greek airspace where

the relatively low number of flights in winter contrasts sharply with high demand in
summer.

PRR 2009

13

Chapter 2: Traffic

Traffic variability 2009

DUB

< 1.15
> 1.15
> 1.25
> 1.35
> 1.45

MAN
BREM

ROV

BOD

LON TC

AMS
BRU

STO

LAN

TAM
STA OSL
SCO

TAL
MAL

Lower Airspace

RIG
VIL

COP
SHA
LON

WAR

MAA

KIE

RHE
BRAT
MUN
WIE
BUD
ZUR
LJU
GEN
PAD
ZAG BEO

REI
BRE

PAR
BOR

MAD
LIS

BAR

CHIODE
SIM

BUC

YER

SOF
ANK

SKO
BRI TIR

MAR

KHA

LVO

PRA

IST

ROM

SEV

ATH+MAK
NIC
MAL
PAL

CAN

Lower Airspace

Figure 22: Seasonal traffic variations at ATC-Unit level

EVOLUTION OF TRAFFIC PATTERN
2.7.8

The evolution of traffic at European level over the last ten years shows higher traffic
growth during summer and during weekends.

2.7.9

Figure 23 shows that, over the years, the difference between week and weekend traffic
has decreased. While in 1997 the average traffic level was by 29% higher on weekdays
than on weekends the ratio was only 19% in 2009.

35%

Week/Weekend traffic ratio

20%

Distribution of traffic per day

1997

30%

2009

15%

25%
20%

10%

15%
10%

5%

5%
2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

2002

data so urce: EUROCOONTROL/CFM U

0%

0%
MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI

SAT

SUN

Figure 23: Within week variability

PRR 2009

14

Chapter 2: Traffic

PEAK TRAFFIC
2.7.10 Both the peak and average European daily traffic decreased in 2009, as shown in Figure
24. There were 31 040 flights on 26 June 2009, compared with the record of 34 105
flights on 27 June 2008 (-9%).
35 000

Daily number of flights

30 000

25 000
data so urce: EUROCONTROL/CFM U

Peak Day

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

20 000

Avg Daily Traffic

Figure 24: Peak day and average daily traffic

2.8

Conclusions

2.8.1

Due to the economic crisis, the number of controlled flights in Europe dropped to
9.4 million in 2009, an unprecedented decrease of -6.6% compared to 2008, which
reduced traffic to 2005-2006 levels.

2.8.2

Average daily traffic in Europe was around 25,800 flights a day, compared to 27,500 in
2008. However, a small number of States, notably in the South-Eastern part of Europe,
recorded positive growth of up to +9%.

2.8.3

All market segments shrank, in particular Business Aviation (-14%), Cargo and charter
flights (-13%) and Scheduled flights (-7%). Low cost flights decreased by -2%.

2.8.4

For 2010, EUROCONTROL forecasts that the number of flights in Europe will grow by
+0.8%, compared to a long-term average of +2.8% annual growth, reflecting continued
uncertain economic growth.

PRR 2009

15

Chapter 2: Traffic

Chapter 3: Safety
PART II - KEY PERFORMANCE AREAS
3

Safety

KEY MESSAGES OF THIS CHAPTER

The number of reported high-risk Separation Minima Infringements decreased by 30% in 2008 and the
number of reported high-risk runway incursions decreased by 5%, but Severity A runway incursions
have increased by 2 (from 12 to 14).

Although there is a continuing increase in the reporting of incidents in many States, it remains of
concern that the number of reporting States remains relatively low (29) and that there has been no
progress in the remaining 9 States in the last 5 years;

Amongst EUROCONTROL Member States the safety maturity target of 70% was not reached by 11
Regulators and 7 ANSPs. However, between 2002 and 2009 the average ANSP maturity has increased
by 27% to 82% and the average ATM Regulator maturity - by 23% to 76% (+ text of 3.4.8).

A Just Culture environment exists in a minority of EUROCONTROL Member States. This does not
facilitate the deployment of a robust safety occurrence reporting system and represents a major
obstacle to EUROCONTROL-wide safety performance monitoring.

To improve the consistency of safety data there is an urgent need to deploy automatic safety data
acquisition tools across European ATM.

The SES II Performance scheme, administered by the PRB, must cooperate with ICAO CMA and
EASA in a well defined organisational structure with clear accountabilities to enhance consistent safety
levels in the 27 EU Member States, wider Europe and the world.

The SES Performance scheme, with its target-setting process harmonised at European level, has the
potential to improve European-wide safety, with resulting benefits to the citizens of Europe.

3.1

Introduction

3.1.1

This chapter reviews the safety performance of EUROCONTROL Member States

measured in 2009. However, bearing in mind that the safety occurrence reports for 2008
were compiled and sent to EUROCONTROL in 2009, the corresponding analysis and key
safety performance indicators still refer to 2008.

3.1.2

As in the previous reporting periods, the safety

performance of EUROCONTROL Member
States was assessed using reactive and
proactive safety data.

3.1.3

The safety data used to measure these

indicators were provided by:

the Safety Regulation Unit (SRU)

the EUROCONTROL
Team

Agency

Safety

Reactive safety data measure events that

have happened (e.g. safety occurrences).
The ones used in safety performance review
are typically incidents (separation minima
infringements, runway incursions, etc.) and
they show the status of achieved safety in
past years. Trend analyses may reveal
improvements achieved through the
implementation of risk mitigation measures
and resolution of safety concerns.
Proactive safety data

the ICAO secure web site dedicated for

safety oversight audit reports

other data sources such as Internet and

bilateral correspondence with concerned
parties

PRR 2009

Reactive safety data

16

Proactive safety data measure the capability

of regulators to ensure safety through
regulating
and
supervising
service
providers. It also measures the capability of
service providers to manage safety and
provide efficient services.

Chapter 3: Safety

3.1.4

In addition to the safety performance review based on reactive and proactive safety data,
this chapter addresses key regulatory changes that occurred in 2009 in the 27 EU Member
States, which may impact on ECAA7 States at a later stage. These changes will also have
an important impact on safety performance to be measured in the next performance
review periods.

3.2

Key safety indicators

ATM-RELATED ACCIDENTS
3.2.1

Lessons drawn from ATM-related investigations of accident and incident are useful to
improve safety, but cannot provide a clear indication of safety trends due to their limited
number in any given performance review period. With the progressive implementation of
ESARR2 in a number of EUROCONTROL Member States, significant efforts have been
made to develop a consistent and robust incident reporting system. However, this is still
constrained by the different cultural, legal or institutional environment in some States,
and more progress is needed to achieve a reliable safety occurrence database that would
provide a clear picture of the current level of safety throughout the ECAC area.
20
Direct ATM

Total number of acccidents

18

Accidents

16

Trend

14
12
10
8
6
4

2
2

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
20
09

Data source: Flight Safety Foundation - Aviation Safety Net

Figure 25: Commercial air transport accidents in EUROCONTROL States

ATM-RELATED INCIDENTS
3.2.2

The number of reported high-risk (Severity A and Severity B) Separation Minima

Infringements (SMIs) are shown in Figure 26 shows a 30% decrease in 2008 (from 365 to
256), although the total number of reported SMIs has increased by 1% (from 1567 to
1588). As a result, the percentage of high risk occurrences decreased from 23% to 16%
of the total number of occurrences reported.

3.2.3

However, this proportion may be influenced by the final classification of SMIs still under
investigation (196 in 2008).

European Common Aviation Area

PRR 2009

17

Chapter 3: Safety

Separation Minima Infringment

400

23%

Classified events

42%

Severity B
Severity A
% : Proportion of
Severity A+B

25%

23%

300
26%
200

16%

19%

234

243

250

295

152

164

91

76

67

80

73

70

50

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008P

206

100
0

27

29

26

25

28

28

29

780

889

1 226

1 281

1 398

1 567

1 588

99

112

119

196

N of ECAC states reporting

Total n of reported SMI

18

205

Severity B

234

152

164

Severity A

91

76

67

N of SMI still under investigation

243 data source

250 : EUROCONTROL
295
206
SRU
80

73

70

50

Figure 26: Reported High-Risk Separation Minima Infringements in ECAC Member States
3.2.4

The number of reported high-risk (Severity A and Severity B) runway incursions (RIs)
are depicted in Figure 27 shows a decrease of 5% (from 56 to 53), although the total
number of reported runway incursions has increased by 3% (from 885 to 908). So the
percentage of high risk occurrences has remained stable, although the Severity A runway
incursions have increased by 2 (from 12 to 14).

3.2.5

The RI investigation process shows an improvement, as the number of RIs still under
investigation has dropped by 43 % (from 79 to 45).
Runway Incursion
Severity B
Severity A

Classified events

80
16%

10%

60

6%
6%

9%
38

40

32

52

16

39

13

12

14

2005

2006

2007

2008P

26

25

28

28

29

387

564

629

680

885

908

50

79

45

25

2002

2003

2004

N of ECAC states reporting

27

29

Total n reported

222

20
0

51

44

9%
10
9

% : Proportion of
Severity A+B

9%

133

146

Severity B

10

38

32

Severity A

25

16

52 data source
51 : EUROCONTROL
44
39
SRU
9
13
12
14

N still under investigation

Figure 27: Reported High-Risk Runway Incursions in ECAC Member States

3.2.6

The total number of reported safety occurrences are shown on Figure 28, has increased,
showing a continuous trend for the past 6 years, although the number of safety
occurrences still under investigation (9%) remains an area of concern.

PRR 2009

18

Chapter 3: Safety

14

16

Traffic

12

incidents still
under investigation

14
12

10

10

6
4

Million Flight Hours

Number of incidents reported ('000)

18

2
0

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008P

data source: EUROCONTROL SRU

Figure 28: Reported versus not investigated ATM safety occurrences

3.2.7

The number of States reporting safety incidents has not shown improvement over the last
5 years. Out of the 43 ECAC States, 14 did not report in 2008, 9 of them are
EUROCONTROL Member States (Armenia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Luxemburg, Malta,
Monaco, Slovenia, Turkey and Ukraine) Furthermore out of the 29 States which reported,
5 of them reported less than 5 incidents in 2008.

3.3

Safety Maturity Surveys

3.3.1

In 2002 the EUROCONTROL Agency started conducting surveys of ECAC States ATM
Safety Regulators and ANSPs to identify how well ATM safety requirements were being
met. The participation in the surveys was voluntary and based on questionnaires
developed by the Agency. The answers to the questionnaires were used to score the
different organisations according to the Safety Maturity Survey Framework methodology
approved by the EUROCONTROL Provisional Council.

3.3.2

In 2003 the EUROCONTROL Provisional Council set an objective for each Member
State to reach, by 2008, a maturity score of at least 70%. Since then the safety maturity
surveys have been carried out six times and the results were published in the annual ATM
Safety Maturity Survey reports. Due to confidentiality restrictions only de-identified
maturity scores have been published in Performance Review Reports.

3.3.3

Despite the voluntary character of the surveys, in 2009, 42 ANSPs and 40 ATM Safety
Regulators from 46 States have returned answers to the corresponding questionnaires.
However, the number of interviews conducted after the collection of the answers and
aimed at confirming the quality of the surveys, was less than in 2008 with 34 ANSPs
interviewed and 31 ATM Safety Regulators in total.

3.3.4

Figure 29 shows that in 2009 11 ATM Regulators and 7 ANSPs have not yet met the
agreed safety maturity level of 70%. Clearly, significant effort remains to be made in
these Member States to meet safety maturity targets.

PRR 2009

19

Chapter 3: Safety

35

33
30

30

28

25

24

22

20

19

18

15

13
11

10

ANSPs

REGs

11

Target
0
2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 29: ANSPs and ATM Regulators with maturity below target level
ANSP RESULTS
3.3.5

In 2009 ANSPs have reported steady progress; There are 19 ANSPs who have shown
improvements overall, some of these significantly high with one of them showing an
improvement of 20% and seven being over 5%. The overall average maturity for ANSPs
is now 82%, an increase of 27% since 2002.
ANSPs' Maturity scores range
100
95

100

98

94
86

100
89

86

91

100 94

80
70

77

73
67

60
58
47

45

40

36
31
26

24

20
10

11

2002

2004

Min-Max limits
Interquartile range

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 30: ECAC ANSP Maturity Profile

REGULATOR RESULTS
3.3.6

The Regulatory picture is more positive than last year, in that there have been no
decreases in maturity since 2008. Three ATM Regulators have reported an improvement
of 11%. This significant improvement was driven by the implementation of international
safety requirements (ICAO, EUROCONTROL and EC) in their National Regulations.
There are still 11 ATM Safety Regulators showing below the 70% target. However, 3 are
only marginally below the 70% level. Of the 9 remaining ATM Safety Regulators, 3 have
recently joined the surveys and were unlikely to attain the 70% level at this stage, and the
remaining 6 are above 50% but still well below the 70% target. The overall average
maturity score for ATM Safety Regulators is now 76%, an increase of 23% since 2002.

PRR 2009

20

Chapter 3: Safety

Regulators' Maturity scores range

100

100

98

97

100

92
84
80

88

67

69

79

78
65

63

60
55

55
43

40

31
20

100
87

17

16

33

35

17
Min-Max limits
Interquartile range

0
2002

2004

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 31: ECAC Regulator Maturity Profile

3.3.7

The Regulatory average has improved over the years of the survey but still lags behind
the ANSP average. Significant improvements seem to have arisen from the rationalisation
of the standards. Over the years, a lack of financial and human resources has been a
recurring theme for ATM Safety Regulators.

3.4

New safety indicators proposed by SAFREP

3.4.1

The SAFREP Task Force was created by the Director General of EUROCONTROL in the
aftermath of the Linate and berlingen accidents, dealing, inter alia, with safety reporting
and data collection. After having delivered its report in 2005, the Task Force was put in
abeyance, pending a need for other tasks. The SAFREP Task Force was reactivated at the
end of 2006 to develop key performance indicators in the area of Safety, following a
recommendation of the PRC.

3.4.2

SAFREP was given the task to develop this framework and report back to the Provisional
Council of EUROCONTROL within three years (i.e. by end-2009). Practically all major
ANSPs, a number of Regulators, the EC, IATA, IFATCA and other representative
organisations were involved in the task force.

3.4.3

As planned, at end-2009 the SAFREP Task Force presented a framework for the
measurement of safety performance, which was developed, for the relevant parts, in
coordination with CANSO and ICAO; it enjoys a wide acceptance from all parties and
has been discussed and in part adopted by the FAA.

3.4.4

At the end of three years of work, SAFREP delivered:

Two main lagging (reactive) indicators based on ATM-related incident reports:

number of serious Separation Minima Infringements and Runway Incursions
(severity8 A and B), as well as the number of ATM-induced accidents per annum;

A methodology and tool to classify the severity of incidents based on objective data,
together with a severity/risk of recurrence matrix. These were also adopted by the
FAA;

A composite safety performance indicator: the Aerospace Performance Factor (APF),

still under test in Europe to ensure harmonization across the ECAC area;

As assessed in accordance with EUROCONTROL ESARR 2 - EAM 2/GUI 1

PRR 2009

21

Chapter 3: Safety

A revised Safety Maturity Survey Framework (a leading safety indicator) for both
Regulators and ANSPs (the latter in cooperation with CANSO).

3.4.5

In order to keep a wider scope, both the current and the revised Safety Maturity Survey
Frameworks are conceived to measure the level of maturity perceived by Regulators and
ANSPs under national legislative and regulatory system built on existing ESARR
requirements.

3.4.6

The new SES II regulatory requirements aiming at improving safety maturity at European
Union level are not yet included in the revised safety maturity questionnaire.
Safety requirements applicable to all ICAO
Contracting States
Additional SES II requirements not
explicitly included in the questionnaires

27 EU Member
States

ECAC+
Member States

Figure 32: Scope of Safety Maturity Survey Framework

3.4.7

The SAFREP Task Force has already taken the initiative to adapt the revised Safety
Maturity Framework to the new SES II regulatory environment while keeping the ability
to measure safety maturity in a wider area.

3.4.8

However, the Safety Maturity Surveys remain based on self-assessment. The PRC
considers that independent assessment and validation of the results will need to be put in
place if the methodology is to be used in a context of performance regulation.

3.5

EC safety legislation and SES II

3.5.1

The SES II legislation will be a key driver for improving ATM safety in the years to
come. Safety is a crucial element of the SES II performance scheme, which will include
binding safety performance targets for Member States, NSAs and ANSPs. Monitoring of
safety performance will be carried out at national/FAB and EU levels, and alarm
mechanisms will be put in place to address safety concerns requiring immediate action.

3.5.2

At EU level, safety regulation will be enhanced by the emergence of EASA as the single
instrument for aviation safety rulemaking. The SES II legislation extends EASAs
mandate for rulemaking and standardisation inspections from the existing areas
(airworthiness, environmental compatibility, air operations, air crew licensing and safety
of third country aircraft operating in Europe) to cover ATM/ANS and aerodromes .

3.5.3

EASA is expected to contribute, at EU level, to the development of uniform, common

rules for ATM/ANS and shall ensure a consistent and effective implementation of EC
aviation law by carrying out safety analysis, investigations of undertakings and
standardisation inspections of NSAs. The rulemaking, safety analysis and oversight
activities of EASA will fully support the achievement of safety performance monitoring
by promoting appropriate and efficient measures to improve safety rules and procedures
while ensuring consistent implementation of safety performance targets to be reached by
all EU States.

PRR 2009

22

Chapter 3: Safety

3.5.4

At national level, NSAs have an essential role in the implementation and enforcement of
EC safety legislation. NSAs are accountable for the safety supervision of the ANSPs in
their area of responsibility. This role is further reinforced by the SES II Performance
scheme that requires the NSAs to set local targets consistent with the European-wide
targets set by the European Commission and monitor safety performance at national/FAB
level. Thus, NSAs will set safety targets and ensure that the applicable safety
requirements are met by the ANSPs and they will also monitor safety performance and
require corrective actions if deviations from safety performance or nonconformities with
safety regulations are identified. NSAs will use all the national legislative and regulatory
power to enforce the implementation of the EC legislation. If requested, they will be
assisted by the Performance Review Body in setting up their performance monitoring
rules and procedures.

3.6

ICAO Continuous Monitoring and SES II Performance scheme

3.6.1

The objective of the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) is to
promote global aviation safety through auditing States, on a regular basis, to determine
States capability for safety oversight. Safety oversight audit results are published on the
ICAO secure web site, which enhances the transparency in sharing of safety information
across all ICAO Contracting States.

3.6.2

Figure 33 shows the level of transparency reached by EUROCONTROL Member States

regarding the publication of USOAP results on the ICAO public web site
http://www.icao.int/fsix/, as decided by all ICAO Contracting States at the DGCA
Conference held in Montreal in March 2006.

Apr. 2010

Not audited - results pending

Only Chart published

Chart & Report published

Figure 33: Publication of USOAP audit results on ICAO public web site
3.6.3

The ICAO USOAP is now ten years old and has been a great incentive for States and
stakeholders to further improve the overall safety level of facilities and processes.
However, the application of USOAP without taking into account the analysis of risk
factors and its implementation under the comprehensive systems approach is very
challenging for both ICAO and Contracting States in terms of time and resources.

3.6.4

There is thus a need, according to ICAO, to reform and rationalise USOAP and make the
programme more cost-efficient and focused on safety-risk assessment rather than on
prescriptive regulatory compliance. In this respect ICAO Council adopted in 2009 a new
Continuous Monitoring Approach (CMA) aiming at monitoring the safety performance of
all the ICAO Contracting States on an ongoing basis.

PRR 2009

23

Chapter 3: Safety

3.6.5

The traffic growth and the increasing requirements to lower costs and improve quality of
service make it difficult for international civil aviation to sustain an approach to the
management of safety exclusively based upon regulatory compliance. It is essential to
complement the prescriptive-based approach with a performance-based approach. An
initial example of this approach is the implementation of Safety Management Systems
(SMS), aimed at industry and service provision. It has now been extended to States
through the State Safety Programmes (SSPs) that require, among others, the identification
safety risk areas and corresponding mitigation measures, as well as the establishment of
key performance indicators aiming at monitoring the safety performance at national level.

3.6.6

In line with this performance-based approach, and in addition to the minimum

requirements of ICAO to monitor safety performance at State level, the new SES II
legislation establishes, through its SES II Performance scheme and the extension of
EASA responsibilities to ATM/ANS airports, a new mechanism to monitor safety
performance at both service provision and State level through continuous ANS safety
performance monitoring and Standardisation inspections of each EU Member State.
Under this new approach, the PRB, EASA and all EU Member States shall closely
cooperate with ICAO CMA to enhance safety in the EU airspace.

3.7

Just Culture

3.7.1

Just culture is a key element to enhance safety levels in all areas of aviation. It is a culture
in which front line operators or others are not punished for actions, omissions or
decisions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience and training, but
where gross negligence, wilful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated.9 For the
last decade EUROCONTROL has initiated a number of activities aiming at improving
just culture in its Member States, including development of guidance material, awareness
campaigns, training of personnel and development of local implementation safety
objectives in support to air navigation service providers and ANS regulators. However,
not all the States have taken the necessary measures to overcome legal and cultural
differences to achieve a fully non-punitive reporting system.

3.7.2

The implementation and measurement of safety indicators is only possible with a nonpunitive and learning environment that allows for the collection of reliable and concrete
safety data. All States concerned should have an appropriate legal structure to enable
harmonised safety measurement and reporting.

3.7.3

Such inclusive and open reporting forms the basis for developing measures to enhance
safety levels. Development of a just culture throughout the ECAC area should be a
priority in every State.

3.7.4

In 2009 EUROCONTROL Member States have reported, through their Local Single Sky
Implementation programme (LSSIP) the level of establishment of national arrangements
for the implementation of a reporting and investigation system in a Just Culture
environment. Figure 34 shows the status of implementation of Just Culture environment
in ECAC Member States based on the self-assessment reports of each State. Only 19
EUROCONTROL Member States have reported full implementation and 10 have
reported partial implementation. Six member States have planned the implementation,
with expected completion by end 2010. Only one State (Ukraine) is late, with another one
(Montenegro) not providing any information. The remaining ECAC Member States are
either late or have not yet reported the status of implementation of Just Culture
environment.

In the absence of an ICAO agreed definition, the EUROCONTROL definition has been used. New definitions
will be proposed in the context of the High Level Safety Conference (see 3.7.5).

PRR 2009

24

Chapter 3: Safety

3.7.5

Just culture was considered at the European Commission High-level Conference, held in
Madrid (February 2010). The Declaration of Madrid, inter alia, states that the
participants to the Conference acknowledge the necessity to [] build the performance
scheme on a genuine safety culture, integrating effective incident reporting and just
culture as the basis for safety performance.

3.7.6

The EU also presented a paper to the ICAO High-level Safety Conference to improve
reporting and interaction between safety and judicial authorities. This has a direct bearing
on Just Culture and the proposal to establish an ICAO Task Force on Open Reporting
offers the prospect of wider and more consistent safety reporting.

3.7.7

Moreover, the extension of EASAs competence into ATM/CNS and Aerodrome will
result in many of the rules and Standards applicable to aircraft operations becoming
mandatory for ATM. A culture of safety exists in EASA regulations as does the basic
requirements for a just culture. Close coordination between EASA and EUROCONTROL
(SRU/PRC) is needed to develop rules that enhance the reality of an Open reporting
culture in European ATM.

Figure 34: Implementation of Just Culture environment in 2009

3.8

Transparency and sharing of safety information

3.8.1

The degree of transparency of safety-related information to the general public varies

widely across Europe. While some States make a whole range of safety data publicly
available, including safety oversight audit results and State corrective actions, others limit
the publication of their safety data to simple tables depicting the number of incidents and
accidents per year or per flight hour. The level of transparency in the sharing of safety
information is, in principle, closely related to the level of implementation of Just Culture
in the particular State.

3.8.2

Publishing general safety information is however not uncommon in Europe. Figure 35

shows that safety information is published in many States, whether by the ANSP, the
ANS regulator or both. Some of them have not made publicly available any safety
information, while a growing number of ANSPs have published, in their annual reports,
indicators on risk-bearing incidents as well as safety objectives in some cases. A sample
of that data can be found in the ANSP fact sheets in Annex X of this report.

PRR 2009

25

Chapter 3: Safety

Public availability of information on ATM safety

Data available
Partial data
No safety data

Maastricht UAC

FI
NO

SE

EE
LV
DK
IE

LT

GB
PL

NL
BE
LU

DE

UA

CZ
SK

FR

AT

CH

MD

HU

RO

SI HR

AM
BA

IT
PT

RS

ME

ES

AL

BG

MK

TR

GR

CY
MT
source : EUROCONTROL/PRC

Figure 35: Public availability of information on ATM safety

3.9

Automatic Safety Data Acquisition

3.9.1

Within the Performance Scheme of the SES II legislation, safety is explicitly identified as
one of the key performance areas to be monitored. Furthermore, with increasing pressures
on the other three areas (i.e. capacity, environment and costs), safety needs to be very
closely monitored to ensure that pressure from other performance areas does not
negatively impact safety.

3.9.2

The PRC has long advocated

the general introduction of
automated tools for assessing
safety
performance.
Currently, there are a number
of such initiatives backed by
various solutions.

3.9.3

It appears that acceptance of

automatic acquisition data for
the purposes of safety and/or
risk monitoring has made
great progress lately, in
particular in the context of
ensuring safety under the
pressures from other areas
highlighted above.

LT
GB

NL

SK
FR

HU

CH

RO

IT
AL

EUROCONTROL ASMT + own tool

Own tool for certain incidents

EUROCONTROL ASMT

EUROCONTROL ASMT for 2010

Figure 36: States with automatic reporting tools

3.9.4

Automated data acquisition tools already exist in a number of ATC centres. More stations
are to come.

3.9.5

Automated safety data acquisition can serve two different but complementary purposes:

PRR 2009

First, automated safety data acquisition can be used by the ANSP to augment the
manual data collection in support of its own Safety Management System (SMS),

26

Chapter 3: Safety

where events detected manually or automatically are analysed and lessons learned are
used for a continuous improvement of the safety level.

The other use of automated safety data acquisition is done rather at a Local or
European scale for the purpose of monitoring a certain level of risk. The focus of
such monitoring is not the individual event, but aggregated statistics that are not
influenced by change of the level of safety occurrence reporting. Such statistics can
provide indication of trends in time, or identify geographical hot-spots or highlight
other sensitive issues.

3.9.6

The establishment of automated data acquisition tools at European level is not a

technological issue. It requires however a clear mandate and right of access to data to
develop an independent means for safety risk measurement: (i) to support the monitoring
of airspace infringements, ground proximity, separation minima infringements and level
busts and (ii) to enable these occurrences to be mitigated at European level.

3.9.7

A good example of such approach is the height monitoring unit (HMU) which has been
established related to a particular operational issue (i.e. RVSM). One of the roles of the
HMU is to assess the risk of collision in the vertical plan and to monitor that the Target
Level of Safety (TLS) is being met.

3.9.8

Moreover, EASA regulations for the automatic collection and investigation of TCASderived encounters offer the prospect of developing an automatic safety data acquisition
tool for European ATM.

3.9.9

Additionally, systematic capture and analysis of safety occurrences in the European

network (hotspots) are essential for the Network Management function in their role of
optimising the design of the network from a safety point of view

3.9.10 The deployment of automatic safety data acquisition offers the best prospect of
establishing an accurate, reliable and transparent safety database for Europe.
3.9.11 There is an urgent need to clarify the institutional, legal and organisational aspects related
to such an endeavour with close cooperation between ICAO, the EU, EUROCONTROL
and States.

3.10

Conclusions

3.10.1 There was no accident with direct ATM contribution in 2009 involving commercial
aviation.
3.10.2 ESARR 2 data for 2008 shows a decrease in the number of high-severity Separation
Minima Infringements and runway incursions being reported. However, the number of
not investigated ATM safety occurrences remains high. It is noteworthy that, even in
2010, the ESARR2 data for 2008 remains provisional. This is why the PRC considers that
the current manual reporting should be complemented by independent monitoring based
on automatic safety data acquisition tools.
3.10.3 There is a continuous increase in the reporting of incidents in many States. However, it
remains of major concern that the number of reporting States remains relatively low (29)
and has not increased in the last five years.
3.10.4 The PC target of all Member States reaching at least 70% safety maturity by the end of
2008 was not met by 11 Regulators and 7 ANSPs. However, the average safety maturity
at the end of 2008 was 82% for ANSPs and 76% for Regulators.
3.10.5 Just culture is a key element to enhance safety levels in all areas of aviation. However,

PRR 2009

27

Chapter 3: Safety

not all the States have taken the necessary measures to achieve a fully non-punitive
reporting system. All States should be urged by EUROCONTROL and the EC to have an
appropriate legal, cultural and institutional structure to enable harmonised safety
measurement and reporting.
3.10.6 In accordance with SES II legislation, safety targets will be set and monitored for EU and
associated States starting from 2012, which represents significant progress. This could be
extended to all EUROCONTROL Member States by decision of the Provisional Council.
3.10.7 Aviation is a global industry with accountabilities and obligations at international,
regional, national and local levels. A clear structure with well defined accountabilities at
each level is essential to develop comprehensive and well considered initiatives to
improve safety across Europe and the world.
3.10.8 There is an urgent need to clarify the institutional, legal and organisational aspects related
to the deployment of automatic safety data acquisition, with close cooperation between
ICAO, the EU, EUROCONTROL and States.

PRR 2009

28

Chapter 3: Safety

Chapter 4: Air Transport Network Performance

4

Air Transport Network Performance

KEY MESSAGES OF THIS CHAPTER

Virtually all performance indicators related to operational air transport performance show a notable
improvement in 2009. The share of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes compared to schedule
decreased from 21.6% in 2008 to 17.9% in 2009. This improvement needs to be seen in context with
the significant drop in traffic (-6.6%) which reduced traffic to 2006 levels.

The unprecedented drop in traffic reduced demand far below planned capacity levels in 2009. The
resulting spare capacity in most areas (airlines, airports, ATC) translated into better turn around
performance (airlines, airports, security, etc.), a reduction of ATFM en-route delays and resulting
positive effects for the network.

In 2009, ANS-related delays (including weather related delays handled by ANS) accounted for some
25% of total departure delays, compared to 28% in 2008.

There is a high correlation between the ANS delays reported by airlines in CODA and the ATFM
delay calculated by the CFMU.

Although ATFM slot adherence shows a continuous improvement between 2003 and 2009, the share
of departures outside the ATFM slot tolerance window at some airports is still high.

A special effort shall be undertaken to promote and monitor Flight Plan adherence.

4.1

Introduction

4.1.1

The analysis of operational air transport performance in this report is divided into three
separate chapters, as outlined in the conceptual framework in Figure 37.

4.1.2

This chapter evaluates operational air transport performance and underlying delay drivers
in order to provide an estimate of the ANS-related contribution.

4.1.3

A more detailed analysis of ANS-related operational performance requires a

differentiation between the en-route environment (where performance is largely in the
hand of ANS) and the airport environment (where performance is affected by many
factors). ANS-related performance en-route and at airport is addressed in more detail in
Chapters 5 and 6 respectively (see Figure 37).
CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 6

Air Transport Performance

(Network)

ANS-related
contribution
(En-route)

ANS-related
contribution
(Airport)

Scheduled
departure

Departure
Punctuality

ANS related predeparture delays

Predeparture
delays

En-route
ATFM delays

Airport
ATFM delays

Actual
Off-block time
Gate-to-gate
performance

Scheduling

Taxi-out phase
Actual
take-off time
En-route
Flight efficiency

Airborne holding &

sequencing

Actual landing
time
Taxi-in phase
Actual in-block
time
Arrival
Punctuality
Scheduled
arrival time

Figure 37: Conceptual framework for the analysis of operational air transport performance

PRR 2009

29

Chapter 4: Air Transport Network Performance

4.2

Air Transport Punctuality

4.2.1

This section analyses the performance compared to published airline schedules which is
part of the quality of service expected by airline passengers.

4.2.2

The proportion of flights delayed by

more than 15 minutes compared to
schedule is generally used as Key
Performance Indicator (KPI) for
Punctuality.

Airport

Airlines

ANS

Scheduling of operations

Punctuality

4.2.3

Punctuality is the end product of

complex interactions between airlines,
airport operators, the CFMU and
ANSPs, from the planning and
scheduling phases up to the day of
operation.

Performance on the day of operations

Airport

Airlines

ANS

Figure 38: Punctuality of Operations

4.2.4

Figure 39 shows the share of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes compared to
schedule between 2000 and 2009.

4.2.5

After a substantial improvement

between 2000 and 2003, on time
performance deteriorated continuously
until 2007.

10.1%

17.9%

21.6%

22.1%

21.8%

20.4%

18.8%

18.3%

17.2%

25.2%

26.9%

20%

7.2%

6.7%

6.4%

6.8%

7.4%

2005

2006

2007

2008

10%

2004

15%

5%
Source: AEA*/ CODA

2009

2003

2002

0%
2001*

Although traffic levels in 2009 were

comparable to 2006 levels, the share of
arrivals delayed by more than 15
minutes was in 2009 significantly
lower than in 2006 (17.9% vs. 21.8%)
as a result of the spare capacity in 2009.

All flights to/from Europe

25%

2000*

4.2.7

2008 and 2009 show an improvement in

on time performance but this needs to
be seen in context with the
unprecedented traffic decrease (-6.6%)
which reduced demand far below
planned capacity levels in 2009.

30%

% of flights

4.2.6

35%

DEPARTURES delayed by more than 15 min. (%)

ARRIVALS delayed by more than 15 min. (%)
ARRIVALS more than 15 min. ahead of schedule (%)

Figure 39: On time performance between

2000-2009

4.2.8

The underlying drivers of ANS-related operational air transport performance are analysed
in more detail in section 4.5 of this chapter.

4.2.9

Whereas, from an airline viewpoint early flights most likely result in an underutilisation
of resources, from an airport and ATC point of view, flights ahead of schedule can affect
performance in a similar way as delayed flights (gate availability, variability of traffic
flows, etc.).

4.2.10 The share of flights arriving more than 15 minutes ahead of schedule is shown in Figure
39. Compared to previous years, there was a significant increase in flights arriving ahead
of schedule in 2009.
4.2.11 Although it is the commonly used industry standard which has been used for years, it
would be useful to move towards a higher level of accuracy (i.e. 5 or 10 minute bands)
for the analysis of schedule adherence. This would be appropriate considering the fact

PRR 2009

30

Chapter 4: Air Transport Network Performance

that the 15 minute allowance represents a large share of the scheduled block time on
intra European flights (i.e. 25% if the scheduled block time is 60 min.) and the efforts to
increase the level of precision within the European air transport network.
4.2.12 The system wide on-time performance is the result of contrasted situations among
airports. Figure 40 shows the departure and arrival punctuality for the top 20 European
airports in terms of movements in 2009 (see also Chapter 6).
Punctuality at the top 20 airports in terms of movements in 2009
% of flights delayed by more than
15 min.

40%
Arrivals

Departures

Yearly
average

35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%

2009

2008

Milan (MXP)

Stockholm (ARN)

Athens (ATH)

Oslo (OSL)

Dusseldorf (DUS)

Paris (ORY)

Brussels (BRU)

Zurich (ZRH)

London (LGW)

Copenhagen (CPH)

100%

Vienna (VIE)

Istanbul (IST)

Barcelona (BCN)

Rome (FCO)

Munich (MUC)

Amsterdam (AMS)

Madrid (MAD)

Frankfurt (FRA)

London (LHR)

Coverage of data submitted by

arilines (% of total flights) CODA

Paris (CDG)

0%

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Source: CODA
Source: CODA/ PRC analysis

Figure 40: Punctuality at the top 20 airports in terms of movements

4.2.13 At some airports (most notably Rome (FCO), there is a notable difference between the
punctuality of the inbound and outbound flights. The operations at those airports have a
delay-amplifying effect on the European air transport network.
4.2.14 The difference between the arrival and the departure punctuality is predominantly driven
by local turn-around performance. For example, if the facilities (i.e. ground handling,
security, etc.) at an airport are not dimensioned to handle the corresponding traffic
volume the resulting departure delays will also have an impact on overall ANS
performance. More work is required to better understand the interrelation between
operational performance at individual airports and the air transport network.

4.3

Scheduling of air transport operations

4.3.1

Due to the high level of public interest, it is in an airlines best interest to operate flights
within the 15-minute punctuality window.

4.3.2

However, from an analytical point of view, the monitoring of punctuality alone is not
sufficient as airlines build their schedules for the next season to some extent on historic
block time distributions which may already include a buffer for expected delay.

PRR 2009

31

Chapter 4: Air Transport Network Performance

4.3.3

Changes in arrival punctuality may be the

result of improvements in actual travel times
or adjustments of scheduled block times.

4.3.4

Hence, operational improvements do not

automatically result in better punctuality in the
next season.

4.3.5

Figure 41 shows the evolution of scheduled

and actual block times on Intra European
flights between 2003 and 2009. Additionally,
the departure delay at origin and the arrival
delay at destination are shown.

4.3.6

4.3.7

The changes observed are relative to the

average for the entire period (2003-2009) and
enable to visualise changes in performance
over time (DLTA Metric) but without
identifying underlying drivers.
Figure 41 shows that overall the scheduled
(red line) and actual (blue line) block times
remained relatively stable between 2003 and
2009. The low level of variation in the actual
block times is partly due to the air traffic flow
management in Europe. While in the US flow
management strategies focus more on the
gate-to-gate phase, in Europe flights are
usually held at the gates with only
comparatively few constraints once they have
left the gate [Ref. 16].

Airline scheduling
Airlines build their schedules for the next season
on airport slot allocation, crew activity limits,
airport connecting times and the distribution of
historic block times.
Increases in the observed block time in a given
year will most often be reflected in the schedule
for the next season. Increased block times
contribute to preserve punctuality and schedule
integrity but result in lower utilisation of
resources (e.g. aircraft, crews) and higher
overall costs.
OUT

ON

OFF

Schedule Taxi Out

Airborne

IN ON Time

Taxi In

Buffer

Early
arrival
Late
arrival
Delay

Ahead of
schedule

Behind
schedule

DLTA Metric
The Difference from Long-Term Average
(DLTA) metric is designed to measure relative
change in time-based performance (e.g. flight
time) normalised by selected criteria (origin,
destination, aircraft type, etc.) for which
sufficient data are available. The analysis
compares actual performance for each flight of a
given city pair with the long term average (i.e.
average between 2003 and 2009) for that city
pair.

Deviation from the long term

average (2003-2009) in minutes

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0

Source: CODA; PRC Analysis

Dec-09

Jun-09

Dec-08

Jun-08

Dec-07

Jun-07

Dec-06

Jun-06

Dec-05

Jun-05

Dec-04

Jun-04

Dec-03

Jun-03

Dec-02

-2.5

Arrival delay at destination(s)

Departure delay at origin airport(s)

Scheduled block time

Actual block time

Figure 41: Evolution of scheduled block times in Europe (intra-European flights)

PRR 2009

32

Chapter 4: Air Transport Network Performance

4.3.8

Arrival delay is mainly driven by departure delay at the origin airports. The drop in
departure and arrival delay due to the economic crisis and the resulting fall in traffic in
2009 is striking.

4.3.9

While no significant change in

block times can be observed at
European level, the situation
at local level can be different.

Deviation from the long term

average (2003-2009) in minutes

4.3.10 Figure 42 shows the evolution

of the block time for intraEuropean flights bound for
London Heathrow.

8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
Source: CODA; PRC Analysis

Jun-09

Dec-09

Dec-08

Jun-08

Dec-07

Jun-07

Dec-06

Jun-06

Jun-05

Dec-05

Jun-04

Dec-04

Dec-03

Jun-03

-8.0
Dec-02

4.3.11 Actual block times have

increased continuously until
2008. This is reflected to some
extent in the scheduled block
times which have increased by
more than 1 minute in the last
2 years.

Arrival delay at destination(s)

Departure delay at origin airport(s)

Scheduled block time

Actual block time

Figure 42: Block times on inbound flights to London

4.3.12 In 2009, actual block times (blue line) dropped sharply as a result of the crisis and this
starts to be reflected in the block times of the winter schedules (red line).
4.3.13 Additionally it is interesting to note that the arrival delay in London (LHR) is clearly
affected by departure delays (green line) and also the actual block times (blue line).

4.4

Predictability of air transport operations

4.4.1

Due to the multitude of variables

involved in air transport, a certain
level of variability is natural.

4.4.2

However, depending on the magnitude

and frequency of the variations, those
variations can become a serious issue
for airline scheduling departments as
they have to balance the utilisation of
their resources (aircraft, crew, etc.)
with the targeted service quality.

4.4.3

In order to limit the impact from outliers, variability is

measured as the difference between the 80th and the 20th
percentile for each flight phase. Flights scheduled less
than 20 times per month are excluded.
Efficiency generally relates actual performance to a predefined optimum (2). It can be expressed in terms of fuel
and time.

(2) Closer to
Observations

Figure 43 shows the variability on

intra European flights by flight phase.
The band between the 80th and 20th
percentile (green bar) shows that very
few flights depart before their
scheduled departure time but a
considerable number of flights arrive
before their scheduled arrival time.

Predictability vs. Efficiency

Predictability evaluates the level of variability in air
transport operations as experienced by airlines (i.e.
variability of flight XYZ123 from A to B). It focuses on
the variance (distribution width) associated with the
individual phases of flight (1).

Optimum

(1) Reduce
Variability

4.4.4

Time

This is consistent with the observation made in Figure 39 which shows the percentage of
arrivals more than 15 minutes ahead of schedule.

PRR 2009

33

Chapter 4: Air Transport Network Performance

20th Percentile

80th Percentile

Standard Deviation

20
15
minutes

10
5
0
-5

Flight time (cruising

+ terminal area)

Gate-to-gate phase

Taxi-in phase

2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

Taxi-out phase

2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

Departure time

2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

-10

Arrrival time

Source:
EUROCONTROL/ CODA

Figure 43: Variability of flight phases on Intra European flights

4.4.5

Although the gate-to-gate phase is affected by a multitude of variables including

congestion (queuing at take-off and airborne holdings in terminal area), aircraft operators
flight planning processes, wind and flow management measures applied by ANS, the
level of variability at system level is small and relatively stable compared to the departure
time variability.

4.4.6

It should however be noted that the level of variability in the taxi-out phase and the level
of airborne holdings in the terminal area can differ significantly between airports.

4.4.7

The main driver of arrival time variability is clearly departure delay induced at the
various origin airports which is consistent with Figure 41 which shows a high correlation
between departure delays (green line) and arrival delays (grey bars).

4.4.8

Departure-time variability, and hence arrival-time variability increased between 2003 and
2006 but showed a strong improvement between 2007 and 2009 which reflects the
significant decrease in departure delay due to the reduction in air traffic starting in 2008.

4.4.9

ANS contributes to departure time variability through ANS-related departure holdings

(mainly ATFM delays) and subsequent reactionary delays on the following flight legs.

4.5

Drivers of departure delays

4.5.1

This section provides a more detailed

analysis of the drivers of departure delays in
Europe which were identified as the main
source of variability in the European air
transport network (see Figure 43).

4.5.2

The analysis in Figure 44 is based on data

reported voluntarily to the Central Office for
Delay Analysis (CODA) by airlines.

PRR 2009

34

Central Office for Delay Analysis (CODA)

In Europe, CODA collects data from airlines each
month. The data collection started in 2002 and the
reporting is voluntarily.
Currently, the CODA coverage is approximately
60% of scheduled flights. The data reported
include OOOI data (Gate Out, Wheels Off, Wheels
On, and Gate In), schedule information and causes
of delay, according to the IATA delay coding
system. The reported delays refer to the scheduled
departure times.

Chapter 4: Air Transport Network Performance

4.5.3

The departure delay codes are grouped into the following main categories:

Turn around related delays (non-ATFCM): are primary delays caused by airlines
(technical, boarding, etc.), airports (equipment, etc.) or other parties such as ground
handlers involved in the turn around process.

ANS-related delays: are primary delays resulting from an imbalance between demand
and available capacity. The analysis in Figure 44 distinguishes between airport
(IATA code 83), en-route (IATA codes 81, 82), and weather10 related ATFCM delays
(IATA code 84) and ANS-related delays at the departure airport (IATA Code 89) (see
also Chapter 6).

Weather related delays (non-ATFCM): This group contains delays due to

unfavourable weather conditions including delays due to snow removal or de-icing.
Weather related delays handled by ANS are not included (see previous category).

Reactionary delays are secondary delays caused by primary delays on earlier flight
legs which cannot be absorbed during the turn-around phase at the airport.

4.5.4

Almost half of the departure delay reported to CODA is reactionary delays from previous
flight legs (see left side of Figure 44). Reactionary delay is analysed in more detail in a
later section of this chapter.

4.5.5

The distribution of primary delays in the middle of Figure 44 shows that by far the largest
share of departure delays ( 70%) originates from areas not handled by ANS (i.e. turnaround, etc.). In 2009, ANS-related delays (including weather related delays handled by
ANS) accounted for some 25% of total departure delays, compared to 28% in 2008.

4.5.6

Due to the unprecedented drop in traffic, the planned capacity exceeded the actual
demand by far in 2009. The resulting spare capacity in most areas (airlines, airports,
ATC) translated into better turn-around performance (airlines, airports, security, etc.), a
reduction of ATFCM en-route delays and resulting positive effects for the network.

Departure delay drivers

(based on all causes of delay as from 1 min.)
90%

13%

10%

2009

2009

2008

2007

0%

2
1
0

ATFCM (En-route)

ATFCM (Weather)

ATFCM (Airport)

ANS (Dep. Airport)

Airport

Weather (non ATFCM)

Misc.

Security & Immigrations

Airline

Jan-10

0%

10%

9%
2%
4%

Jul-09

10%

3%
4%

Jan-09

10%

7%
3%
4%

5%

8%

Jul-08

20%

5%

Jan-08

20%

6%

9%

Jul-07

30%

6%

Jan-07

30%

6%

Jul-06

5%

4%
3%

delay per flight (min.)

5%
5%
3%

Jan-06

40%

Non-ANS related
primary delays

50%

40%

ANS related
primary delays

50%

50%

delays

60%

60%

53%

ATFCM

70%

ANS (Dep. Airport)

ATFCM (weather + airport)
Reactionary
En-route ATFCM
Not handled by ANS

8
56%

2008

70%

80%

2007

80%

Reactionary

10

90%

Reactionary

100%

Reactionary

100%

Source: CODA; PRC Analysis

Figure 44: Drivers of departure delays between 2007 and 2009

10

ATFM regulations and reduced acceptance rates for safety reasons due to adverse weather.

PRR 2009

35

Chapter 4: Air Transport Network Performance

4.5.7

There was a notable increase in weather related delays at the departure airports which is
mainly due to snow in the winter of 2009.

4.5.8

In order to improve air transport performance, a clear understanding of all root causes is
needed ( 70% of delay originates from non ANS related reasons). Airlines and airports
are encouraged to develop methods to precisely determine and validate the origin of the
delays. In view of the significant costs involved, some airlines and airports have already
working groups dedicated to the improvement of the turn around processes. However, as
this report focuses on ANS performance, a thorough analysis of the complex and
interrelated pre-departure processes is beyond the scope of the report.

4.5.9

Complementary to the analysis of delays reported by airlines to CODA in Figure 44, the
analysis in Figure 46 shows a breakdown of ATFM delays11 reported by the CFMU.

CONSISTENCY BETWEEN ANS DELAYS REPORTED BY CODA AND THE CFMU

4.5.11 At system level, there is a level of

correlation between the ANS delays
reported in the two data sources.
4.5.12 It is interesting to note that on average
ATFM delays reported by the CFMU are
higher than those reported by airlines.

Correlation between CODA and CFMU data

120
ANS-related delay reported by airlines ('000)

4.5.10 Figure 45 compares the ANS delays

reported by airlines (CODA) to the ATFM
delays reported by the CFMU.

Each dot in this figure

represents one day

y = 0.4999x
2

R = 0.9301

100

80

60

40

20

4.5.13 As airlines use the delay data for the

improvement of their internal processes,
they often report delays which are not
visible to the CFMU.

20

40

60

80

100

120

ATFM delay reported by the CFMU ('000)

Figure 45: Correlation between CODA

and CFMU data

4.5.14 For instance, when a flight gets an ATFM slot causing a 30 minute delay but the flight is
delayed by 10 minutes due to late boarding, airlines often report 10 minutes of boarding
delay and 20 minutes of ATFM delay. Not being aware of the boarding delay, the CFMU
would report a total ATFM delay of 30 minute in this example.
4.5.15 ATFM delays can be due to capacity
constraints where ANS is the root cause
(i.e. staffing) but also due to constraints
(i.e. weather) where the situation was
handled by ANS. In order to avoid
allocation issues, the categories ATC
Capacity and Staffing have been
combined.
4.5.16 At European system level, en-route ATFM
delays are higher than airport-related
ATFM delays.

11

ATFM delays
In Europe when traffic demand is anticipated to
exceed the available capacity in en-route centres or
at airports, ATC units may call for an ATFM
regulation. Aircraft expected to arrive during a
period of congestion are held upstream at the
departure airport by the CFMU until the
downstream en-route or airport capacity constraint
is cleared.
The delays are calculated with reference to the times
in the last submitted flight plan and the reason for
the regulation is indicated by the responsible Flow
Management Position (FMP).
The delay is
attributed to the most constraining ATC unit.

Note that the ATFM delays reported by the CFMU relate to the flight plan while the delays reported by airlines to
CODA relate to the published scheduled departure time.

PRR 2009

36

Chapter 4: Air Transport Network Performance

ACC anticipating
capacity shortfall

4.5.17 En-route
ATFM
delays
increased
considerably between 2003 and 2008 but
show a significant drop in 2009. En-route
delays are driven almost entirely by ATC
capacity and staffing related constraints
(see right side of Figure 46). They are
analysed in more detail in Chapter 5.

Aircraft held at
dep. airport
Arrival
Airport

Departure
Airport

CFMU

ATFM regulation
requested by ACC

Distribution of average daily ATFM delays by cause of delay ('000 min.)

50

50

45
En-route ATFM delays

45

45

40

40

40

35

35

35

30

30

30
25

25

25
20

20

20
15

15

15

10

En-route ATFM delays

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

0
2004

2009

2008

2007

2006

0
2005

2004

10
Airport ATFM delays

2003

10

2003

averge min. of ATFM delay per day ('000)

Airport ATFM delays

En-route ATFM delays

Airport ATFM delays

ATC Capacity & Staffing

ATC Other (strike, equipment, etc.)

OTHER (Special event, military, etc.)

Weather delays handled by ANS

Source: EUROCONTROL CFMU

Figure 46: Distribution of average daily ATFM delays by cause of delay

4.5.18 The airport environment (where capacity is predominantly a function of the infrastructure
and weather but also other factors) is more complex and clear cut allocation between ANS
and non-ANS related causes (weather, congestion, etc.) is sometimes difficult. While
ANS may not always be the root cause for the capacity shortfall at airports, the way the
situation is handled can have a significant influence on performance (i.e. distribution of
delay between air and ground) and thus on costs to airspace users. ANS-related
performance at airports is analysed in more detail in Chapter 6.

4.6

Reactionary delays

4.6.1

Reactionary delays are by nature a network issue. However, despite the large share of
reactionary delay (see Figure 44), there is currently only a limited knowledge of how
airline, airport and ATM management decisions affect the propagation of reactionary
delay throughout the air transport network.

PRR 2009

37

Chapter 4: Air Transport Network Performance

Aircraft 1
1

Aircraft 2

Awaiting crew,
connecting passenger, etc.

Primary delay

Reactionary delay

Figure 47: Types of reactionary delays

4.6.2

Due to the interconnected nature of the air transport network, long primary delays can
propagate throughout the network until the end of the same operational day or even
longer for medium and long haul traffic. Depending on a multitude of factors such as the
time of the day, length of the delay, aircraft utilisation, airline strategy etc., the primary
delay may not only affect the initially delayed airframe on successive legs but may also
affect other aircraft waiting for passengers or crew, as illustrated in Figure 47.

4.6.3

Two elements determine the magnitude of the delay propagation:

1) the primary delay parameters (i.e. time of the day, length of the delay, etc.) and;,
2) the ability of the air transport system to absorb primary delay (i.e. aircraft utilisation
including scheduled block times and turnaround times, airline business model,
contingency procedures, turn around efficiency at airports, effectiveness of airport
CDM processes, etc.).
Strategies aimed at reducing the level of reactionary delay can therefore aim at reducing
or avoiding long primary delays in the first half of the day and/or to reduce the sensitivity
of the air transport network to primary delays.

4.6.5

Figure 48 shows the sensitivity of the air transport network to primary delays by relating
reactionary delays to primary delays. For instance, a ratio of 0.8 means that every minute
of primary delay generates 0.8 minutes of additional reactionary delay, on average.

ratio reactionary to primary delay

4.6.4

0.90

Sensitivity of the European air transport network to primary delays

(intra-European flights)

0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
AEA data

CODA data

Primary delay includes local turnaround delays and en-route and airport ATFM delays

Figure 48: Sensitivity of the Air Transport Network to primary delays

4.6.6

After a continuous increase between 2003 and 2008, a clear improvement is notable for
2009. Reasons for changes in the sensitivity to primary delays can be manifold

PRR 2009

38

Chapter 4: Air Transport Network Performance

(utilisation level of resources, schedule padding, airline strategies, airport CDM, etc.) and
the improvement in 2009 is certainly the result of the reduction in traffic levels due to the
economic crisis.
4.6.7

Depending on the type of operation at airports (hub & spoke versus point to point), local
performance can have an impact on the entire network but also on the airports own
operation. Flights frequently returning to their hub airport return a certain percentage of
primary delay originally experienced at the hub.

4.6.8

The analysis in Figure 49 illustrates how airports are affected by their own operations.
The analysis was carried out for a limited number of large airports with various levels of
hub-and-spoke operations [Ref. 17]. Only flights between the analysed airport and
another airport (i.e. every second leg is by definition the analysed airport) were included.

4.6.9

The impact of airport operations on its own performance varies notably by airport. For
example, for every minute of primary delay generated at London Gatwick airport, more
than half a minute is returned on subsequent flights returning to London Gatwick.
Primary delay returned to origin airport (Summer 08)

0.6

minutes

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Zurich (ZRH)

Rome (FCO)

Amsterdam
(AMS)

Munich
(MUC)

Frankfurt
(FRA)

Copenhagen
(CPH)

London
(LHR)

Barcelona
(BCN)

Madrid
(MAD)

London
(LGW)

Figure 49: Impact of airport operations on its own performance

4.7

Network management (ATFM)

4.7.1

This section evaluates the performance of the ATFM function12. ATFM measures are put
in place to protect en-route sectors or airports from receiving more traffic than the air
traffic controllers can safely handle (declared ATC capacity).

4.7.2

The ATFM function and the performance assessment thereof will be addressed in the
Commission Regulation (EU) laying down common rules on air traffic flow management.
The Regulation lays down the requirements for ATFM in order to optimise the available
capacity of the European air traffic management network and enhance ATFM processes.
It requires, inter alia, the central unit for ATFM to produce annual reports indicating the
quality of the ATFM in the airspace of the Regulation (see also 4.7.8).

4.7.3

Until more detailed information becomes available from the aforementioned EU

Regulation, the following three performance indicators are used to monitor overall ATFM
performance levels:

12

ATFM over-deliveries;

Local ATFM units and the central unit for ATFM (i.e. CFMU).

PRR 2009

39

Chapter 4: Air Transport Network Performance

ATFM slot adherence and;

Inappropriate ATFM regulations.

4.7.4

Accurate flight plan information and flight plan adherence are essential for the
functioning of the air transport network. Changes which are not communicated properly
result in inaccurate traffic projections en-route and for the destination airport which in
turn may lead to an underutilisation of capacity or excessive workload for controllers, and
a safety issue.

4.7.5

Figure 50 shows the share of ATFM over-deliveries between 2003 and 2009. Overdeliveries varied between 9 and 11% between 2003 and 2007 but showed a slight increase
in 2008 and 2009.
% regulated hours with actual demand/
capacity >110% (excess demand)

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

15%
14%
13%
12%
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%

source: EUROCONTROL/ CFMU

Figure 50: ATFM over-deliveries

4.7.6

Over-deliveries
Over-deliveries occur when more aircraft than
planned enter a protected sector exceeding the
regulated capacity by more than 10%. Ideally
the share of regulated hours with overdeliveries should be reduced as much as
possible to improve confidence in the system
(some ATS providers reserve up to 10% to
account for possible over-deliveries) and to
protect controllers from excessive workload.
Over-deliveries can have various reasons
including:
deviation from the flight level initially
requested in the flight plan;
deviation from the route initially requested
in the flight plan;
departing at times different from flight plan
or the allocated ATFM slot; and,
deviation from the ground speed initially
planned.

Figure 51 shows the European ATFM slot adherence between 2003 and 2009. While a
continuous improvement is notable, there is scope for further improvement considering
the fact that that almost every fifth ATFM regulated flight departs outside its allocated
ATFM window.
% of take-offs outside the allocated ATFM
window

25.0%
22.5%

ATFM slot adherence

ATFM slot adherence measures the share of
take-offs outside the allocated ATFM
window.
An ATFM slot tolerance window (-5min
+10 min) is available to ATC to organise
the departure sequencing.

20.0%
17.5%
15.0%

ATC at the departure airport has a joint

responsibility with aircraft operators to
depart within the allocated ATFM window
in order to avoid over-deliveries.

12.5%
2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

10.0%

source: EUROCONTROL/ CFMU

Figure 51: ATFM slot adherence

PRR 2009

40

Chapter 4: Air Transport Network Performance

Figure 52 shows the proportion of ATFM regulated flights departing outside the ATFM
window at the top 20 airports in terms of movements in 2009.

4.7.8

The new Regulation (see paragraph 4.7.2) is expected to have a positive impact on ATFM
slot adherence which is addressed directly in Article 11. At airports where the share of
take-offs outside the ATFM slot window is 20% or higher, the respective ATS units have
to provide relevant information of non-compliance and the actions taken to ensure
adherence to ATFM slots.

0%
Oslo (OSL)

Frankfurt (FRA)

Within ATFM slot window

Early take off

Late take off

% outside ATFM window

Paris (ORY)

Athens (ATH)

5%
Rome (FCO)

10
Stockholm (ARN)

10%

Milan (MXP)

20

London (LGW)

15%

Barcelona (BCN)

30

Vienna (VIE)

20%

Dusseldorf (DUS)

40

Copenhagen (CPH)

25%

Brussels (BRU)

50

Zurich (ZRH)

30%

Madrid (MAD)

60

Munich (MUC)

35%

London (LHR)

70

Amsterdam (AMS)

40%

Paris (CDG)

80

% outside ATFM window (-5/+10 min.)

ATFM regulated departures ('000)

4.7.7

Source: CFMU

Figure 52: ATFM slot adherence at airports

4.7.9

Figure 53 shows the percentage of ATFM delay due to inappropriate regulations between
2003 and 2009. On average almost 8% of the ATFM delay is not considered to be
necessary because there was no excess of demand. It reflects the fact that ANSPs tend to
publish defensive regulations in order to cope with potential over-deliveries due to nonadherence to slots and flight plans.

4.7.10 Of similar importance for the network is the adherence to flight plans and initiatives to
better monitor and improve flight plan adherence should be further encouraged.
Inappropriate ATFM
regulations

% of ATFM delays due to inappropriate

regulations (no excess demand)

10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%

However, the decision to call for an

ATFM regulation depends on the level
of information available at the time
when the decision needs to be taken
(i.e. at least two hours before the
anticipated capacity shortfall to be
effective). Hence the accuracy of the
traffic and MET forecast two or more
hours before the actual event is crucial
for the decision making process and
should be improved as much as
possible.

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

ATFM regulations are considered to

be inappropriate when there was no
excess of demand.

source: EUROCONTROL/ CFMU

Figure 53: Delay due to inappropriate ATFM regulations

PRR 2009

41

Chapter 4: Air Transport Network Performance

4.8

Conclusions

4.8.1

Virtually all performance indicators related to operational air transport performance show
a notable improvement in 2009.

4.8.2

The share of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes compared to schedule decreased
from 21.6% in 2008 to 17.9% in 2009. This needs to be seen in context with the
significant drop in traffic (-6.6%) which reduced traffic to 2006 levels.

4.8.3

The unprecedented drop in traffic reduced demand far below planned capacity levels in
2009. The resulting spare capacity in most areas (airlines, airports, ATC) translated into
better turnaround performance (airlines, airports, security, etc.), a reduction of ATFM enroute delays and resulting positive effects for the network.

4.8.4

In 2009, ANS-related delays (including weather related delays handled by ANS)

accounted for some 25% of total departure delays, compared to 28% in 2008.

4.8.5

There is a high correlation between the ANS delays reported by airlines in CODA and the
ATFM delay calculated by the CFMU.

4.8.6

Although ATFM slot adherence shows a continuous improvement between 2003 and
2009, departures outside ATFM slots remain disproportionately high at some airports.
Improvements are expected with application of the ATFM Regulation and oversight by
the Network Management function.

4.8.7

Flight plan adherence is still a major concern: it should be monitored with appropriate
tools and encouraged to avoid over deliveries and waste of resources.

PRR 2009

42

Chapter 4: Air Transport Network Performance

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

5

Operational En-route Performance

KEY MESSAGES OF THIS CHAPTER

Although ATFM en-route delay decreased from 1.9 to 1.2 minutes per flight in summer 2009, the enroute delay target of 1 minute per flight was not met in 2009, notwithstanding the significant decline in
traffic which reduced traffic levels far below planned ANSP capacity in 2009.

The traditional indicator delay per flight is not easy to communicate and is therefore complemented
by the percentage of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes.

For the full year, the percentage of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes due to en-route ATFM
restriction decreased from 4.0% in 2008 to 2.6% in 2009.

Shortcomings in the planning and deployment of staff in a limited number of ACCs appear to be the
main drivers of en-route ATFM delay in 2009. For the evaluation and monitoring of the ANSP
capacity plans, there is presently only limited information concerning the relation between staff- and
capacity planning available from ANSPs.

A high number of ATM system upgrades are planned over the next three years which will require
adequate planning at local level and proper co-ordination at network level for which a European
network function will be essential.

Despite the uncertainties presently attached to traffic forecasts, it is important to continue to close the
existing capacity gaps and to carefully plan capacity increases to accommodate future traffic demand.

The SES II performance scheme and the subsequent capacity target setting is expected to improve the
capacity planning process at local and network level and pave the way to the development of a crucial
European Network Management function.

Although the European horizontal flight efficiency target could not be met in 2009, improvements are
notable. Total savings in European airspace due to improved en-route design and flight planning
amounted to approximately 36 000 t of fuel in 2009 which corresponds to 120 000 t of CO2.

En-route airspace design is by far the most important driver of en-route extension. The improvement of
flight efficiency is a pan-European issue which requires the development and the implementation of a
Pan-European network improvement plan in cooperation with States and ANSPs.

5.1

Introduction

5.1.1

Building on the framework outlined in Chapter 4, this chapter analyses the operational
performance of en-route ANS (ATFM delays, flight efficiency, access to and use of
airspace), and the Chapter 6 analyses operational performance in the TMA and at airports.

5.1.2

The analysis by area (en-route, TMA & airport) enables accountabilities and trade-offs to
be viewed more clearly.

5.1.3

The environmental impact of flight efficiency, and trade offs between the different flight
phases, are addressed in the Environmental assessment in Chapter 7. The economic
impact of, and trade offs between, en route capacity (route charges), ATFM delays and
en-route flight efficiency are addressed in the economic assessment in Chapter 9.

5.2

En-route ATFM delays

5.2.1

This section reviews Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) delays originating from enroute capacity restrictions.

EUROPEAN ATFM EN-ROUTE DELAY TARGET

5.2.2

The European target for en-route ATFM delay is one minute per flight until 2010 (PC,
2007). This target refers to en-route ATFM delay in the summer period (May to October),
all delay causes included (capacity, weather, etc.).

PRR 2009

43

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

En-route ATFM delay/ flight (min.)

traffic growth (%)

Summer ATFM en-route delay target (May-Oct.)

6

10%

Actual: 1.2min/flight

OTHER (Special
event, military, etc.)

Target: 1.0min/flight

WEATHER

PC Target

ATC Other (strike,

equipment, etc.)

2.9

4.1

5.5

3.6

3.1

1.8

1.2

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.6

1.9

1.2

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

1
0

ATC Capacity &

Staffing

5%
Traffic growth
(Summer)

0%
-5%

-10%

source: EUROCONTROL/CFMU

Figure 54: Summer ATFM en-route delay target

5.2.3

After a continuous increase between 2004 and 2008, a considerable reduction to 1.2
minutes of en-route ATFM delay per flight is visible in 2009. Even though the economic
crisis reduced traffic levels far below planned ANSP capacity in 2009, the en-route
summer ATFM delay target of one minute was not achieved. The reasons for this are
explored in more detail in a later section of this chapter.

5.2.4

Figure 55 shows the evolution of effective capacity13 and air traffic demand between 1990
and 2009. Due to the traffic situation and cost containment measures at some ACCs and
the adaptation of the available capacity to the reduced demand, the addition of ATC
capacity has slowed down to only 0.4% in 2009.
6

350
Traffic volume (km)

Traffic forecast

250
En-route ATFM delay
per flight (summer)

Closing
capacity gap

Widening
capacity gap

Closing
capacity gap

Widening
capacity gap

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

50
1996

1995

100

1994

1993

150

1992

1991

200

1990

km index 1990=100

Effective Capacity

ATFM delay in minutes per flight

Forecast

300

Source : EUROCONTROL

Figure 55: Matching effective capacity and air traffic demand

13

Effective capacity is defined as the traffic which can be handled, given an optimum level of ATFM en-route
delay of 1 minute per flight (cf. PRR 5 (2001), Annex 6).

PRR 2009

44

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

5.2.5

Despite the drop in traffic and the uncertainties attached to the current air traffic forecasts,
it is important to continue to close existing capacity gaps and to carefully plan capacity
increases in order to accommodate future traffic demand and to keep en-route ATFM
delays at optimum level as it takes usually several years for capacity enhancement
initiatives to take effect.

5.2.6

Past experience shows cyclic behaviour in traffic growth. For some centres, the current
traffic downturn could even be used as an opportunity to start preparing future capacity
enhancement initiatives without having the pressure of continuous high traffic growth.
Capacity planning and ACCs envisaging the implementation of new ATM systems are
addressed in more detail in a later section of this chapter.

EUROPEAN ATFM EN-ROUTE PERFORMANCE

5.2.7

Figure 56 shows the evolution of en-route ATFM delays14 in Europe between 2006 and
2009.

5.2.8

The traditional indicator delay per flight is not easy to communicate and is therefore
complemented by the percentage of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes (blue line
in Figure 56) which is together with the delay per flight hour - also one of the possible
candidates for en-route capacity target setting in the SES II performance scheme. As can
be seen in Figure 56, both indicators show a close correlation.

5.2.9

As already observed for the summer period (see Figure 54), ATFM en-route delays have
decreased in 2009. Similarly, the share of flights delayed by en-route ATFM restrictions
decreased compared to 2008. In 2009, 5.1% (7.8% in 2008) of flights were ATFM enroute delayed of which 2.6% (4.0% in 2008) were delayed by more than 15 minutes.
ATC Capacity & Staffing

ATC Other (strike, equipment, etc.)

WEATHER

OTHER (Special event, military, etc.)

En-route delay target (Summer)

Actual en-route ATFM delay (Summer)

Source:
PRC Analysis ; CFMU

En-route ATFM delayed flight (>15min.)

8%

2%

0.5

1%

0.0

0%
Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2007

Q1

Q2

Q3

2008

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2009

flights (million)

900
800
700
600
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

flights ('000)

11

Traffic

1,000

2,006

2,007

2,008

2,009

10
9
8
7
6

2008

Q4

2006

Q3

2006

2005

Q2

2003

Q1
1,100

2009

3%

1.0

2009

4%

1.5

2007
2008

5%

2.0

2006

6%

2.5

2007

3.0

2004
2005

YEARLY

7%

2004

ATFM en-route delay

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

per flight (min.)

3.5

2003

4.0

Figure 56: Evolution of en-route ATFM delays (2006-2009)

5.2.10 En-route ATFM delays show seasonal variations, peaking during summer when traffic
demand is generally highest. The comparatively high level of en-route ATFM delay in

14

Note that annual delay figures in Figure 54 and Figure 56 are not comparable. Figure 56 shows average en route
ATFM delays for the full year, while Figure 54 shows en route ATFM delays for the summer period only.

PRR 2009

45

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

July 2009 was to a large extent driven by ATC Capacity & Staffing related delays on the
South East Axis (Austria, Croatia, Greece, Cyprus), but also in Spain, Poland and
Germany.
5.2.11 ATC Capacity and Staffing related issues (83%) continue to be the main drivers of enroute ATFM delays, followed by weather (11%). Other reasons account for 6%, of
which 4% are ATM-related (strike, equipment, etc.).
MOST ATFM EN-ROUTE DELAY GENERATING ACCS

5.2.12 This section analyses delay performance at local level (ACC). The one-minute per flight
delay target at European level cannot be applied to individual ACCs as a flight crosses
approximately three ACCs on average (otherwise flights are counted three times).
5.2.13 Consequently, the performance at ACC level is assessed in line with the capacity
objective set out in the ATM 2000+ Strategy [Ref. 18] to provide sufficient capacity to
accommodate demand in typical busy hour periods without imposing significant
operational, economic or environmental penalties under normal conditions.
5.2.14 While it is normal that capacity issues and significant delays occur on some days, ACCs
should not generate high delays on a regular basis. This is why delay performance at ACC
level is assessed in terms of the number of days with large en-route ATFM delay
(>1 minute per flight). Thresholds are set at 30 days (congested) and 100 days (highly
congested).
30

Nr. of ACCs
25

Congested

(>30 days with average en-route delay >1 min.)

Highly congested

(>100 days with average en-route delay >1 min.)

20
11
13

15

Most congested
ACCs in 2009

10

12

14

18
10

13

10

6
7

6
2

225
193
170
96
83
78
74
70
54
46

5.0%
6.5%
3.4%
2.1%
1.7%
1.7%
1.8%
2.1%
2.8%
2.9%

900
621
858
710
445
813
774
280
714
420

10.1%
7.0%
9.7%
8.0%
5.0%
9.1%
8.7%
3.1%
8.0%
4.7%

En-route
Traffic
delay /flight
growth (%)
(min.)
1.7
2.3
1.2
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.6

-8.0%
-1.7%
-6.5%
-9.0%
-6.9%
-6.9%
-6.3%
2.1%
-0.6%
-13.3%

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

Warszawa
Nicosia
Wien
Madrid
Zurich
Rhein/ Karlsruhe
Langen
Zagreb
Athinai+ Macedonia
Canarias

Days en- % of flights

% of total
En-route
route ATFM delayed
en-route
delay ('000)
>1 min.
>15 min.
delay

Source: EUROCONTROL

Figure 57: Most en-route ATFM delay generating ACCs

5.2.15 Most European ACCs provided sufficient capacity in 2009. As shown in Figure 57, the
number of ACCs with more than 30 days with an average ATFM en-route delay per flight
larger than 1 minute decreased from 14 to 10 in 2009. Three of those ACCs are
considered to have a significant capacity gap. In 2009, those 10 ACCs controlled 20% of
total flight hours in Europe but accounted for 74% of total en-route ATFM delays.
5.2.16 A number of the ACCs highlighted in Figure 57 have been continuously in the list of
most en-route ATFM delay generating ACCs since 2005. This is in particular the case for
Warsaw, Nicosia, Madrid, Zurich and Zagreb. This illustrates the need for all parties
concerned to resolve the capacity issues.

PRR 2009

46

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

5.2.17 Compared to 2006 when the level of traffic was similar to 2009, en-route ATFM delay
per flight was lower in 2009 but notably more concentrated in fewer ACCs. The six most
congested ACCs (out of 69) account for 50% of all en-route ATFM delay in 2009.

70%
60%

2006

50%
40%
30%

2009

20%

391

361

331

301

271

241

211

181

151

121

91

61

10%
0%
31

5.2.19 In 2009, half of the total enroute

ATFM
delay
originates from only 4% of
sectors. Cost of delays from
these 30 sectors alone is
estimated to be in the order
of 300M.

100%
90%
80%

% of en-route ATFM delay

5.2.18 The cumulative distribution

of en-route ATFM delay
per sector for 2006 and
2009 in Figure 58 further
underlines
the
concentration of en-route
ATFM delays in a few local
bottlenecks in 2009.

Number of en-route sectors

Source: CFMU

Figure 58: Cumulative distribution of en-route ATFM

delays by sector

UNDERLYING DRIVERS

5.2.20 Figure 59 provides an indication of the underlying en-route ATFM delay causes as
reported by the flow managers. The en-route ATFM delay is shown in terms of delay per
flight (top of Figure 59) and delay per controlled flight hour (bottom of Figure 59).
4

% of flights delayed
by more than 15 min.

Nicosia

Zurich

Rhein/
Karlsruhe

Langen

Zagreb

Delay per flight hour controlled

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

2007
2008
2009

Madrid

2007
2008
2009

Wien

2007
2008
2009

0%
2007
2008
2009

0
2007
2008
2009

2%

2007
2008
2009

2007
2008
2009

4%

2007
2008
2009

2007
2008
2009

6%

Warszawa

Athinai+ Canarias
Macedonia
% of flights delayed
by more than 15 min.

8%
6%
4%
2%

Rhein/
Karlsruhe

Langen

Zagreb

2007
2008
2009

2007
2008
2009

Zurich

2007
2008
2009

Madrid

2007
2008
2009

2007
2008
2009

Wien

2007
2008
2009

2007
2008
2009

Nicosia

2007
2008
2009

Warszawa

2007
2008
2009

0%
2007
2008
2009

En-route ATFM delay

per flight hour controlled

8%

2007
2008
2009

En-route ATFM delay

per flight

Delay per flight

Athinai+ Canarias
Macedonia

ATC Capacity & Staffing

ATC Other (strike, equipment, etc.)

WEATHER

OTHER (Special event, military, etc.)

Source:
PRC Analysis/ CFMU

Figure 59: ATFM en-route delay drivers (most delay generating ACCs)
5.2.21 Similar to the distribution in Figure 56, ATC capacity & staffing related issues are by far
the main cause of en-route ATFM restrictions.

PRR 2009

47

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

5.2.22 Apart from Langen, the Canarias, and Madrid all ACCs show a year on year improvement
between 2008 and 2009. Nevertheless, in some cases the significant traffic decrease did
not result in a similar delay decrease (Warsaw, Vienna, Rhein/Karlsruhe, etc.).
5.2.23 Contrary to most other ACCs, the traffic peak in the Canarias is in winter. More than 90%
of the annual en-route ATFM delay was generated in November and December and the
delay is therefore not included in the present European en-route ATFM target which only
covers summer.
5.2.24 While the summer en-route ATFM target proved to be an effective means for the
mitigation of delays during the most challenging period of the year, the binding EU-wide
capacity targets to be set within the SES performance scheme need to consider
performance throughout the entire year.
5.2.25 Figure 60 shows the geographical distribution of the most en-route ATFM delay
generating ACCs in 2008 and 2009. As was the case in 2008, the majority of the most
delay-generating ACCs are outside the European Core Area.
5.2.26 Some 10% of total en-route ATFM delay originates from Warsaw ACC, 8% from Madrid
ACC and the South-east axis stretching from Austria via Croatia, Greece and Cyprus
accounted for some 28% of total en-route delay. Finally, the German ACCs
Rhein/Karlsruhe and Langen accounted for some 18% of total en-route delays in 2009.
5.2.27 It is important also to note that all the ACCs in UK, France, Italy, Czech Republic,
Portugal, etc. had a very low level of en-route delays in 2009 continuing the
improvements made in the previous years or maintaining a constant good performance.
Days with en-route delay > 1min/flight
<= 30 days
> 30 days
BOD
> 100 days
STO

DUB MAN
LON TC
ROV

BREM

AMS
BRU

LAN

Days with en-route delay > 1min/flight

<= 30 days
> 30 days
BOD
> 100 days
STO

TAM
STA OSL
SCO

Lower Airspace

SCO

TAL

LAN

Lower Airspace

RIG

MAL

VIL

VIL

COP

SHA

SHA

LON

BRE

MAD

WAR

MAA
RHE

LIS

BREM

AMS
BRU

TAM

RIG

COP

LON TC
ROV

STA OSL

TAL
MAL

DUB MAN

REI

PRA

KIE

LON

KHA

RHE

CHI ODE
MUN
WIE BUD
SIM
PAR
ZUR
BUC
LJU
GEN
BOR
PAD
VAR
ZAG BEO
SOF
SKO
MAR
IST
BRI TIR
BAR
ROM

SEV

MAD

ANK
LIS

SEV

ATH+MAK

KIE

KHA

LVO

PRA

BRAT
CHI ODE
MUN
WIE BUD
SIM
PAR
ZUR
BUC
LJU
GEN
BOR
PAD
ZAG BEO
SOF
SKO
MAR
IST
BRI TIR
BAR
ROM
REI

BRE

WAR

MAA

LVO
BRAT

YER

ANK

ATH+MAK
NIC

NIC
MAL

MAL

PAL

PAL
CAN

CAN

Lower Airspace

2008

Lower Airspace

2009

Figure 60: Geographical distribution of most delay-generating ACCs

5.2.28 The responsibility to plan and to deliver the right level of capacity lies with ANSPs.
EUROCONTROL supports the European medium term capacity planning with a number
of tools, data sets and traffic scenarios. The resulting capacity plans are then published in
the Network Operations Plan (NOP). The next section compares actual and planned
performance for the most constraining ACCs in order to better understand the reasons for
the observed en-route capacity shortfalls.
ACC CAPACITY PLANNING

5.2.29 To ensure the required delivery of en-route capacity in the medium-term, capacity plans
are developed by the ANSPs for each ACC. Figure 61 compares actual traffic demand

PRR 2009

48

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

and ATFM delays to the forecast levels in the Medium Term Capacity Plan15 for the 10
most en-route delay generating ACCs in 2009.
5.2.30 Zagreb is the only ACC which reported an increase in traffic which was not foreseen by
the traffic forecast. In all other ACCs traffic decrease in summer was even higher than
initially forecast.
4%

Traffic growth
Actual and forecast
(SUMMER)

2%
0%

Actual traffic
(Summer)

Traffic forecast

traffic growth (%)

-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%
-10%
-12%
-14%
Canarias

Athinai+
Macedonia

Zagreb

Langen

Zurich

Madrid

Rhein/
Karlsruhe

ATFM en-route delay

Actual and forecast
(SUMMER)

Wien

Warszawa

Nicosia

-16%

3.5

Actual delay
(Summer)

Delay forecast

minutes/ flight

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Sources: NOP, CFMU

Figure 61: Accuracy of capacity planning (Summer 2009)

5.2.31 Although traffic was lower than forecast, Warsaw, Nicosia, Zurich, Langen, and
Athinai/Macedonia performed worse than anticipated, but for different reasons. Nicosia,
Langen, Athens and Makedonia ACCs did not fulfil the commitments made in the
capacity plan in terms of configurations and sector opening schemes.
Top 25 most delay generating en-route sectors
3
WARSAW
LANGEN

2.5
million min. of en-route delay

ATHINAI
CYPRUS

ZURICH

1.5

MADRID
KARLSRUHE

MAKEDONIA

Summer
2009

WIEN

0.5

PRAHA
ZAGREB

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Elementary Sectors

200

400

600

En-route ATFM delay (' 000 min.)

Combined Sectors
source : EUROCONTROL/CFMU

Figure 62: ATFM delays due to combined/elementary sectors

15

Forecast source: STATFOR medium-term forecast.

PRR 2009

49

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

5.2.32 Figure 62 shows the en-route ATFM delays in the top 25 most delay generating en-route
ACCs by sector type in summer. The ATFM en-route delays originating from collapsed
sectors show a worrying increase between 2007 and 2009.
5.2.33 Zurich, Langen and Warsaw show en-route ATFM
delay due to elementary sectors. This indicates
structural limitations to be addressed to avoid
excessive delays when traffic growth resumes.
5.2.34 At all other ACCs, shortcomings in the planning
(recruitment, productivity projections, etc.) and
deployment (sector opening times, ATCO rating,
rostering, overtime regulation, etc.) of staff appear
to be the main reason for the observed high level of
en-route ATFM delays.

Elementary/ collapsed sectors:

The airspace is divided into elementary
sectors which can be merged into larger
(collapsed) sectors. Subject to workload
and staff availability, the sector
configurations are adjusted to traffic
demand.
En-route capacity shortfalls may result
from structural limitations (i.e. inability
to further split sectors to accommodate
the demand) or staffing limitations (i.e.
inability deploy maximum configurations
due to staff availability).

5.2.35 Whereas the information on ANSPs capacity planning shared at European level enables to
monitor a number of technical and operational details (software upgrades, route changes,
etc.), information on staffing is limited. However, staff availability, flexible deployment
of staff and flexible sector opening schemes are key to efficiently meeting future capacity
requirements.
5.2.36 Additionally to the day-to-day management, the training of staff in preparation of a
system upgrade may result in a temporary staff shortage and delays in the actual
implementation phase. Part of the delay at Rhein/ Karlsruhe is for example due to staff
training in preparation of the implementation of the VAFORIT system planned for 2010.
5.2.37 Figure 63 shows where major ATM system upgrades are planned between 2010 and 2013
(see also Figure 133: on page 117). Those ATM system upgrades pose a considerable
challenge as they are likely to result in a temporary reduction of capacity.

Figure 63: ACC plans to implement new ATM systems (2010-13)

PRR 2009

50

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

5.2.38 Notwithstanding the unprecedented drop in traffic and the resulting need to contain cost,
adequate and pro-active capacity planning at local and ATM network level is essential to
be able to cope with future traffic demand while managing all the planned ATM system
upgrades without excessive en-route ATFM delays.
5.2.39 In this context, the setting of binding capacity performance targets as part of the SES
performance scheme will need to be supported by locally drawn up performance plans
and a reinforced network management function to be established within the Single
European Sky initiative.

5.3

En-route Flight Efficiency

5.3.1

Deviations from the optimum trajectory generate additional flight time, fuel burn and
costs to airspace users. This section reviews en-route flight efficiency. Flight efficiency in
terminal control areas (TMA) and at main airports is addressed in Chapter 6.

5.3.2

En-route flight efficiency has a horizontal (distance) and a vertical (altitude) component.
The focus of this section is on horizontal en-route flight efficiency, which is in general of
higher economic and environmental importance than the vertical component across
Europe as a whole. The additional fuel burn due to en-route flight inefficiencies
(horizontal and vertical) has an environmental impact, which is addressed in more detail
in the environmental assessment in Chapter 7 of this report.

5.3.3

The horizontal en-route flight

efficiency indicator takes a single
flight perspective. It relates
observed performance to the great
circle distance, which is an ideal
(and unachievable) situation where
each aircraft would be alone in the
system and not be subject to any
constraints. In high density areas,
flow-separation is essential for
safety and capacity reasons with a
consequent impact on flight
efficiency.

Horizontal flight efficiency:

The KPI for horizontal en-route flight efficiency is En-route
extension. En-route extension is defined as the difference
between the length of the actual trajectory (A) and the Great
Circle Distance (G) between the departure and arrival terminal
areas (radius of 30 NM around airports). Where a flight
departs or arrives outside Europe, only that part inside
European airspace is considered. En-route extension can be
further broken down into:

direct route extension which is the difference between the

actual flown route (A) and the direct course (D); and,

the TMA interface which is the difference between the

direct course (D) and the great circle distance (G).
Actual
route
(A)

Airport B

5.3.4

5.3.5

It should be noted that there might

be a difference between the great
circle distance used for the
calculation of the horizontal flight
efficiency and the economic
preferences of airspace users which
may be influenced by factors such
as wind, route charges, and
congested airspace (see also
Chapter 7).

Direct route
extension
D
G
A

Direct
Course
(D)
TMA
interface

30 NM

Airport A

En-route
extension

Great
Circle
(G)

Consequently, the aim is not the unachievable target of direct routing for all flights at any
time, but to achieve an acceptable balance between flight efficiency and capacity
requirements while respecting safety standards. These trade-offs are addressed in more
detail in the Economic Assessment in Chapter 9.

PRR 2009

51

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

EUROPEAN HORIZONTAL FLIGHT EFFICIENCY TARGET

In May 2007, the Provisional Council of EUROCONTROL adopted the horizontal flight
efficiency target of a reduction of the average route extension per flight by two kilometres
per annum until 2010.

5.3.7

While the European flight efficiency target could not be achieved thus far, significant
focus has been put on initiatives to improve the European airspace design and network
management.
route extension (km/flight)

5.3.6

60
48.7 km

48.2 km

48.9 km

48.8 km

Impact of CFMU
software change

49.5 km

40

Direct en-route
extension
- 2 km per flight
(agreed target)

20

Agreed target

0
2005
km/flight

TMA Interface

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

900
880
860
840
820
800

Great circle
distance

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Source:
PRC Analysis/CFMU

Figure 64: Horizontal flight efficiency target

5.3.8

5.3.9

In 2009, route extension showed a slight increase

compared to 2008 which is predominantly the result
of a change in the algorithm used for the calculation
of the actual CFMU flight profile (A) as of May
2009. PRC analysis suggests that the algorithm
change resulted in an artificial increase of the actual
flight distance (A) by 1.9km per flight (see Figure
64) which masks improvements to the route network
in 2009. The analysis in this chapter has been
adjusted accordingly to enable time series analyses.
If this effect is taken into account, average en-route
extension was 47.6 km per flight in 2009 which is a
year on year improvement of 1.2 km.

CFMU flight profile:

The CFMU flight profile is based on
flight plan information which is updated
with surveillance data provided by the
ANSPs and position report data provided
by aircraft operators.
The CFMU only updates flight profiles if
the
position
received
deviates
horizontally by more than 20 NM from
the
current
estimated
trajectory.
Although the CFMU flight profile is not
the exact replication of the actual flown
profile, it is a close approximation and
work is carried out to further improve the
data and the algorithms used for the
calculation.

5.3.10 The improvement needs to be seen together with the further increase of the average great
circle distance operated in the European airspace, as shown in Figure 64. It means that the
proportion of medium/long haul flights operated by aircraft operators in Europe is
constantly increasing and the proportion of short-haul flights is decreasing.
5.3.11 While this is still far from the target, it is a substantial improvement representing a total
saving of approximately 36 000 t of fuel in 2009 which corresponds to 120 000 t of CO2.

PRR 2009

52

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

These improvements are in line with the estimations made by EUROCONTROL on the
implementation of the European ATS Route Network Version 6.
5.3.12 With a view to the preparation of targets on flight efficiency within the SES performance
scheme the following lessons can be learned from past experience. As suggested in the
PRC Discussion paper on the implementation of the SES II Performance Scheme
[Ref.13], the indicator to be used for target setting should:

be based on the most accurate data available to ensure a stable and continuous basis
for the analysis and to avoid performance changes related to data quality; and,

consider changes in average flight length and therefore related route extension to
average flight distance.

EUROPEAN EN-ROUTE FLIGHT EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE

5.3.13 In response to the high jet fuel price in 2008, IATA, EUROCONTROL and CANSO
jointly developed the Flight Efficiency Plan [Ref. 19] which aims at:

enhancing European en-route airspace design

through annual improvements of European
ATS
route
network
including
the
implementation of additional CDRs for main
traffic flows, improvements for the most
penalising city pairs and the support of free
route initiatives;

RAD & CDRs

The Route Availability Document (RAD)
collects restrictions that govern and limit
the use of the route network. RAD
restrictions contribute to the safety and
capacity by ensuring that the ATCOs
workload is not impacted by traffic flying
unusual routes.

improving airspace utilisation and route

network availability including support to
aircraft operators, to improve flight plans and
the use of civil military airspace and to reduce
the number of RADs where possible;

efficient TMA design and utilisation, through the implementation of advance

navigation capabilities, and CDAs; and,

Optimising airport operations, through Airport Collaborative Decision Making.

Conditional Routes (CDRs) are nonpermanent routes of the route network

usually established through shared
airspace (civil/military) or to address
specific ATC conditions (sectorisation,
etc.). They can be planned and used under
specific conditions.

5.3.14 The average route extension in 2009 (compared to great circle distance) was 47.6 km
(5.4%), of which 32.3 km (3.7%) is attributable to the efficiency of the en-route network
and 15.3 km (1.7%) to the interfaces with the TMAs, as outlined in Figure 65.
922 km

Flight distance com pared to great circle

8%

4.0%

3.9%

3.7%

2007

2008

2009

4.0%
2006

4%
5.4%

4.1%

6%
En-route
extension
47.6

890 km

6.0% 5.9% 5.8% 5.8%

5.6% 5.4%

2005

Direct Course
(D)

3.7%

4.1%

Direct route
extension
32.3

2004

Actual route
(A)

2%

TMA interface
15.3
Great Circle
(G)

1.7%

0%

874 km

TMA interface

Direct route extension

Figure 65: En-route flight efficiency indicator

PRR 2009

53

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

5.3.15 Horizontal en-route flight efficiency has been measured since 2004 and a target was set
by the Provisional Council in 2006. Although the target has not been met, the results in
2009 show improvement in all 3 components of en-route flight efficiency and confirm the
trend initiated in 2008. This demonstrates that the establishment of clear performance
measures and targets is a powerful instrument in driving the performance of the European
system.
As shown in Figure 66, for a better understanding of the various areas where ANS has an
impact, direct route extension is broken down into three components: (1) en-route
airspace design, (2) route utilisation and (3) ATC routing.

Actual route
(A)

Direct Course
(D)

4.5%
3.9%

4.6%
4.0%

4.8%
4.1%

4.8%
4.1%

4.8%
4.1%

3.7%

3.9%

2009

+ 34.2 km

3.9%

En-route design

2008

+ 32.3 km

Shortest Route
(S)

4.0%

3.7%

2007

0.6%

4.0%

+ 5.0 km

Direct route
extension

2006

Route utilisation

4.1%

Filed Route
(F)

5.0%
4.8%
4.6%
4.4%
4.2%
4.0%
3.8%
3.6%
3.4%
3.2%
3.0%

2005

-0.8%

4.1%

- 6.9 km

4.1%

ATC routing

4.9%

Flight distance compared to direct

course (D)

2004

5.3.16

Actual vs. direct course

Filed vs. direct course
Shortest planned vs. direct course

Figure 66: Direct route extension by components

EN-ROUTE ROUTE DESIGN

5.3.17 The en-route design component relates the shortest available route (S) to the direct course
(D). As can be seen in Figure 66, it is by far the most important driver of horizontal enroute extension (3.9% in 2009).
5.3.18 The improvement of the route network is a Pan-European issue as the improvement of
flight efficiency within individual States/FAB may not deliver the desired objective,
especially if the airspace is comparatively small and the interface between States/FAB is
not addressed properly.
5.3.19 For this reason, one of the European Union wide performance targets within the SES II
performance scheme should be the development of an improvement plan for the PanEuropean network in collaboration with States/FABs (see also environmental assessment
in Chapter 7).
5.3.20 There is also scope for improving flight efficiency at network, State or local level through
the development and deployment of new concepts. Initiatives aimed at free route selection
(Sweden, Portugal, and Ireland) or the stepped deployment of the European night direct
routes network (FABEC, BLUEMED Italy Greece, Spain, UK, Austria, Slovenia)
further help improving flight efficiency within States and within the network once they
are operational (Figure 67).
5.3.21 Free Route initiatives will continue to evolve in the coming years with further projects
in Finland, Norway, MUAC, Serbia plus other projects in the context of the FABs. The

PRR 2009

54

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

further deployment of the European night direct routes network will continue in the
context of FABEC, BLUEMED, FABCE, DANUBE. The efforts for network
harmonisation of the free routes initiatives must be fully supported.

LISBOA
FIR/UIR

More direct Night route network

Ireland/UK/Maastricht/Germany
Figure 67: Examples of national and local flight efficiency initiatives

Portugal > FL245- May 2009

Improved flight efficiency in Portugal

5.3.22 Figure 68 shows the

improvement in flight
efficiency in Portuguese
airspace following the
implementation of free
route selection above FL
245 in May 2009.
5.3.23 A year on year comparison
for
June
shows
an
improvement of 0.6% for
2009
which
is
a
considerable reduction of
en-route extension.

1.4%

(fight efficiency within State)

1.2%
1.0%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009

Source: PRC analysis

Figure 68: free route selection - Portugal

5.3.24 The national and regional impact on horizontal flight efficiency is addressed in more
detail in section 5.4 of this chapter.
ROUTE UTILISATION
5.3.25 The route utilisation component addresses flight planning. It relates the filed route (F) to
the shortest available route (S) and accounts for 0.6% of the distance flown in 2009 (see
Figure 66). Compared to last year, route utilisation improved by approximately 0.4 km
per flight which corresponds to a total saving of 3.4 million km in 2009.
5.3.26 There are several reasons as to why there is a difference between the shortest plannable
route and the route filed by aircraft operators:

the shortest route might only be temporarily available due to airspace restrictions;

airspace users may file longer routes due to wind effects, lower route charges or to
avoid ATFM restrictions and;

airspace users might simply not be aware of the shortest available route.

PRR 2009

55

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

5.3.27 As outlined in 5.3.13, the Flight Efficiency Plan [Ref. 19] aims at improving airspace
utilisation and route network availability.
5.3.28 Considerable savings can be achieved by improving the user routing16 and by further
reducing the number and duration of RAD restrictions, particularly during night times.
5.3.29 Improvements in route utilisation will require the full collaboration of all involved
parties.
ATC ROUTING

5.3.30 The ATC routing component addresses tactical changes in routing in the en-route phase
given by air traffic controllers and therefore relates the actual flown routes (A) to the
routes filed by the airspace users (F).
5.3.31 Similar to 2008, more direct ATC routings are estimated to reduce the flight distance by
0.8% on average in 2009 (see Figure 66). Frequently, ATC shortcuts given on a tactical
basis are usually associated with the flexible use of airspace.

5.4

National and Regional Impact on horizontal flight efficiency

5.4.1

Figure 69 provides indicators of route extension per Functional Airspace Block (FAB). It
furthermore identifies route extension due to internal State airspace design issues (dark
blue), interfaces across States within the FAB (blue) and interfaces with other FABs
(yellow). More details can be found in a specific PRR report [Ref.11].
Additional en-route distance per FAB 2009
NEFAB

1.2% 0.5% 1.9%

European
average
(excluding TMA
interface)

3.9%

NUAC

1.2%

0.7% 2.0%

10.7%
Baltic

1.3%

2.4%

1.0%

24.7%
Danube

1.0%

SW PortugalSpain

64.5%

FAB CE

Routing within state

0.8% 3.4%

2.3%

1.0%

1.4%

3.3%

UK-Ireland

2.9%

0.8% 4.0%

Blue Med

2.9%

1.0%

FAB EC

State interfaces within FAB

3.0%

1.6%

0.0%

FAB interfaces
Source:
PRC Analysis/ CFMU

0.8% 4.8%

3.3%

2.0%

4.1%

4.0%

6.0%

Additional en-route distance

/ Great Circle Distance

Figure 69: Additional en-route distance per FAB in 2009

5.4.2

16

A further breakdown of the flight efficiency indicators by States is given in Figure 70. It
shows that especially for smaller States a large proportion of the horizontal en-route
extension is due to the interface with adjacent States (i.e. FYROM) which may not always
be under the control of that State. A detailed list of the top 50 most constraining points in
Europe can be found in Annex VI.

It should be noted that, in many cases, the shortest route even if not planned is already given on a tactical basis by
Air Traffic Control. Improvements in route utilisation could reduce potential improvements in ATC Routing.

PRR 2009

56

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

5.4.3

Particularly with a view to the setting of binding performance targets within the SES
performance scheme it is important to note that the use of national flight efficiency targets
is influenced by the dependency of the route structure on adjacent States. It furthermore
highlights the importance of the development of a Pan-European network improvement
plan in collaboration with States/FABs.
80
Additional distance (million kilometres)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
14%

Additional distance/Great Circle distance (%)

12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%

Within State

State Interface

Malta

Moldova

Albania

Slovenia

Finland

Bosnia-

Slovak

FYROM

Canary

Croatia

Norway

Portugal

Hungary

Denmark

Ireland

TMA interface

Bulgaria

Ukraine

Serbia &

Czech

Cyprus

Romania

Poland

Sweden

Austria

Switzerland

Netherlands

Greece

Belgium

Spain

Turkey

UK

Italy

France

Germany

0%

Source: PRC Analysis

Figure 70: Additional en-route distance per State in 2009

5.5

Access to and use of shared airspace

5.5.1

Access is one of the ICAO key performance areas. This

section focuses on access to shared airspace by military
and civil users.

5.5.2

In order to meet the increasing needs of both

stakeholders in terms of volume and time, a close
civil/military co-operation and co-ordination across all
ATM-related activities is key to maximising the use of
scarce airspace.

5.5.3

From a civil point of view, the benefit of access to shared airspace is improved en-route
flight efficiency (see previous section). From a military viewpoint, access to shared
airspace enables military training programmes. The shared airspace should be located in
proximity to airbases in order to optimise transit times to the training areas.

5.5.4

The PRC report Evaluation of Civil/Military airspace utilisation in 2007 [Ref. 20]
raised two main points:

17

Shared airspace
Shared is AMC17 manageable
Special Use Airspace (SUA) that
consists of individual airspace
volumes and opening times and can
be used alternatively for civil traffic
and military activities. It is no longer
designated as either military or civil
airspace, but considered as one
continuum and used flexibly on a
day-to-day basis.

for States to increase their commitment to design and implement appropriate routes
and sector configurations to improve the utilisation of shared airspace particularly
during weekends, and

to establish a performance measurement system for the utilisation shared airspace.

Airspace Management Cell.

PRR 2009

57

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

5.5.5

In order to facilitate civil/military coordination and to support a more consistent crossborder implementation of the flexible use of airspace (FUA) planning process,
EUROCONTROL has launched a number of initiatives such as LARA18, CIMACT19 and
PRISMIL.20

5.5.6

Of particular relevance is the need to ensure that airspace is used when made available
particularly when the shared airspace is temporarily segregated either for military or civil
airspace users.

5.5.7

Although there is virtually no

military
activity
during
weekends, only a small
reduction of direct route
extension can be observed, as
shown in Figure 71.

5.5.9

Direct route extension

5.5.8

5.0%

Although
a
gradual
improvement of direct route
extension is visible between
2004 and 2009, the gap
between week and weekend
remains stable.

4.5%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

4.0%

3.5%

3.0%
2004

2005

2006

2007

Week Days

2008

2009

Week End

Figure 71: Direct route extension -week/weekend

In terms of performance measurement there was further progress in 2009 and PRISMIL
KPIs are now available for Belgium, France and Germany.

5.5.10 Figure 72 shows performance indicators for Belgium, France, and Germany collected
within PRISMIL to help evaluate and improve the use of shared airspace. The indicators
relate to the use of shared airspace above flight level 200 in 2009.
Indicators on the use of shared airspace (2009)
(flight level 200 and above)
Use of reserved SUA time vs.
release of reservation

100%

100%
21%

21%

28%

Time spent in SUA vs.

Total mission time

Released after start of

booked time

80%

80%

60%

Released with less than 3

hours notice before start of
booking

60%

40%

Released with more than 3

hours notice before start of
booking

40%

63%

3%

68%

89%

0%

source : PRISMIL

Belgium

0%
Germany

20%

France

84%

% of time used when

allocated

20%

Belgium

76%

Germany

56%

15%

France

20%

Figure 72: Performance indicators on access to shared airspace

18
19
20

Local And sub-Regional Airspace management support system.

Civil-Military ATM/ Air defence Coordination Tool.
The Pan-European Repository of Information Supporting Civil-Military Key Performance Indicators (PRISMIL).
programme was launched in June 2006 to develop and implement harmonised automated data collection in
support of civil- military KPIs

PRR 2009

58

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

5.5.11 They indicate that:

the effective use of the time allocated to the military was highest in Germany (68%),
followed by France (63%) and Belgium (56%);

of the remaining time when airspace was booked but not used by the military, 20% of
the reserved time was released for civil use with at least 3 hours notice in Belgium,
followed by France (15%) and Germany (3%);

the remaining time was released with less than 3 hours notice before the start of the
booked time;

mission effectiveness was highest in Belgium in 2009. On average, 89% of the total
mission time was spent for training and 11% for the transit between the airspace and
the shared airspace, which is a high level of mission effectiveness.

5.5.12 Implementation of indicators by more States and sharing of best practice should be
further encouraged. Progress still needs to be made both in developing and offering routes
through shared airspace and ensuring that these routes are effectively used by civil users,
especially during weekends when military activity is minimal.
5.5.13 With a view to the start of the SES performance scheme in 2012, more work is required to
ensure that all parameters necessary for the evaluation of the effective use of shared
airspace are available.

5.6

Conclusions

5.6.1

Although ATFM en-route delay decreased from 1.9 to 1.2 minutes per flight in summer
2009, the en-route delay target of 1 minute per flight was not met in 2009,
notwithstanding the significant decline in traffic which reduced traffic levels far below
planned ANSP capacity in 2009.

5.6.2

For the full year, the percentage of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes due to enroute ATFM restriction decreased from 4.0% in 2008 to 2.6% in 2009.

5.6.3

While most European ACCs provided sufficient capacity, overall en-route ATFM delay
did not decrease in line with traffic, which was due to only a limited number of ACCs.
The six most congested ACCs (out of 71) accounted for 50% of all en-route ATFM delay
in 2009.

5.6.4

En-route ATFM delays originated mainly from Warsaw ACC (10%), Madrid ACC (8%)
and the South-east axis stretching from Austria via Croatia, Greece and Cyprus (28%).
The German ACCs Rhein/Karlsruhe and Langen together accounted for some 18% of
total en-route delays in 2009.

5.6.5

Shortcomings in the planning and deployment of staff appear to be the main drivers of enroute ATFM delays at the most congested ACCs. The planning and management of
capacity is the core responsibility of ANSPs. At present, there is limited information for
the review of capacity plans and their execution, e.g. staff availability.

5.6.6

The unprecedented drop in traffic helped to close existing capacity gaps. It is important to
continue to close existing capacity gaps, to match capacity plans with forecast demand
and to have some flexibility in accommodating unforeseen changes in traffic.

5.6.7

In view of the staffing issues and the high number of planned ATM system upgrades over
the next three years, an adequate and pro-active capacity planning at local and ATM
network level is essential to make sure that delay targets are met. The network
management function has an important role to play.

PRR 2009

59

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

5.6.8

The SES II package, especially capacity target setting and the network management
function, is expected to improve the capacity planning process at local and network
levels.

5.6.9

Even though the European horizontal en-route flight efficiency target could not be met in
2009, improvements are notable. Total savings in European airspace due to improved enroute design and flight planning amounted to approximately 36 000 t of fuel in 2009
which corresponds to 120 000 t of CO2.

5.6.10 En-route airspace design is by far the most important driver of en-route extension. The
improvement of flight efficiency is a pan-European issue which requires the development
and the implementation of a Pan-European network improvement plan in cooperation
with States and ANSPs.
5.6.11 Implementation of indicators by more States and sharing of best practice should be
further encouraged. Progress still needs to be made both in developing and offering routes
through shared airspace and ensuring that these routes are effectively used by civil users,
especially during weekends when military activity is minimal.
5.6.12 With a view to the start of the SES performance scheme in 2012, more work is required to
ensure that all parameters necessary for the evaluation of the effective use of shared
airspace are available.

PRR 2009

60

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

Chapter 6: ANS Performance at main Airports

6

ANS performance at main airports

KEY MESSAGES OF THIS CHAPTER

There have been some improvements in ANS performance at airports in 2009.

The gathering of different data sets (airlines, CFMU, airport operators) and their continuous validation
are necessary conditions for enhancing the accuracy of ANS performance review at airports. The PRC
is developing these data through the ATMAP process.

Air Navigation Services can adequately sustain the declared airport capacity in daily operations during
favourable conditions. ANS performance at airports is more affected by weather conditions than traffic
changes. Current work should continue to assess weather conditions and its impact on airport
performance.

Wind is above all the most impacting weather phenomena on airport operations. ATFM delays due to
wind represent the vast majority of ATFM weather delays in Istanbul and Heathrow.

Regulatory authorities, ANSPs and ATM R&D should deliver on-time operational concepts, systems
and procedures to improve ANS performance during unfavourable wind conditions.

The progress in the implementation of airport CDM is not fast enough and should be strongly
encouraged.

6.1

Introduction

6.1.1

This
chapter
reviews
the
ANS-related
performance at the top 20 European airports in
terms of IFR aircraft movements in 2009. These
airports are coordinated or facilitated in
accordance with the European Council Regulation
95/1993
[Ref. 21]
including
subsequent
modifications and the IATA Scheduling Manual
[Ref. 22].

6.1.2

The review is based on the first version of the

performance measurement framework published
in the report ATMAP performance framework
[Ref. 23]. This was developed in consultation with
some of the main ANS providers, airlines and Peak Service Rate
airport operators in Europe.
The operational capacity is set

6.1.3

The analysis presented in this chapter is based on

information
currently
available
within
EUROCONTROL. When flight data from airport
operators could be used, the accuracy of the
analysis could be enhanced. Work is ongoing
within the ATMAP project to improve the quality
and the completeness of the information collected
and to further validate and refine the performance
indicators. A more refined version of the ATMAP
performance framework will be published in
Spring 2011.

6.1.4

ANS-related performance at airports is the result

of complex activities conducted by numerous
actors (Airport operator, Slot coordinator, local
ATC provider, CFMU, Airlines, Ground handlers,
and other service providers located at the airport).
ANS-related performance is therefore only

PRR 2009

61

Airport Declared capacity

It is the number of aircraft movements
per unit of time (usually one hour) that
an airport could accept. The airport
declared capacity is the output of the
capacity declaration which is a process
conducted in accordance with IATA
scheduling manual and EC Regulation
95/93 and used to set a limit on the
number of movements per hour or
fraction thereof. The airport declared
capacity could be quite complex and
may contain various rolling parameters
to control the concentration of demand.

according to the specific situation of the

day or hours of operations. The
operational
capacity
cannot
be
measured directly, but could be inferred
by the service rate. Peak Service Rate
is the 1% percentile of the average
number of movements per rolling hours
during the peak month of the year in
busiest periods.
Unimpeded and additional time.
The unimpeded time represents the
duration of unconstrained flights from
point A to point B as a reference. The
additional time is the duration that is
supplementary to the unimpeded time.
From a single flight perspective the
additional time is a delay which is
generated by the need to ensure traffic
queuing at the runway and by system
inefficiencies. Additional times are

Chapter 6: ANS performance at main airports

partially in the hands of ANS providers.

6.1.5

The PRC focuses its activity on measuring how

well ANS uses the available capacity at airports.
The PRC does not evaluate requirements to
expand airport capacity (e.g. through new
infrastructure such as additional runways or
terminals). It is acknowledged that the lack of
airport capacity is already a constraint nowadays
in some airports and it could become even more
acute across Europe in the forthcoming years
[Ref. 24]. The Community Observatory on airport
capacity [Ref. 25] has been established by the EC
to address airport capacity constraints.

6.1.6

Safety is addressed in Chapter 3. The air transport

framework is presented in Chapter 4. The
environmental component of airport system
performance is discussed in Chapter 7.

6.1.7

The ANS related performances at airports include:

applied to measure efficiency in the

taxi-out (from off-block to take off) and
in
ASMA
(Arrival
Sequencing
Metering Area; from 100 Nm and/or
40Nm until landing). The methodology
is explained in the ATM airport
(ATMAP) Framework.
ANS-related off block delays .
Off-block delays measure the difference
between planned or scheduled events
and actual events. Off block delays is
when the planned or scheduled time to
leave the stand is delayed. This chapter
distinguishes between two types of
ANS-related off-block delays: predeparture
delays
originated
by
constraints at the airport of departure
(IATA delay coding 89, 71, 75, 76) and
ATFM delays originated by situations at
the airport of destination (arrival ATFM
delays codes G, C, S, W).

The runway peak throughput (maximum service rate) compared to the airport
declared capacity21.

The delays experienced at the stand (off block delay) due to constraints in the
departure movement area or due to constraints in the destination airport

The time durations of the arrival flight phase (100Nm or 40 Nm out up to landing)
and of the taxi-out phase (since leaving the departure stand until take-off).

6.1.8

The delays experienced at the stand due to turn-around processes, late coming aircraft are
presented in Chapter 4. ATFM-En-route delays are presented in Chapter 4 and5.

6.1.9

The airport capacity is declared in advance of each IATA season at coordinated airports.
It represents an agreed compromise between the maximisation of airport infrastructure
utilisation and the quality of service considered as locally acceptable (level of tolerable
delay) in a given context of constraints (environmental constraint notably). This trade-off
is usually agreed between the airport managing body, the airlines operating the airport
and the local ATC provider during the airport capacity declaration process.

6.1.10 In general, the main ANS role at coordinated airports is:

to provide sufficient elements for the determination of the airport declared capacity;

to contribute to the decision making process;

to sustain the declared capacity in daily operations at the best possible quality of
service for airspace users (i.e. operate the runway at the level of throughput and
traffic queuing agreed in the scheduling phase).

6.1.11 A certain level of queuing time is unavoidable and even necessary to maximize runway
throughput, therefore the total absence of queuing times or delay at busy airports is not a
desirable objective.

21

The airport declared capacity compared to the maximum service rates defines the headroom in the airport
declared capacity and, in some cases, is the most important defining factor for performance particularly at
airports which schedule up to the declared capacity for significant periods.

PRR 2009

62

Chapter 6: ANS performance at main airports

6.2

High level ANS-related performance at airports (2008-2009)

6.2.1

The following ANS-related performance mainly characterises the ANS contribution in the
context of airport operations:

the peak service rate in daily operations compared to the airport declared capacity. In
presence of continuous demand, when the peak service rate is at or above the declared
capacity, this is a signal that the airport declared capacity could be sustained in daily
operations. The airport capacity declaration is a complex exercise which takes into
account many variables; some capacity headroom in daily operations allows to absorb
traffic fluctuations with minimum penalties for airlines, passengers and environment.

the additional time generated by queuing aircraft in the approach and taxi out phases.
When the quality of service is declared in advance during the airport declaration
process, the additional time during approach and taxi out phases indicates the ANS
ability to adhere to the declared values;

6.2.2

The off block delays generated by ATFM regulations, late start-up or push-back approval,
etc. These restrictions are typically used to deal with degraded operating conditions (fog,
wind, runway closures, etc.).

6.2.3

Figure 73 presents indicators for the different phases of flight. Delays experienced at the
stand and in the block-to-block phases have different impacts on aircraft. Whereas offblock delays (at the gate) result in extra time experienced at the stands, additional times in
airborne holdings and in the taxi out phase also generate additional fuel burn.
ARRIVALS (inbound)
Upstream
ATFM delays
(at gate)

DEPARTURES (outbound)

Additional time
within the
ASMA
(airborne)

Airport

Pre-departure
delays
(at gate)

Additional time
in the taxi-out
phase (ground)

Figure 73: Measuring additional time and off-block delays" in different flight phases
6.2.4

The additional times between the landing time and the in-block time (aircraft arrived and
stopped at the stand) are not measured.

AIRPORT CAPACITY

6.2.5

The analyses of peak service rate versus peak declared capacity was conducted for the
global (Figure 74) and the arrival capacity.

6.2.6

Figure 74 shows that the peak global declared capacity has remained constant over the
period at all airports. At most airports, the peak service rate is equal or just above the
declared capacity. The fact that there are differences between the service rate and airport
declared capacity is factual. It does not indicate that there is anything wrong with
declaring the capacity close to the maximum operational capacity. It could be a signal that
the airport declared capacity is sustained in daily operations. However, additional analysis
would be needed to understand in detail the reason why peak service rate is below, at or
above, the peak declared capacity.

PRR 2009

63

Chapter 6: ANS performance at main airports

Peak Declared Capacity

120

Service rate

100
80
60
40
20

Munich
(MUC)

London
(LHR)

Roma
(FCO)

2009

2008

2007

2009

2008

2007

2009

2008

2007

2009

2008

2007

2009

2008

2007

2009

2008

2007

2009

2008

2007

2009

2008

2007

2009

2008

Amsterdam Madrid
(AMS)
(MAD)

Frankfurt CopenhagenStockholm Brussels

(FRA)
(CPH)
(ARN)
(BRU)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20

Paris
(ORY)

Milan
(MXP)

Zurich
(ZRH)

Vienna
(VIE)

Barcelona
(BCN)

Oslo
(OSL)

Athens
(ATH)

2009

2008

2007

2009

2008

2007

2009

2008

2007

2009

2008

2007

2009

2008

2007

2009

2008

2007

2009

2008

2007

2009

2008

2007

2009

2008

2007

2009

2008

0
2007

Number of movements by hour

Paris
(CDG)

2007

2009

2008

0
2007

Number of movements by hour

140

London Dusseldorf Istanbul

(LGW)
(DUS)
(IST)

Data source : CFMU, Slot Coordination

Period : 2008 - 2009 / 0600 to 2159

Figure 74: Global peak service rate and declared capacity at top 20 airports22
6.2.7

According to the additional analysis conducted by the PRU on the arrival peak service
rate and declared capacity, there are 9 airports out of 20 where the arrival peak service
rate is below the arrival declared capacity. Most of these airports do not generate
significant delay at normal operating conditions; i.e. the peak service rate only reflects the
low level of the demand. However, this is not the case in Athens, Madrid, Wien where
ATFM regulations are applied nearly each day of the year, at the same time of the day
with a capacity lower than the declared one.

6.2.8

Figure 75 shows the number of hours during the peak month in 2009 with hourly
movements over 90% of the declared capacity. One can see that the flight demand at
some airports is at or above the airport declared capacity for a consistent number of hours
(14 hours per day at London (LHR) and Istanbul (IST), more than 10 hours per day at
London (LGW) and Frankfurt (FRA). It should be noted that the drop in traffic is a
reason to explain the differences between 2009 and 2008 . A similar analysis was
conducted for arrival throughput, but no significant differences were noted, with the
exception of Zurich which had 100 hours of arrival throughput over 90%.

6.2.9

Given the complexities in airport scheduling, even few congested hours a day could
prevent airlines to provide flight services to accommodate passenger demand at requested
times.

6.2.10 In some airports, the reason for maintaining the coordination process is not traffic, but
specific circumstances such as noise constraints in Paris (ORY) and Amsterdam (AMS).

22

The data sent by Turkey to the CFMU do not enable the Service rate for Istanbul airport to be computed.

PRR 2009

64

Chapter 6: ANS performance at main airports

16
2008

Number of hours per day during peak month

with traffic over 90% of declared capacity

14

2009

12
10
8
6
4

Copenhagen (CPH)

Stockholm (ARN)

Athens (ATH)

Milan (MXP)

Paris (ORY)

Oslo (OSL)

Amsterdam (AMS)

Roma (FCO)

Brussels (BRU)

Zurich (ZRH)

Madrid (MAD)

Barcelona (BCN)

Vienna (VIE)

Munich (MUC)

Dusseldorf (DUS)

Paris (CDG)

Frankfurt (FRA)

London (LGW)

London (LHR)

Istanbul (IST)

Source : CFMU, Slot Coordination

Period : 2008 - 2009 / 0600 to 2159

Figure 75: Global throughput over 90% of the declared capacity

6.3

ANS-related service quality observed at the analysed airports

AIRPORT ATFM ARRIVAL DELAYS

6.3.1

ATFM regulations should only be used to cope with temporary constraints at the arrival
airport (unfavourable weather conditions, malfunctioning of facilities, staff shortage,
etc.). When ATFM regulations are systematically used in other circumstances, it is likely
that ATC capacity or airport capacity declarations are not consistent each other or ATFM
regulations are not efficiently used (see PRR7 par. 4.7).

6.3.2

It should be emphasised that ATFM delays that are considered in this section are
experienced at the airport of departure due to constraints at the arrival airport.

6.3.3

Figure 76 shows that ATFM

regulations are mainly used at
airports to cope with adverse
weather conditions. 2009 shows
some improvement over 2008, the
performance would need to be seen
in the light of prevailing weather
conditions. Work is in progress to
develop indicators which will allow
capturing consistently the weather
condition.

6.3.4

6.3.5

Istanbul (IST), Vienna (VIE),

Madrid (MAD) and Athens (ATH)
use ATFM regulations to overcome
capacity constraints during good
weather conditions.

ATFM delay [min/arrival]

1.2
2008

1.0

2009

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Capacity Code
(G,C,S)

Weather Code
(W)

G Aerodrome capacity
C ATC Capacity
S ATC Staffing

All other codes

W Weather

data so urce : CFM U - P erio d : 2008 - 2009 0600 to 2159

Figure 76: European average of arrival ATFM

regulations (top 20 airports)

Wind is however above all the most impacting weather phenomena on airports working
close to their capacity limit. ATFM delays due to wind represent 86% of all weather
ATFM delays at Istanbul (IST) and 71% at London (LHR).

PRR 2009

65

Chapter 6: ANS performance at main airports

6.3.6

The applied separation minima in Europe are consistent with ICAO standards in a radar
environment and are based on distance. Therefore the time between aircraft increases, for
instance, when they suffer from a strong head wind component. Time based separations
would allow maintaining the same runway throughput under different wind situations.
This could be achieved through a modification to ICAO Standards and the use of
advanced working organisations and systems (Meteorological infrastructures,
AMAN/DMAN tools, PBN, etc) .
7
ATFM delay [min/arrival]

All other codes

6

Weather Code (W)

Capacity Code (G,C,S)

4
3
2
1

Istanbul
(IST)

Frankfurt
(FRA)

Vienna
(VIE)

Athens
(ATH)

London
(LHR)

Brussels
(BRU)

Munich
(MUC)

Madrid
(MAD)

Paris
(CDG)

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

Paris
(ORY)

8
W Weather
G Aerodrome Capacity
C ATC Capacity
S ATC Staffing

ATFM delay [min/arrival]

7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Zurich
(ZRH)

Amsterdam Dusseldorf
(AMS)
(DUS)

London
(LGW)

Milan
(MXP)

Roma Copenhagen Oslo

(FCO)
(CPH)
(OSL)

Barcelona
(BCN)

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

Stockholm
(ARN)

Source : CFMU
Period : 2008 - 2009
0600 to 2159

Figure 77: Arrival ATFM regulations at the top 20 airports

6.3.7

Further analyses have shown that, in normal operating conditions, Istanbul used arrival
ATFM regulations with a capacity higher than the declared value, while Athens and Wien
systematically used arrival ATFM regulations with a capacity lower than the declared
value. This shows that ANS at the latter two airports (Athens and Wiens) cannot sustain
the airport declared capacity in daily operations. Same situation in Madrid for a
significant amount of ATFM regulated periods.

ADDITIONAL TIMES IN THE ARRIVAL SEQUENCING AND METERING (ASMA) AREA

6.3.8

23

Figure 78 shows the average additional time experienced by arrival traffic for each
airport23. Improvement can be seen in most of airports, but particularly at London LHR
(20% of time reduction compared to a 2% of traffic reduction). The additional time
reduction in Athens is offset by an increase of arrival ATFM delays (see Figure 77).
Further investigations to explain yearly variations should be conducted.

Due to the level of accuracy for landing times at Istanbul (IST) and Stockholm (ARN) in 2008 presently available
within EUROCONTROL, the airport was not included in this analysis.

PRR 2009

66

Chapter 6: ANS performance at main airports

2008
2009

Top 20 average
2008 : 3.0 min/arrival

Istanbul (IST)

Stockholm (ARN)

Amsterdam (AMS)

Copenhagen (CPH)

Brussels (BRU)

Oslo (OSL)

Paris (CDG)

Paris (ORY)

Milan (MXP)

Barcelona (BCN)

Roma (FCO)

Athens (ATH)

Dusseldorf (DUS)

London (LGW)

Zurich (ZRH)

Munich (MUC)

Vienna (VIE)

Frankfurt (FRA)

2.0
1.0
0.0

Madrid (MAD)

2009 : 2.8 min/arrival

7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0

London (LHR)

ASMA additional time [min/arrival]

10.0
9.0
8.0

Source : CFMU
Period : 2008 - 2009 / 0600 to 2159

Figure 78: Approach (ASMA) additional time (40 NM-landing) at top 20 airports
PRE DEPARTURE DELAYS
When there are constraints at the departure airport or in nearby airspace (TMA and/or
approach airspace), departure traffic may be kept on hold at the stand, but without issuing
ATFM regulations. Pre-departure delays due to airside and nearby airspace constraints are
recorded in the ECODA delay reporting system; IATA delay codes 89, (airside and ATC
constraints), 71, 75, 76 (mostly freezing conditions). In a few cases, such as in Munich
(MUC), CDM applications are used to convert a part of taxi-out additional times into offblock delays. However, it is not yet common practice to intentionally convert additional
taxi-out times into off-block delays.
Predeparture delays [min/departure]

6.3.9

1.0

2008
0.8

2009

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Departure Congestion
(IATA code 89)
89
71
75
76

Departure Weather (IATA

code 71, 75, 76)

Restriction at Airport of departure including ATC

Departure Station
De-icing of Aircraft
Removal of snow , ice, w ater and sand f rom airport

data so urce : CODA - perio d : 2008 - 2009 / 0600 to 2159

Figure 79: European Pre-departure delays (top 20 busy airports)

6.3.10 Figure 79 shows pre-departure delays due to constraints in the departure movement area.
IATA code 89 is mostly related to Departure congestion which can be influenced by

PRR 2009

67

Chapter 6: ANS performance at main airports

ANS. In contrast, Departure weather includes freezing conditions24. which cannot be

influenced by ANS (IATA codes 71, 75, 76).
6.3.11 No significant change from 2008 to 2009 for IATA code 89, while some increase in predeparture delays due to weather can be observed in 2009. This would appear to be linked
to the increase in the number of days with freezing conditions Once again the
development of indicators by ATMAP to capture the MET conditions will be an
important element to progress in the understanding of airport performance.

Pre-departure delays [min/departure]

6.3.12 Figure 80 shows the off-block delays related to constraints in the movement area at the
departure airport (IATA 89) and due to weather. No significant improvement across
Europe. Significant deterioration in code 89 occurred in Istanbul (+57% at +4% of traffic)
and in Madrid (+47% at -7% of traffic). Further investigations to explain the
deteriorations should be conducted.
4.0

Departure Weather (IATA code 71, 75, 76)

Departure Congestion (IATA code 89)

3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5

Madrid
(MAD)

Brussels Athens
(BRU)
(ATH)

London
(LGW)

Milan
(MXP)

Paris
(CDG)

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

London
(LHR)

Roma Frankfurt
(FCO)
(FRA)

4.0
71 Departure Station
75 De-icing of Aircraft
76 Removal of snow , ice, w ater and sand from airport
89 Restriction at Airport of departure including ATC

3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5

Paris
(ORY)

Zurich
(ZRH)

Munich
(MUC)

Amsterdam Dusseldorf
(AMS)
(DUS)

Vienna
(VIE)

Stockholm Barcelona
(ARN)
(BCN)

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

0.0
2008

Pre-departure delays [min/departure]

Istanbul
(IST)

2008

2009

2008

0.0

Oslo Copenhagen
(OSL)
(CPH)

Source : CODA
Period : 2008 - 2009 / 0600 to 2159

Figure 80: Pre-departure delays at top 20 busy airports

24

Freezing conditions are when the temperature is lower than +3 degrees in presence of water vapour precipitations
(snow, freezing rain, etc.).

PRR 2009

68

Chapter 6: ANS performance at main airports

TAXI-OUT ADDITIONAL TIMES

Top 20 average
2008 : 5.1 min/arrival

Copenhagen (CPH)

Oslo (OSL)

Athens (ATH)

Frankfurt (FRA)

Paris (ORY)

Milan (MXP)

Dusseldorf (DUS)

Vienna (VIE)

Zurich (ZRH)

Amsterdam (AMS)

Barcelona (BCN)

Madrid (MAD)

Paris (CDG)

London (LGW)

Istanbul (IST)

Roma (FCO)

2.0
1.0
0.0

Munich (MUC)

2009 : 4.9 min/arrival

7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0

Stockholm (ARN)

2008
2009

Brussels (BRU)

10.0
9.0
8.0

London (LHR)

Taxi-out additional time [min/departure]

6.3.13 Figure 81 shows the additional times25 during the taxi-out phase. Some improvements can
be seen in London (LHR & LGW), Barcelona (BCN) and Dsseldorf (DUS).

Source : CODA/CFMU
Period : 2008 - 2009 / 0600 to 2159

Figure 81: Taxi-out additional time at top 20 airports

6.3.14 In May 2009, following a PRC recommendation, the Provisional Council requested the
States to promote the use of airport collaborative decision-making (A-CDM). This could
provide improvements, particularly with regard to a reduction of taxi-out additional times
which may be off-set by an increase of less-costly off-block delays. Currently there are
few but actual progresses in the implementation of CDM project at major airports26.
ESTIMATED TOTAL DELAYS AND ADDITIONAL TIME

6.3.15 Figure 82 provides a consolidated view of off-block delays and additional times related to
ANS. Additional times and ANS-related off-block delays are only partially
interchangeable. Off-block delays are usually used to deal with degraded operating
conditions, while additional times are used to queue traffic in normal operating
conditions. A dramatic reduction of additional times may have negative repercussion in
the airport capacity utilisation.
6.3.16 The left side of Figure 82 reports delays and additional times on the inbound traffic flow
(airport arrival ATFM delays + ASMA additional times). The right side shows the offblock delays and the additional times on the outbound traffic flow (pre-departure and
taxi-out phase).

25
26

CFMU data are used to determine the level of congestion at the airport and CODA data are used for the taxi time
calculations. The methodology is explained in the ATMAP Framework Edition 2009.
Airport CDM European Airport Stakeholder Survey 2009; EUROCONTROL Airport CDM Coordination
Group. The survey reports about the status of CDM implementation in Europe.

PRR 2009

69

Chapter 6: ANS performance at main airports

London (LHR)
Istanbul (IST)
Roma (FCO)
Frankfurt (FRA)
Madrid (MAD)
London (LGW)
Vienna (VIE)
Paris (CDG)
Zurich (ZRH)
Munich (MUC)
Athens (ATH)
Dusseldorf (DUS)
Barcelona (BCN)
Amsterdam (AMS)
Paris (ORY)
Milan (MXP)
Brussels (BRU)
Oslo (OSL)
Copenhagen (CPH)
Stockholm (ARN)

N/A

Arrivals

minutes per arrival

15

10

Departures

minutes per departure

ATFM - OTHER (Equipment, Special event, Strike, etc.)

ATFM- WEATHER
ATFM - ATC & Aerodrome Capacity
Additional ASMA time (TMA airborne)

10

15

Departure Congestion (IATA Codes 89)

Additional time in the taxi-out phase
Source: CFMU/CODA Period : 2009 / 0600 to 2159

Figure 82: Estimated total additional time related to airport airside operations in 2009

Total estimated additional time

[min/mov]

6.3.17 Figure 83 shows the relationship between additional time and airport slot utilisation for
the top 20 busy airports. Additional times increase exponentially with the airport slot
utilisation. However additional times in winter are higher than in summer, although the
airport utilisation is generally lower. This demonstrates that other factors influence
performance, weather in particular. More work is needed to better understand the relation
between service quality, demand management and other factors such as weather
conditions.
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Slot utilisation [%]

Source: CFMU/CODA Period : 2009 / 0600 to 2159

Figure 83: Airport slot utilisation/additional times

6.4

Conclusions

6.4.1

There have been some improvements in ANS performance at airports in 2009

6.4.2

Air Navigation Services at the top 20 major airports can adequately sustain the declared
airport capacity in daily operations during favourable conditions, with the exception of
Vienna, Athens and partially Madrid.

6.4.3

Overall, the performance in Athens, Istanbul, Madrid and Wien has significantly
deteriorated, mainly due to capacity constraints.

PRR 2009

70

Chapter 6: ANS performance at main airports

6.4.4

There were significant improvements in the approach phase at London LHR (20%
reduction of additional time) without increase in ATFM delay, under slightly reduced
traffic (-2%).

6.4.5

ANS performance at airports is more affected by weather conditions than traffic changes
with the European system of airport slot allocation.

6.4.6

The implementation of operational concepts, systems and procedures to improve ANS

performance during unfavourable weather conditions, especially high winds, should be
expedited. The application of time-based separation in final approach instead of distancebased separation will certainly improve the situation. This will require, inter alia,
Meteorological infrastructures, AMAN/DMAN tools and CDM.

PRR 2009

71

Chapter 6: ANS performance at main airports

Chapter 7: Environment
7

Environment

KEY MESSAGES OF THIS CHAPTER

Aviation represents 3.5% of man made CO2 emission in Europe. ANS-actionable CO2 emissions are
estimated to be 6% of aviation-related emissions and account therefore for some 0.2% of total CO2
emissions in Europe.

ANS fuel efficiency is already high, close to 94%, and there is therefore limited scope for
improvement from ANS. Due to safety requirements, environmental constraints (noise) and other
factors, ANS fuel efficiency cannot attain 100%.

The main limitations to ANS fuel efficiency are related to horizontal route extension (3.9% of total fuel
burn) and airborne terminal delays mainly related to sequencing arrival traffic into main airports (1.1%
of total fuel burn).

Even higher priority should be given (1) to the optimisation of the route network and (2) to the
implementation of arrival management at main airports. In the longer term (SESAR IP2), the focus
should move to a more integrated management of the flight trajectory geared to optimising arrival time.

96% of aviation-related CO2 emissions originate from flights longer than one hour, for which there is
virtually no alternative mode of transport.

Noise and local air quality is a major concern of residents in the vicinity of major airports. The
implementation of local restrictions implies complex trade-offs (e.g. noise vs. emissions) which need to
take into account local specificities.

7.1

Introduction

7.1.1

Environmental sustainability is an increasingly important political, economic and social

issue.

7.1.2

Aviation has a global and a local impact on the environment. However, not all aspects of
the environmental impact of aviation can be influenced by the ANS system. The first part
of this chapter focuses on the global impact and evaluates the ANS contribution towards
reducing the impact of aviation on climate (Section 7.2.). The second part of this chapter
(section 7.2) looks at local air quality and noise at and around major airports.

7.2

Reducing the environmental impact of aviation

7.2.1

In 2007, total anthropogenic (man-made) GHG emissions in the EU 27 States were

estimated to be around 5 billion tons, of which 4.2 billion tons were attributable to CO2
emissions.

AVIATION EMISSIONS
7.2.2

The environmental impact of aviation on climate results from greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions including CO2, NOx, and cirrus clouds formed by aircraft engine exhaust. CO2
emissions are presently considered to have the largest cumulative impact on the climate
but the exact impact of aircraft induced cirrus clouds or linear contrails on climate is still
being evaluated.

7.2.3

According to the European Environmental Agency (EEA), transportation is a major

contributor (28.4%), and aviation accounts for 3.5% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions
in Europe (2.5% world-wide). Figure 84 shows the CO2 emissions related to direct fuel
burn by industry sector.

PRR 2009

72

Chapter 7: Environment

Agriculture/ Forestry/
Fisheries
1.6%

Commercial/
Institutional
3.6%

Industrial
Processes
6.7%
Other
0.9%

Residential
9.2%

Manufacturing
Industries &
Construction
14.1%

Transportation
28.4%

Other Energy
Industries 4.6%

Road
Transportation
20.1%
Marine
4.3%
Aviation
3.5%

Public Electricity & Heat

Production
31.0%

Railways
0.2%

Other
Transportation
0.2%

Figure 84: Contribution of CO2 emissions by sector in EU27 area (2007)

7.2.4

The relative share of aviation in total CO2 emissions may increase not only because of
traffic growth, but also because of the longer lead time for using alternative energy
sources27.

7.2.5

Ideally, the evaluation of the CO2 contribution and possible mitigation measures would
require information on the entire life cycle. For the transport sector, this would not only
include emissions related to direct fuel burn (as shown in Figure 84) but also emissions
related to power production for electrically powered vehicles (such as trains) and
emissions related to the building of transport infrastructure and vehicles.

7.2.6

The consideration of the full life cycle emissions approximately doubles greenhouse gas
emissions from rail travel. For air travel, the full life cycle emissions are estimated to be
10-20% higher than emissions from direct fuel burn in view of the limited infrastructure
required for air transport [Ref. 26]. A comparison between transport modes would
therefore be less contrasted than the distribution shown in Figure 84, if the full life cycle
was taken into account.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY - GLOBAL CONTEXT

7.2.7

In the Kyoto Protocol (1997), 37 industrialised countries committed themselves to a

reduction of greenhouse gases. However, under the present rules and modalities only
domestic aviation is included and the Kyoto Mechanisms are not used for the purpose of
addressing GHG emissions from international aviation.

7.2.8

Instead, countries were asked to work through the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) to pursue a limitation or reduction of greenhouse gases from
international aviation.

7.2.9

In response to this request and ahead of the UN climate talks in Copenhagen (December,

27

The evolution of emissions has to be seen in a context where there is a range of renewable and alternative energy
sources available to ground transport, domestic appliances and industry. Moreover, there is often a faster turnover
of energy-using assets (e.g. cars, domestic appliances, domestic boilers, process plant, lorries, buses), while the
life time of aircraft is typically 30 years, which makes the uptake of more efficient technologies generally faster
on the ground.

PRR 2009

73

Chapter 7: Environment

2009), ICAO committed at its High-level Meeting on International Aviation and Climate
Change (October, 2009) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aviation through
improved fuel efficiency, market-based measures, and use of low carbon fuels.
Additionally, ICAO declared that Member States should work together to achieve a
global annual average fuel efficiency improvement of 2% until 2020.
7.2.10 ICAO will consider the possibility of more ambitious goals, including carbon neutral
growth and emissions reductions, by its next assembly in the third quarter of 2010, and
will establish a process to develop a framework for economic measures.
7.2.11 The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has outlined a proposal under which
airlines will halve emissions by 2050 (compared to 2005 levels), set a target of improving
fuel efficiency by 1.5%28 annually in the run-up to 2020 and, from then on, stabilise
emissions through carbon-neutral growth.
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY - EUROPEAN CONTEXT
7.2.12 According to the Climate action and renewable energy package, the EU is committed to
reducing its overall emissions to at least 20% below 1990 levels by 2020.
7.2.13 The two most relevant policy measures with regard to reducing the aviation related
impact on the environment are the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and the Single
European Sky (SES).
7.2.14 While the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU/ETS)
aims at reducing overall Emissions in Europe, the EC
has now introduced legislation to include aviation in
the EU/ETS from 2012 in order to mitigate the impact
of aviation on climate.
7.2.15 The European Directive 2008/101/EC [Ref. 27]
amending Directive 2003/87/EC [Ref. 28] entered into
force on 2 February 2009.
7.2.16 This will make aviation the first and so far the only
mode of transport to be included in the ETS and will
require the aviation sector to realise GHG emissions
reductions, by either decreasing their own emissions
or buying allowances on the market. For the first
trading period in 2012, the CO2 allowance is set to
97% of average aviation emissions during the years
20042006. For the second trading period (20132020), the limit will be set to 95% of the baseline

ETS Main dates:

31st August, 2009: Deadline for the
submission of monitoring plans (both
for emissions and activity)
31st December 2009: Approval limit
of monitoring plans by the regulatory
authority,
1st January 2010: Beginning of the
emissions and activity data monitoring
31st March 2011: Deadline to submit
emissions and activity reports and to
ask for free allowances (associated to
the activity report submission)
2012: First trading period of one year
2013-2020: Second trading period

7.2.17 The main share of the aviation allowances (85%) will be allocated freely to aircraft
operators according to the tonne kilometres flown in 2010. The remaining 15% will be
put up for auction.

28

Previously, the target was 1% and the 1.5% target assumes optimum innovation circumstances to meet the target.

PRR 2009

74

Chapter 7: Environment

7.2.18 The EU/ETS applies to all IFR

flights (with MTOW bigger than
5,7t) to/from a Member State of the
European Union.
7.2.19 Figure 85 highlights differences in
the scope between the EU/ETS
which applies to all flights from/to
European airports and the scope of
analysis in this report which focuses
only on the part flown within the
EUROCONTROL airspace.

Coverage EC - ETS (229 Mt)

Outside
European
Airspace

107 Mt

CO2

Within
European
Union

122 Mt
CO2

Pan-European
airspace
(133 Mt)
EUROCONTROL

11 Mt

Figure 85: Aviation emissions in ETS (2009)

7.2.20 In addition to the EU/ETS, the Single European Sky (SES) performance scheme and the
subsequent target setting are expected to further drive fuel efficiency improvements with
resulting positive effects for the environment. In order to ensure a smooth and effective
implementation it is important that the necessary regulatory competence in the
environmental field is put in place before the start of the first reference period in 2012.
POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT FROM MULTI-MODAL SHIFT
7.2.21 Rail and other forms of transport are often suggested as more environmentally-friendly
substitutes for air travel. Figure 86 shows the proportions of flights and corresponding
fuel burn for flights departing from Europe29, broken down by flight time (entire flight).

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Flights departing from Europe

(entire flight distance)

Flights
Fuel Burn

<=60 min.

61-120
121-180
min.
min.
Flight duration in hours

> 3hrs

Figure 86: Fuel burn by duration of flight (2009)

7.2.22 Figure 86 shows that 23% of flights departing from Europe are shorter than 1 hour, and
that they account for 4% of total aviation fuel burn. Therefore, 96% of aviation emissions
originate from flights longer than one hour, for which alternative modes of transport are
very limited in practice.
7.2.23 Flights shorter than 1 hour burn a small portion of aviation fuel (4%). Of this, a relatively
small proportion could be saved by substitution to rail transport with the development of
the European high speed rail (HSR) network [Ref. 29]. The potential for reducing
aviation emissions by substitution to rail transport is therefore very limited.

29

Only departing flights are considered to avoid double-counting of flights within Europe and to allow global
consolidation of such statistics. Similar statistics would be obtained for arrival flights. Over-flights are nearly
negligible (~0.5% of flights).

PRR 2009

75

Chapter 7: Environment

IMPROVING AVIATION FUEL EFFICIENCY

7.2.24 It is acknowledged that the aviation industry has a responsibility to reduce its impact on
global climate and that there is scope to further improve aviation efficiency in view of the
environmental benefits to society and economic benefits to airspace users.
7.2.25 Figure 87 shows a conceptual framework for the evaluation of CO2 emissions efficiency
of aviation. The overall performance is the product of four factors: net carbon content of
fuel
CO2 emissions (kg)
Alternative
fuels

Net carbon
content
Actual fuel
burn (kg)

Horizontal en-route flight path

ANS fuel
efficiency

ANS
Fuel burn (kg)

Airborne terminal phase

Taxi phase

(on user preferred trajectory)

Aircraft fuel
efficiency
Airlines/
Manufacturers

Vertical en-route profile

Available tonne
kilometre (ATK)

Aviation
CO2 efficiency

Load factor
Revenue tonne
kilometre (RTK)

Figure 87: Framework for the evaluation of industry driven fuel efficiency
improvements
7.2.26 In this framework, the overall aviation CO2 emissions efficiency is measured in kilograms
of CO2 per Revenue Tonne Kilometre (RTK), or similar measure of commercial aviation
output. This top level indicator can be broken down in four parts, which correspond to
different accountabilities and performance improvement options.

The first part is net carbon content of fuel, defined as the ratio of net kilogram of CO2
per kilogram of fuel. For kerosene, this ratio is 3.15.

7.2.27 The net carbon content can be significantly reduced with bio-fuels, produced from biomaterials which absorb carbon from the atmosphere before it is emitted back in the
atmosphere. This ratio could even be reduced to zero if hydrogen can be used as aviation
fuel and produced carbon-free.
7.2.28 Alternative fuels are therefore a potentially powerful way to decouple aviation emissions
from air traffic, but much research, development, investment and time are still needed
before any significant deployment.

The second part is ANS fuel efficiency, defined as the ratio of fuel burn on userpreferred trajectory and actual fuel burn. Performance in this part is under ANS
control. The potential for improvement is developed in section 7.3.

7.2.29 The evaluation of the ANS contribution towards reducing the aviation related impact on
climate in the following sections is closely related to operational performance and hence
fuel efficiency as this is an area where ANS has an impact. There is substantial
consistency between reducing GHG emissions and airspace user requirements to
minimise fuel burn.

PRR 2009

The third part is Aircraft fuel efficiency, defined as fuel burn on user preferred
trajectory per Available Tonne-Kilometre (ATK) or alternative measure of air
transport capacity.
76

Chapter 7: Environment

7.2.30 Aircraft fuel efficiency is under airlines and manufacturers influence. It can be
improved by fleet renewal with more efficient aircraft, advances in airframe and engine
technology, and optimised use of aircraft (speed, stage length, etc).
7.2.31 Over the past years, there have been significant improvements in aircraft technology and
operational efficiency (improved engines, higher load factors, larger aircraft size)
resulting in a significant reduction of fuel burn per passenger kilometre (see Figure 90).

The fourth part is aircraft load factor, defined as the ratio between used capacity
(RTK) and offered capacity (ATK). Average load factors are already high (in the
80% range) and there is limited room for improvement there.

7.2.32 The following table summarises the different factors contributing to aviation CO2
emissions efficiency, action areas and potential improvement.
Factor
Net carbon content
ANS fuel efficiency
Aircraft fuel efficiency
Load factor

Actionable by

Potential improvement

Alternative fuel policy

ANS performance under SES
Fleet renewal
Aircraft design and use
Airline policy

High in the medium-long term

Limited (see 7.3)
Significant over time
Limited as load factors are already
very high (~80%)

Figure 88: Factors contributing to aviation CO2 efficiency

7.2.33 The IATA technology roadmap in Figure
89 shows how the different factors can be
combined over time provides to decouple
aviation emissions from traffic growth.
7.2.34 While there is clearly scope for
improvement from ANS, the main
contribution to the reduction of CO2
emissions is expected to come from fleet
renewal, technology developments and
low carbon fuels.
Figure 89: Schematic evolution of CO2
emissions
250

base 100 = 1990

200

150
100

50

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

Source: ICAO
Source: IATA

Figure 90: Aviation efficiency

Figure 91: CO2 emissions from aviation

7.2.35 However those significant efficiency improvements in global aviation over the past were
not sufficient to achieve carbon neutral growth at global level which subsequently
resulted in an increase in aviation related CO2 emissions over the years (see Figure 91).

PRR 2009

77

Chapter 7: Environment

7.3

ATM contribution towards reducing CO2 Emissions in Europe

7.3.1

This section relates the share of CO2 emissions actionable by ANS to total European
emissions (see Figure 92).

Overall Emissions
(4.5 Bn tonnes CO2)
100%

- UN climate summit (int. aviation presently

excluded (Kyoto 1997, Copenhagen 2009)
- EU Council by 2020 (-20%)

- International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)

- International Air Transport Association (IATA)
- European Union/ Emission Trading Scheme

Aviation
3.5%

3.3%

Actionable by airlines, manufacturers

Low carbon fuels;
Aircraft and engine technologies;
yield management decisions etc
Actionable by ANS
Flight efficiency
Airborne delays
Taxi efficiency
other

ANS*
0.2%

EUROCONTROL
objectives & targets
SES II Performance
targets

* Additional emissions compared to an optimum trajectory, ANS can act on part of this, although in many
cases the root cause of the problem is outside ANS (e.g. noise restrictions, lack of runway capacity).

Figure 92: ANS contribution to reduce aviation related CO2 emissions

7.3.2

Figure 93 provides an overview of total aviation emissions within European airspace in

2009. Total aviation related CO2 emissions are estimated to be 133 million tons in 2009
compared to 138 million in 2008.
Flights within
2009

EUROCONTROL

area
a
7.7M
125
63 t
900 km
80 min
3.1 t
23 Mt
74 Mt
56%

Number of flights
Average number of seats
Average Max. Take Off Weight
Average Distance flown
Average flight time
Fuel per flight (including taxi)
Total Fuel
CO2 (3.15kg/ kg of fuel)
%

Flights to/from
EUROCONTROL area
Within
Outside
airspace
airspace
b
c
1.7 M
220
203 t
1 691 km
3 039 km
125 min
206 min
10.8 t
22.4 t
19 Mt
39 Mt
59 Mt
122 Mt
44%

TOTAL within
EUROCONTROL area
a+b
9.4 M
153
94 t
1 046 km
88 min
4.5 t
42 Mt
133 Mt
100%

Figure 93: Aviation emissions within European airspace in 2009

7.3.3

Figure 94 summarises the current best estimate of inefficiencies actionable by ANS in

the individual flight phases based on a comparison of actual performance to a theoretical
optimum.

7.3.4

It is important to emphasise that the share of ANS actionable CO2 emissions shown in
Figure 94 relates to a theoretical optimum (distances and times) from a single flight
perspective which are not achievable at system level due to inherent necessary (safety) or
desired (noise, capacity) limitations and can therefore not be reduced to zero.

PRR 2009

78

Chapter 7: Environment

7.3.5

The figures in Figure 94 contain inevitably margins of uncertainty. For instance, the great
circle distance used for the calculation of the inefficiencies in the horizontal flight path
may not always correspond to the user preferred profile which also considers factors such
as wind or route charges.

7.3.6

The development of a fuel efficiency indicator based on a comparison of actual fuel

burn with fuel burn needed for the user preferred 4-D trajectory would be an important
ANS-related performance indicator as it would also consider wind optimised routing and
user preferences and work should be facilitated in this direction by SESAR.

7.3.7

Such an indicator would require more precise information on factors such as weather
conditions, aircraft weight, aircraft engines and, above all, a precise definition of the user
preferred trajectory. A more exact estimation of the ANS contribution would require
advancements in ATM performance databases (weather, user preference, optimum speed
etc) and work needs to be carried out to explore the most efficient way to collect and
process such information.
Estimated inefficiency actionable by ANS Fuel/ flight Fuel Total
Estimated avg. within European airspace
4.5 t
42Mt

CO2 total
133 Mt

%
100%

Horizontal en-route flight path

Vertical en-route flight profile
Airborne terminal
Taxi-out phase
Total

4.8 Mt
0.7 Mt
1.5 Mt
0.9 Mt
8.0 Mt

3.6%
0.6%
1.1%
0.7%
6%

163 kg
25 kg
51 kg
32 kg
271 kg

1.5Mt
0.2Mt
0.5Mt
0.3Mt
2.5Mt

Figure 94: Share of CO2 emissions actionable by ANS in 2009

7.3.8

The estimated average fuel efficiency is estimated to be close to 94% which means that
ANS can only have an impact on some 6% of total fuel burn.

7.3.9

The share of CO2 emissions actionable by ANS is estimated to be around 6% of total

aviation related emissions. This corresponds to approximately 0.2% of total CO2
emissions in Europe (6% x 3.5% 0.2%)
Estimated average
fuel efficiency
Horizontal enroute flight
path
3.6%
Vertical enroute flight
profile
0.6%

94%
6%

Airborne
terminal
1.1%
Taxi-out phase
0.7%

Source: PRC analysis

Figure 95: ANS fuel efficiency

PRR 2009

79

Chapter 7: Environment

7.3.10 Although the share of CO2 emissions actionable by ANS is comparatively small, in the
absence of capacity or technological improvements, ANS-related inefficiencies are likely
to grow in absolute terms with demand. Maintaining or improving the same level of ANS
service quality while absorbing projected demand increases over the next 20 years will be
challenging.
7.3.11 The horizontal en-route flight path is the main component (3.6%), followed by airborne
delays in the terminal area (terminal holdings) which are estimated to be around 1.1%.
The horizontal en-route flight path is addressed in more detail in Chapter 5 and ANSrelated inefficiencies at airports are addressed in more detail in Chapter 6.
ANS RELATED INIATIVES TO IMPROVE FUEL EFFICIENCY
7.3.12 The ANS-related impact on climate is closely linked to operational performance which is
largely driven by inefficiencies in the four dimensional trajectory and associated fuel
burn. Figure 94 shows that there is scope for improvement in the horizontal flight path
(route network design) but also in the management of any non-optimal aspects of the
flight trajectory (e.g. where delays are taken).
7.3.13 Improved route network: Most of the additional fuel burn on which ANS can have an
impact relates to the horizontal flight path en-route and hence to the route network design
(see Figure 94).
7.3.14 The improvement of the European route network is a Pan-European issue and for this
reason one of the European Union wide performance targets within the SES II
performance scheme should be the development of an improvement plan for the PanEuropean network in collaboration with States/FABs.
7.3.15 Although Figure 93 shows that a significant portion of flights to/from Europe are within
European airspace (1/3), there is a need for wider collaboration. Project like the Atlantic
Interoperability Initiative to Reduce Emissions (AIRE) should be pursued.
7.3.16 Improved trajectory management: A large part of ANS related inefficiencies are the result
of imbalances between demand and available capacity, coupled with the need to provide
sequencing and safe separation.
7.3.17 While ANS is not always the root cause of those inefficiencies (weather, airport
scheduling, noise restrictions, etc.), the way the inefficiencies are managed and
distributed along the various phases of flight has clearly an impact on the environment in
terms of gaseous emissions and noise, on airspace users in terms of fuel burn and on the
air transport system in terms of capacity utilisation.
7.3.18 Care should be taken to avoid that fuel savings made in one flight phase are offset by
increased fuel burn in another phase. Figure 96 outlines some of the issues that need to be
considered.
ATFM ground holding

PRR 2009

Keeping the aircraft on the ground is not always the most fuel efficient strategy. It
can be more fuel efficient to let the aircraft fly at reduced speed. The amount of time
that can be absorbed in this way is however limited.

With the current ICAO first come first served rule, ATFM delays can
paradoxically even lead to a higher overall fuel burn as pilots fly at higher speed to
recover part of the ATFM delay en-route only to join the arrival queue at the airport
of arrival.

80

Chapter 7: Environment

Speed adjustments

The reduction of speed already in the en-route phase is more fuel efficient than
airborne holdings or path stretching and arrival sequencing should be achieved to the
extent possible through speed adjustments en-route.

Due to the narrow speed envelop in cruise, any speed reduction (to fuel optimum
speed) has to start early enough. Efficient management of the flight trajectory
therefore require co-ordination across ATC units and in many cases across different
ANSPs. The amount of time that can be absorbed in this way is however limited.

Airborne holdings

Optimum holding levels vary considerably by aircraft type. For many aircraft types
(e.g. A300 A330-203, A310-324) it is more efficient to hold at FL100 than at FL
350. As a result, for a number of aircraft types where a holding requirement is
transferred to the en-route phase in order to support a continuous descent (CD), if not
properly managed, could even result in a higher fuel burn than if the CD operation
had not been attempted.
Figure 96: Considerations for optimising the arrival flow

7.3.19 The current operational ATM concept

in Europe is fragmented and the focus is
on the management of departure times.
When traffic is anticipated to exceed the
available capacity en-route route or at
airports, aircraft are held at the
departure
airports
through
the
application of ATFM departure slots to
limit airborne holding (and fuel burn) at
the arrival airports (see Figure 97).
7.3.20 A more integrated approach focusing on
optimising the four dimensional (4-D)
trajectory of flights in order to minimise
fuel burn (and emissions) while
maximising the utilisation of available
en-route and airport capacity should be
facilitated.
7.3.21 The integrated approach would combine
flow management techniques to reduce
fuel burn but requires a well designed
set of tools and procedures.

additional fuel burn

due to increased speed to
recover delay & to join arrival
queue
Ground holding
at departure

Unconstrained

Airborne holding
& path stretching

Figure 97: ATM concept today

fuel saving
due to reduced speed
already in the en-route phase

Limited ground
holding

Speed
adjustments

Optimised
descend

Figure 98: Integrated trajectory

management

7.3.22 In the short term priority should be given in the implementation of arrival managers at
main airports as required by DMEAN and SESAR IP1. While arrival managers have been
in place for many years at some airports (COMPASS at Frankfurt, MAESTRO at Paris)
they may not yet be fully utilised for the purpose envisaged and are still not available at
many airports. When fully utilised, arrival managers will help to improve fuel efficiency
in two complementary ways:

Firstly by optimising the arrival sequence at the runway and therefore by optimising
the arrival throughput; and,

Secondly by moving part of the sequencing en-route and thus reducing the need to
vector arriving aircraft which in turn facilitates Continuous Descent Operations
(CDO) without the need to absorb delay in other parts of the flight.

PRR 2009

81

Chapter 7: Environment

7.3.23 In the longer term (SESAR) the focus should

move from operations based on accurate
departure times (current ATFM concept) to a
concept that focused on the required time of
arrival. This would make better use of the
Required Time of Arrival (RTA) functionality
available on many aircraft today.
7.3.24 Moving towards a requested time of arrival
concept needs an increased predictability of
capacity variations (and therefore better
weather forecasts), a wide application of
approach/departure sequencing tools, and
increased involvement of the cockpit in
managing the arrival/departure sequence.

Related Initiative(s):
The NEAN Update Programme (NUP) and the
EUROCONTROL
CTA/ATC
integration
studies (CASSIS) focus on optimising the
arrival phase of flights into airports by using
data from the Flight Management System
(FMS) of the aircraft involved to support
selected ground based and airborne applications
(A-CDM, AMAN/DMAN, etc.). This is
expected to be a key enabler for performing
more advanced facilitation of CDO (also
known as the green approach) in periods of
high traffic as demonstrated at Sweden's largest
airport Stockholm/Arlanda by the Swedish Air
Navigation Service Provider, LFV, together
with SAS. A similar concept of tailored
arrival is taking place at Los Angeles and San
Francisco for some arrivals.

7.4

Reducing aviations environmental impact at/around airports

7.4.1

Noise and local air quality are the most important local factors from an environmental
point of view for local communities and airports alike and in the recent years a number of
EC directives addressing noise and local air quality have been adopted.

7.4.2

Establishing environmental restrictions at airports can have an impact on aircraft mix

(engine types, etc.) and trajectories (route design) in the vicinity of the airport.
Environmental restrictions can however also lead to capacity constraints at that airport
and hence lead to congestion. Environmental restrictions may also influence each other,
e.g. affecting the flight path to minimise noise exposure on the ground could lead to
reduced flight efficiency and thus increased emissions.

LOCAL AIR QUALITY (LAQ)

7.4.3

Local air quality LAQ is concerned with potential health effects of air pollution. Aircraft,
road vehicles and other sources such as power plants at and around airports emit a number
of pollutants, particularly Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) and fine particles (PM10) which
impact on human health. From a local air quality point of view, NOx is generally
considered to be the most significant pollutant.

7.4.4

While there is no specific EC legislation in

relation to aviation, the EC Directive
2008/50/EC [Ref. 30] on ambient air quality
and cleaner air for Europe sets clear standards
and requires Member States to stay within set
limits for these pollutants.

7.4.5

The direct impact of aviation on LAQ is

primarily related to emissions from aircraft
below 1000 ft depending on the weather.
ICAO established as standard Landing/Takeoff cycle for operations up to 3000 ft.

7.4.6

Related Initiative(s):
The EUROCONTROL Airport Local Air
Quality Studies (ALAQS) aim at promoting
best practice methods for airport LAQ analysis
concerning issues such as emissions inventory,
dispersion, and the data required for the
calculations. However, the area remains quite
complex, particularly with a view to assessing
ANS contribution.
Under the ICAO technical design standard
(CAEP/4) which is effective as of January
2004, new aircraft engines must meet specified
levels of NOx emissions, depending on their
power output.

Figure 99 shows the contribution of various areas to local air quality at Manchester
airport. With the exception of fine particles (PM10), aircraft account for the main share of
the emissions.

PRR 2009

82

Chapter 7: Environment

Figure 99: Contribution to Local Air Quality at Manchester airport

7.4.7

7.4.8

Aviation related local initiatives aimed at the improvement of LAQ include:

airport charges based on the amount of NOx created during take-off and landing to
encourage airlines to use lower emission engines. To this end, some airports such as
London Heathrow (LHR) track the share of aircraft compliant with the ICAO
CAEP/4 standard;

the reduction of emissions from Auxiliary Power Units (APU) through increased use
of fixed electrical ground power (FEGP) when the aircraft is at the stand, and;

the improvement of the taxi efficiency through the introduction of Collaborative

Decision Making (CDM).

Although NOx emissions depend on many factors, the impact of ANS on LAQ is
predominantly related to additional fuel burn due to inefficiencies in the taxi phase
Chapter 6. Those ANS related inefficiencies have also an impact on global climate from
CO2 emissions.

AIRCRAFT NOISE
7.4.9

Noise from air transport operations is mainly a local issue which can have a negative
impact on society. In order to reduce the negative impact, there are a number of
mitigation options including restrictions on aviation (reduced movements, preferred
routes, etc.) which limit noise levels, but at the same time often have an impact on
capacity, flight efficiency and emissions.

7.4.10 The degree of perceived annoyance for a given noise level can vary by culture and social
circumstances. However as pointed out by the World Health Organisation, noise above a
certain level has clearly adverse impacts on peoples health, quality of life and on other
factors such as housing values and the learning acuity of students in affected schools.
7.4.11 Two EC noise Directives of particular importance to aviation were implemented in
Europe. The first Directive (2002/30/EC [Ref. 31]) based on the ICAO Balanced
Approach specifies the overall approach to airport noise management in Europe with a
particular focus on the equal treatment of reductions at source (aircraft and engine
PRR 2009

83

Chapter 7: Environment

standards), land-use planning restrictions, operational procedures (ATM) and operational

restrictions (including assessment and consultation requirements before their
introduction).
7.4.12 The second EC Directive (2002/49/EC
[Ref. 32]) provides guidance for Member
States on the assessment and management of
environmental noise using harmonised noise
metrics and subsequent publishing of noise
management plans. The EC directive
requires competent authorities in Member
States to draw up "strategic noise maps" for
major roads, railways, airports30 and
agglomerations, using harmonised noise
indicators and to draw up action plans to
reduce noise where necessary.

L(den) & L(night):

L(den) is advocated by the Directive 2002/49/49
as an indicator for the assessment of
environmental noise to which people are exposed.
It is a logarithmic composite of the L(day),
L(evening), and L(night) levels. L(den) It is
measured in decibels (dB) and makes use of Aweighted average sound levels. Evening noise is
penalized by 5 dB and nightly noise by 10 dB.
L(night) is selected to assess potential sleep
disturbance. Both indicators can be determined
either by computation or by measurement further
described in the EC Directive.

7.4.13 For each major airport, two maps depicting the results in terms of the L(den), and
L(night) shall be produced. The strategic noise maps based on the L(den) and L(night)
indicator must at least show the 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75dB contours. Figure 100 shows the
strategic noise map for Paris Orly (ORY) airport.
7.4.14 These contours broadly equate to noise levels and metrics generally regarded as marking
the onset of significant disturbance around airports. Values similar to these are used for
planning restrictions on residential development. This does not mean that lower noise
levels are unimportant, but below these levels, there is a general consensus that the
majority of people are not unacceptably disturbed.

Figure 100: Strategic noise map for Paris Orly airport

30

Applicable to major airports shall mean a civil airport, designated by the Member State, which has more than
50 000 movements per year (a movement being a take-off or a landing), excluding those purely for training
purposes on light aircraft;

PRR 2009

84

Chapter 7: Environment

7.4.15 In addition to the strategic noise maps, EC Directive 2002/49 [Ref. 32] requires States to
report the estimated total number of people affected by transport noise in agglomerations
with more than 250 000 inhabitants.

% of people exposed to noise bands

7.4.16 Figure 101 shows that more than half of the population in agglomerations with more than
250 000 inhabitants is affected by road noise levels exceeding 55dB Lden. The number of
people exposed to noise from major airports (Lden and Lnight) is shown in Annex VII.
7.4.17 Although exposure to noise
from railways (5%) and
airports (3%) is much
lower, it is interesting to
note that there is a higher
sensitivity towards aircraft
noise which is perceived to
be louder than noise
from other modes of
transport [Ref.. 32].

60%
Lden > 55 dB
50%

Lnight > 50 dB

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Roads

Railways

Airports

Source: European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information

Figure 101: People affected by aircraft noise

7.4.18 The aforementioned EC Directives 2002/30 [Ref. 31] and
2002/49 [Ref. 32] do not set either noise limits nor do they set
targets but leave the responsibility on Member States to agree
on acceptable noise levels. This resulted in a large number of
approaches to mitigate noise at airports.
7.4.19 It should be noted that there are trade-offs which need to be
considered when noise restrictions are put in place at airports.
Depending on the approach, noise restrictions may adversely
affect flight efficiency (e.g. noise routes and runway use) and
capacity utilisation.
7.4.20 ANS can have an impact on the airports noise footprint as well
as on the population affected by aviation noise through
measures including, inter alia: the management of taxiing
(ground noise), the selection of runway and runway
configuration, the management of engine testing and the design
and application of designated routes (SIDs and STARs) in and
out of airports.

Related Initiative(s):
The System for Airport
Noise Exposure Studies
(STAPES) project was
jointly initiated by the
European
Commission,
EUROCONTROL
and
EASA. The objective is to
develop an aircraft noise
model
capable
of
supporting all types of
noise impact assessments
in relation to the ECs or
the ICAOs future policy
options, as well as any
new operational concept
designed
under
the
SESAR programme.

7.4.21 The main noise-reducing contribution of ANS is in the management of departure and
arrival procedures and the ability to maximise the use of modern aircraft capabilities.
Among others, these include:

Noise preferential routes/ runways;

Airspace design parameters including avoiding sensitive areas;

Noise abatement departure procedure;

Continuous descent operations (CDO);

Low power/ low drag (LP/LD);

Limitation of engines running on the ground; and,

Capture of ILS glide slope at higher altitude.

7.4.22 Noise restrictions are usually imposed on airports by Governments or local Planning
PRR 2009

85

Chapter 7: Environment

Authorities and the level of compliance is monitored at local level. Noise is usually
considered to be the responsibility of the airport operator, but in fact noise is a shared
responsibility of all local operational stakeholders at an airport. Noise is therefore
considered to be more of a local environmental performance issue with little added value
for aggregation at European level.
7.4.23 An example of how noise compliance is monitored is Manchester Airport where several
years ago the airport operator entered into a binding agreement to secure permission for a
second runway. This agreement has around 100 clauses many of which refer to noise (e.g.
a maximum of 5% of all departures to be non-standard clearances). Performance under
this agreement is reported annually by the airport to the planning authorities and this
report and the information systems that are used to populate this are scrutinised by an
independent auditor who reports to local environmental regulators.

7.5

Conclusions

7.5.1

Sustainable development and global emissions are on the top of the political agenda. The
significant fuel efficiency improvements in global aviation over the past were not
sufficient to realise carbon neutral growth which subsequently resulted in an increase in
aviation related CO2 emissions over the years.

7.5.2

Aviation represents 3.5% of man made CO2 emissions in Europe. Long-haul flights (>3
hours), for which there is virtually no substitute, account for 13% of flights, but 60% of
fuel burn. Flights shorter than 1 hour, which could possibly be substituted, represent 23%
of flights, but only 4% of total fuel burn in Europe.

7.5.3

The average ATM fuel efficiency is estimated to be close to 94%. This is good news but
means that there is limited scope for improvement from ANS.

7.5.4

Total ANS actionable CO2 are estimated to be around 6% of total aviation related
emissions and account therefore of some 0.2% of total CO2 emissions in Europe. Due to
inherent necessary (safety) and desired (noise, capacity) limitations, the ANS actionable
inefficiencies cannot be reduced to zero.

7.5.5

The extension of the horizontal en-route flight path is the main component (3.6% of total
fuel burn) followed by delays in the terminal area (1.1% of total fuel burn).

7.5.6

Significant fuel efficiency improvements could be realised by optimising arrival flows

into main airports. In the short term, high priority should be given (1) to the optimisation
of the route network and (2) to the implementation of arrival managers at main airports.
In the longer term (SESAR), the focus should move to a more integrated management of
the flight trajectory geared to optimising arrival time.

7.5.7

Noise and local air quality are major concerns of residents in the vicinity of major
airports. The implementation of local restrictions implies complex trade-offs between
noise, emissions, capacity and safety which need to take into account local specificities.

7.5.8

The implementation of Airport Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) at more European

airports would help to improve taxi efficiency and hence local air quality and improve the
accuracy and timeliness of information locally and at network level.

PRR 2009

86

Chapter 7: Environment

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness
8

Cost-effectiveness

KEY MESSAGES OF THIS CHAPTER

The PRC cost-effectiveness target proposed back in 2003 (i.e. -14% decrease in unit costs for the
period 2003-2008) has been achieved. The positive traffic growth during the 2003-2008 period has
greatly contributed to this achievement, along with greater cost-effectiveness awareness among a
majority of ANSPs.

The economic downturn, which became apparent in summer 2008, has affected the aviation
community throughout 2009 with unprecedented severity. As a result of the significant decrease in
traffic, en-route unit costs are planned to increase sharply in 2009 and 2010. Greater flexibility is
required for ANSPs to adjust to these unfavourable economic conditions.

Several European ANSPs reacted and implemented cost-containment measures for 2009 and 2010 to
smooth the impact of the traffic downturn on airspace users. It is important that these measures
effectively result into actual 2009 and 2010 costs lower than planned, without compromising the
provision of future ATC capacity.

The current economic crisis clearly shows the limits of the full cost-recovery regime where the underrecoveries generated in 2008 and 2009 will have to be borne by airspace users in future years.

In the context of SES II, the EC is developing Implementing Rules on the performance scheme and
also amending the Implementing Rules on the Charging Scheme. These Implementing Rules foresee
the introduction of an incentive scheme based on a risk-sharing mechanism and on the principle of
determined costs. This should contribute to better incentivise performance improvements and balance
risks between ANSPs and airspace users.

The transparency of terminal ANS costs charged to airspace users is gradually improving with the
setting of the 2010 terminal navigation charges according to the EC Charging Scheme Regulation.
The PRC considers that, in the context of SES II performance scheme, it is important to start effective
monitoring of terminal ANS cost-effectiveness in order to pave the way for the setting of future EUwide cost-efficiency targets.

8.1

Introduction

8.1.1

In 2008, total en-route and terminal ANS costs amounted to some 8 630M.

Around 80% of these costs relate to the provision of en-route ANS;

Around 20% relate to the provision of terminal ANS.

En-route ANS costs

Gate-to-gate ANS costs

(European level) 2008

6 790 M

Terminal ANS costs

1 840 M

8 630 M

ATM/CNS

ATM/CNS

1 740 M

5 830 M
MET
340 M

EN-route ANS
costs

Terminal ANS
costs

79%

21%

MET
80 M
Payments to regulatory
& gov. authorities

Payments to regulatory
& gov. authorities

20 M

90 M
EUROCONTROL
530 M
Source: EUROCONTROL/ PRC

Figure 102: Breakdown of gate-to-gate ANS costs, 2008

PRR 2009

87

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

8.1.2

En-route ANS costs can be broken down into ATM/CNS, MET, EUROCONTROL and
payment to regulatory and national authorities as shown in Figure 102. The aggregation
of the en-route cost and traffic data provided by the various States for the purposes of the
Enlarged Committee for Route Charges allows computing the en-route cost-effectiveness
KPI for the EUROCONTROL Area. The analysis on the en-route cost-effectiveness is
presented in Sections 8.2-8.5.

8.1.3

For the first time in the PRR, data on terminal ANS costs (reported to the EC by EU
Member States in accordance with EC Regulation 1796/2006 [Ref. 33]) are used in order
to provide a first overview and assessment of terminal ANS cost-effectiveness. The
analysis on the terminal ANS cost-effectiveness is presented in Section 8.6.

8.1.4

Finally, for the purposes of benchmarking ANSPs performance and comparing like with
like, the PRC is monitoring since 2001 a gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness KPI which
focuses on ATM/CNS costs incurred by ANSPs. A dedicated benchmarking report is
available (ACE 2008) and highlights of the main results are presented in Section 8.7.

8.2

En-route cost-effectiveness KPI for EUROCONTROL Area

8.2.1

The en-route cost-effectiveness KPI is obtained by dividing the total real en-route costs
(i.e. deflated costs) used to compute the Route Charges by the number of kilometres
charged to airspace users. This information is derived from Member States submissions
for the purposes of the EUROCONTROL Enlarged Committee for Route Charges31.

8.2.2

Figure 103 summarises the main relevant cost-effectiveness data and shows the changes
in the cost-effectiveness KPI32 between 2003 and 2011 for the EUROCONTROL Area.
The year 2008 is the latest for which actual figures are available at the time of this
analysis.

Contracting States (Route Charges System)

Total en-route ANS costs (M2008)
National costs (M2008)
EUROCONTROL Maastricht (M2008)
EUROCONTROL Agency (Parts I & IX) (M2008)
Km charged (Million)
Real unit costs (2008/km)

2003
30
5.843
5.277
125
440
6.589
0,89

2004
30
6.074
5.502
125
447
7.047
0,86

2005
31
6.171
5.512
122
536
7.472
0,83

2006 2007
31
31
6.241 6.407
5.567 5.733
124
129
550
545
7.823 8.321
0,80 0,77

2008 2009P 2010P 2011P 08/03 11/08

34
34
34
34
30
34
6.662 6.812 6.733 6.924
10%
4%
6.002 6.115 6.058 6.264
9%
4%
128
147
139
146
3%
14%
532
550
537
513
17%
-5%
8.851 8.567 8.539 8.818
28%
0%
0,75
0,80
0,79
0,79 -14%
4%

Figure 103: En-route ANS cost-effectiveness KPI for EUROCONTROL Area (2008 prices)
8.2.3

In 2008, the en-route real unit cost for the European ANS system was 0.75 per km.
Given that its value was 0.89 per km in 2003, this implies that between 2003 and 2008,
real unit costs decreased by -14% (i.e. -2.9% per annum).

8.2.4

This means that the notional target set by the PRC (i.e. reduction of unit costs by -3% per
annum for the period 2003-2008) has been reached, which is a positive achievement. This
performance improvement directly translates into cumulative savings of some
3 billion with respect to constant 2003 unit costs. Figure 103 shows that the favourable
traffic increase between 2003 and 2008 (+28%) contributed to the unit costs reduction,
during the period, but undoubtedly better cost control and greater cost-effectiveness

31

32

The en-route ANS cost data provided in Figure 102 (i.e. 6 662 M for 2008) differ from the information provided
in Figure 103 (i.e. 6 810 M for 2008). The data provided in Figure 102 reflects the information provided by
ANSPs in the context of the ACE Benchmarking analysis (see Section 8.7). The discrepancy between the two
data sets is mainly due to the fact that the ACE data set also includes information for States which were not
technically integrated in the Route Charges System in 2008 (i.e. Ukraine, Estonia and Latvia).
Note that the growth rates displayed in the last two columns of Figure 103 are computed for consistent samples of
Member States for which a time series was available (i.e. 31 over the 2003-2008 period and 36 over the 20082011 period).

PRR 2009

88

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

awareness have also played a significant role in this performance improvement.

8.2.5

The Provisional Council (PC 28, November 2007) adopted its objectives for 2008,
including an efficiency objective to Reduce the European average real "en-route" unit
cost per km by 3% per annum until 2010, whilst maintaining or improving the current
level of service delivered. In other words, this would correspond to a reduction of the
real en-route unit costs of -6% on the period 2008-2010 (see dark arrow in Figure 104
above). Figure 104 indicates that the Pan-European target adopted by the PC will not be
met by 2010.
220
PRC notional target
0.9

PC adopted target
200

-2.8%
-4.3%
-3.5%
-3.5%
5.5% -1.0%
-2.0%

0.8

180

Costs Per Km

Total Costs (1999= index 100)

2014P

2013P

2012P

2011P

2010P

2008

2009P

2007

100
2006

0.4
2005

120

2004

0.5

2003

140

2002

0.6

2001

160

2000

0.7

1999

Total en-route ANS costs (2008)/ km

1.0

Traffic (1999=index 100)

So urce : EUROCONTROL

All States in CRCO system

Figure 104: Real en-route unit costs per km (KPI), total costs and traffic
8.2.6

Figure 104 shows that the decreasing trend in unit costs significantly decelerated in 2008.
This is clearly the end of a positive business cycle for the European ANS system. Real
en-route unit costs are planned to increase by +5.5% in 2009. It is important to note that
this planned en-route unit costs increase (Figure 104) is due: (a) to a forecast increase of
en-route costs by +2.3% and (b) to a forecast decrease in traffic volumes of -3.2%.
However, actual 2009 traffic data shows that the decrease in traffic volumes was worse
than planned by the States which means that if actual 2009 costs are not revised
downwards, the en-route unit costs increase in 2009 will be much higher than indicated in
Figure 104.

8.2.7

This is definitively a more pessimistic outlook than in November 2008 plans where enroute unit costs were planned to remain constant between 2008 and 2009 as shown in
Figure 105.

0.9
+9.3%

-0.4%

+9.5%

+9.3%

0.7
0.6

15 000

7 000

13 000
-1.1%
-2.1%

-2.1%

-2.1%

-1.9%

-3.6%

6 000

11 000

5 000

0.5

-1.7%

-7.2%

-10.0%

-10.4%

-10.6%

-10.3%

4 000

2008A

2009P

2010P

Unit Costs planned in Nov. 2008

2011P

2012P

2013P

9 000

7 000
2008

0.4

Kilometres (M)

2008 per km

+7.1%

En-route national costs

(M2008)

8 000

+6.5%
0.8

2009P 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P

Costs planned in Nov. 2008

Costs planned in Nov. 2009

Traffic planned in Nov. 2008

Traffic planned in Nov. 2009

Unit Costs planned in Nov. 2009

Figure 105: Comparison of real en-route unit costs (data planned in Nov 08 & Nov 09)

PRR 2009

89

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

8.2.8

The chart displayed on the left-hand side of Figure 105 shows the percentage changes
between the unit costs planned in November 2008 and the information provided in
November 2009. Compared to November 2008 plans, the unit cost profile for 2009-2013
has been revised upwards by some 7-9%.

8.2.9

The chart on the right-hand side of Figure 105 shows that compared to November 2008
plans, the traffic projected for 2009 onwards has been significantly revised downwards by
some 7-10% (red bars) reflecting the current economic downturn. This is the main driver
for the change in the unit costs profile between November 2008 and November 2009. On
the other hand, the right-hand side of Figure 105 indicates that compared to November
2008 plans, the costs projected for 2009 onwards have been revised downwards by a
much smaller magnitude (blue bars), for example -1.1% for 2009 and -3.6% for 2010.
Each percentage reduction of the en-route cost-base amounts to some 70M.

8.2.10 Undoubtedly, the recent economic downturn is having a significant impact on the aviation
industry and in particular on airspace users which are subject to strong commercial costs
pressures and are forced to promptly cut costs in order to preserve their financial viability.
In those circumstances, several European ANSPs are also implementing short-term and
medium term cost-containment measures so that the loss of revenues due to the traffic
shortfall do not automatically translate into an increase of future en-route charges (see
CANSO Communication in April 2009 [Ref. 34]).
8.2.11 In May 2009, the European Commission requested Member States to provide the list of
the cost-containment measures for 2009 and 2010. A majority of States/ANSPs disclosed
this information for the purposes of the Enlarged Committee for Route Charges meeting
held in June 2009. This information is summarised in Figure 106 below, which makes a
distinction between genuine structural ANSPs measures aimed at containing or reducing
the cost-base (green columns) and temporary measures from the State/shareholder to
reduce charges33 (blue column).
Crosssubsidies and
transfers
ANSP seeks
additional revenue for
inadequately funded
services

ATCO
productivity
Improved shift
planning

State funds specific

elements of the cost
base

Other
operating
costs

Capitalrelated costs

Enhanced
management of
overtime

Review staffing
needs for support
functions

Review property
needs. Sell surplus
assets.

Change pension
scheme for new
recruits

Pay freeze for top

executives

Improved
procurement
processes

Postpone recruitment
Increase retirement
age

Use stabilisation fund

or other reserves to
smooth unit rate
fluctuations
Reduced requirement
for return on Stateowned equity

ATCO
employment
costs

Extend life of
technical systems

Curtail travel
Postpone training

Review investment
plan

Across-the-board areas of improvement for ANSPs

Critical review of plans

Seek improvements through cooperation

(FABs)

Critical review of operational processes

Rationalise ACCs and other operational units

More rigorous budgetary control

Figure 106: Summary of main cost-containment measures implemented by States

33

In addition to these cost-containment measures, there are also States that have postponed the collection of a part
of the 2009 and 2010 charges to future years. These will translate into under-recoveries to be borne by airspace
users in future years.

PRR 2009

90

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

8.2.12 On 1 January 2009, there were thirty-six States in the Route Charges System. Out of
these, 23 States provided information on cost containment measures to be implemented in
2009 and 2010. No information was provided during the June and November 2009
sessions of the Enlarged Committee for Bosnia Herzegovina, Greece, Hungary, Malta,
Moldova, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Armenia (which was
technically integrated on 1 March 2009 in the Route Charges System).
8.2.13 There is a wide difference in the quantity and in the quality of the information provided.
As a result, at this stage it is not possible to precisely identify the total amounts of actual
savings that can be expected at European system level during the coming years. On the
basis of the data in Figure 105 the downwards cost revision of -1.1% for 2009 and -3.6%
for 2010 can be valued at some 80M for 2009 and 245M in 2010 for the European
system. Further details for the five largest States/ANSPs are discussed in 8.4.12-8.4.18.
8.2.14 It is important that, due to the uncertainty surrounding the duration of the economic
downturn, these measures are effectively implemented and that the planned cost savings
really materialise and result into actual 2009 and 2010 costs lower than planned. It is also
important that these measures do not compromise the provision of future ATC capacity.
The decrease in traffic offers some breathing space for ANSPs to prioritise the projects
with the most promising capacity outcomes, taking into account trade-offs, so that there is
a better match between capacity and demand when traffic growth will bounce back.
8.2.15 One of the measures identified in
the left-hand of Figure 106
relates to the use of reserves to
smooth unit rates fluctuations.
This can be done when an ANSP
is sufficiently capitalised. Figure
107 shows the breakdown of the
balance sheet for European ANS
at the end of 2008. A feature of
the balance sheet is that ANSPs
equity
(48%)
substantially
exceeds their long-term debt
(35%).

ANSPs asset structure

Current
assets
33%

Long-term
financial
assets
6%

NBV fixed
assets in
operation
49%

ANSPs liability structure

Longterm
liabilities
35%
Capital
and
reserves
48%

Current
liabilities
17%

NBV fixed
assets under
construction
12%

Figure 107: ANSPs balance sheet structure, 2008

8.2.16 Another feature is a 2.5 ratio of current assets to current liabilities (i.e. the current ratio,
an indicator of liquidity). Even when using a more stringent measure of liquidity, such as
the quick ratio (retaining only debtors and cash assets instead of all current assets) the
ratio is 1.8. It indicates that, on average, ANSPs would be able to pay 180% of their
current debt by only using their most liquid assets.

PRR 2009

91

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

Ratio quick assets to total revenues

Finavia (FI)

HCAA (GR)

DCAC Cyprus (CY)

MUAC

Avinor (NO)

SMATSA (RS)

UkSATSE (UA)

Skyguide (CH)

Slovenia Control (SI)

PANSA (PL)

ROMATSA (RO)

NAVIAIR (DK)

Oro Navigacija (LT)

NATS (UK)

NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) (PT)

MoldATSA (MD)

NATA Albania (AL)

MATS (MT)

MK CAA (MK)

LPS (SK)

LVNL (NL)

0.0
LGS (LV)

IAA (IE)

1.0
LFV/ANS Sweden (SE)

2.0

ENAV (IT)

3.0

HungaroControl (HU)

12

EANS (EE)

15

4.0

DSNA (FR)

5.0

DFS (DE)

18

DHMI (TR)

21

6.0

Belgocontrol (BE)

7.0

Croatia Control (HR)

24

Austro Control (AT)

27

8.0

ATSA Bulgaria (BG)

9.0

Aena (SP)

30

Months of revenues

Stock and other current assets

10.0

ANS CR (CZ)

Current Assets / Current liabilities

Debtors and cash at bank

Figure 108: Liquidity ratios per ANSP, 2008

8.2.17 Figure 108 shows liquidity ratios for each ANSP in 2008 according to the balance-sheet
data that was provided in the Specification for Information Disclosure34. There are
significant differences in the financial situation of ANSPs and some might be due to
different accounting policy. In several cases the quick ratio (see the blue part of the bar)
is extremely high, suggesting that these ANSPs have been able to build up war chests,
even under full cost recovery. Indeed, the cost recovery principles allow for a reasonable
return on equity. This return appears in accounting terms as profit. If this profit is
retained, rather than being distributed as tax and dividends, or used to cross-subsidise
other activities, then reserves are built up.
8.2.18 In the context of the current traffic downturn, these reserves could, and sometimes are,
used to finance the revenue shortfall and therefore to limit increases in unit rates.
8.2.19 Wherever the quick ratio is below 1 (9 ANSPs according to Figure 108) this means that
the value of current liabilities exceeds the value of debtors and cash assets. At face value,
these ANSPs could face difficulties to draw cash to finance large under-recoveries.
8.2.20 In order to give an insight about the magnitude of the ANSPs quick assets, Figure 108
also shows the ratio of ANSPs quick assets to the annual revenues (see red dots). This
ratio is expressed in terms of months of revenues. For example, ANS CR quick assets
represent more than 3 months of revenues35. Figure 108 indicates that NATA Albania is
the ANSP with the highest quick ratio in 2008. This high ratio reflects an exceptional
situation due to delays in the implementation of the National Airspace Modernisation
Programme, where cash drawn from a bank loan to finance the investments is recorded as
cash assets in NATA Albania balance-sheet.

34

35

At the time of writing (April 2010), complete and consistent balance-sheet data were not provided by HCAA,
Finavia, DCAC Cyprus and Avinor. MUAC balance-sheet is part of the EUROCONTROL Agency Annual
Accounts.
Considering the very high and effective rate of route charges recovery (some 98% of 2008 charges were
recovered by the Central Route Charges Office by March 2009), one would not expect large cash (or quick
assets) needs (typically not larger than 3-4 months of revenues).

PRR 2009

92

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

8.3

SES II performance scheme

8.3.1

Except the UK, all EUROCONTROL Member States operate under a full cost recovery
regime for en-route ANS. The current economic crisis shows the limitation of the full cost
recovery regime. All the under-recoveries generated in 2008 and 2009 will have to be
paid back by airspace users in 2010 and 2011, or possibly spread out over a longer period.

8.3.2

In a communication, CANSO [Ref. 34] stated that the full cost recovery is not designed
for an economic downturn. CANSO also stated that ANSPs are ready to accept greater
financial risk if governments endorse appropriate governance, sound financial
management and a fair balance between risk and reward.

8.3.3

On the other hand, during the PRC-led consultation in preparation for the implementation
of the performance scheme36, airspace users representatives have repeatedly stated that
ANSPs should bear the full risks and retain the full rewards for superior performance.

8.3.4

The SES II regulation [Ref. 2] was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council
on 21 October 2009. The main provisions entered into force on 4 December 2009.
Article 11 of the amended Framework Regulation refers to a performance scheme
which should provide an opportunity for ANSPs to further improve their performance.
The performance scheme described in Article 11 will apply to the 27 EU Member States
and associated States. In this context, no doubt that the pressure to genuinely improve
cost-effectiveness is high on the agenda of airspace users expectations.

8.3.5

In the current full cost recovery mechanism, all the risks are borne by airspace users,
including the costs of non optimal quality of service. ANSPs are not sufficiently
incentivized to deliver better cost-efficiency performance since they have to return any
over-recoveries, even if these are the result of cost savings.

8.3.6

The European Commission is developing Implementing Rules on the performance

scheme which are expected to be adopted in 2010. These Implementing Rules will
include inter-alia general principles for the setting up by Member States of the incentive
scheme. In addition, the European Commission is amending the Implementing Rules on
Charging scheme with a view to departing from the current full cost recovery regime.

8.3.7

The PRC considers that a financial incentive scheme should:

8.3.8

36

not be linked with the achievement of safety performance targets to avoid undesirable
behaviour such as the underreporting of safety incidents;

incentivise ANSP cost-efficiency and quality of service performance improvements

with associated financial rewards and penalties;

effectively balance risks between airspace users and ANSPs, by limiting the exposure
of:
-

ANSPs to traffic risks (traffic shortfall leading to lower revenues) given that
traffic is largely exogenous;

airspace users to cost risks (higher costs arising from bad management
performance or external factors such as new legal obligations).

be part of the regulatory environment, known in advance by all stakeholders and

applicable during the entire reference period.

CANSO/ANSPs asked for a common and consistent framework to be used across

Europe for incentives and corrective measures with sufficient flexibility for the first

Consultation within the Performance Scheme Focus Group (PSFG) during winter 2009/spring 2010.

PRR 2009

93

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

Reference Period to ensure acceptance by all States [Ref. 34]. The PRC also considers
that commonality of the incentive scheme is important so that it can be applied to all EU
Member States, independently of their governance arrangements, while ensuring greater
transparency and manageability of the scheme at European level.

8.4

En-route ANS cost-effectiveness KPI at State level

8.4.1

The changes in en-route unit costs at European system level (see Figure 104) results from
contrasted levels and trends across EUROCONTROL Member States37, hence the
importance of considering the State level view.

8.4.2

When looking across States, the levels of unit costs should be seen in the light of traffic
volumes and exogenous factors such as local economic and operational conditions, which
considerably vary across States. This requires some caution when comparing results and
drawing conclusions in terms of economic efficiency.

8.4.3

Because of their relative importance in

relation to the whole European system (65%
of total costs) and for conciseness purposes,
this section focuses on the five largest States.
More detailed analysis on the changes in unit
costs for smaller States is displayed in Annex
VII. Figure 109 displays the changes in real
en-route unit costs for the five largest States38
between 2004 and 2013 according to the
information provided during the November
2009 session of the Enlarged Committee for
Route Charges (see blue line). Figure 109 also
shows the changes in en-route unit costs
planned in November 2008 (see red line).

Exchange rates
Following the economic downturn, exchange
rates have been extremely volatile in many
European countries in 2008 and in 2009. As a
result, time-series comparisons of unit costs can
be affected by variations in exchange rates. To
cancel this impact, in this Report changes in
real unit costs are assessed in national currency
using national inflation rates. Then, all national
currencies are converted into Euro using the
2008 exchange rate. Therefore, the unit costs
disclosed for any State in this Report differ
from the figures provided in previous PRRs.
For example, the level of the UK 2008 en-route
unit costs in Figure 109 is affected by the 14%
depreciation of the UK compared to the .

8.4.4

First, Figure 109 indicates that there are significant differences in the 2008 level of actual
unit costs across the five largest States, although the operational and economic
environments are relatively similar39. In 2008, the en-route unit costs range from 0.98
per km for Spain Canaries to 0.66 per km in France: a factor of 1.4 at face value. The
level of en-route unit costs for Spain Canarias raises questions given its operational (i.e.
airspace complexity) and economic (i.e. cost of living) environments.

8.4.5

Second, Figure 109 shows the changes in en-route unit costs for the five largest States.
Between 2004 and 2008, en-route real unit costs decreased for Germany (-20%), the
United Kingdom (-16%), Spain Canarias (-11%), Italy (-13%) and France (-5%). On the
other hand, en-route real unit costs increased in Spain Continental between 2004 and
2008 (+4%, see Figure 109). The main drivers for the changes in ANSPs unit costs

37

38
39

These unit costs reflect en-route charges passed on to the airspace users by the various States. These charges
include costs relating to ATS and MET provision, regulators, and to the EUROCONTROL. See also footnote 40
for the specific case of the UK.
Note that for the purpose of Route Charges, Spain has two different unit rates and unit costs (Continental &
Canarias).
However, it should be noted that in the UK the en-route ANSP (NATS) does not operate under the full costrecovery regime but under a regime of independent economic regulation. Therefore, the costs reported by UK to
the Enlarged Committee for Route Charges can differ from the charges collected from en-route airspace users.
For comparability purposes, Figure 109 shows the en-route costs charged to UK airspace users. These costs are
computed as the product of the chargeable service units with the UK unit rate expressed in . Planned costs are
converted into Euros using the planned exchange rates provided by UK in their submission to the Enlarged
Committee for Route Charges. Unit costs are obtained by division of these costs with the chargeable km.

PRR 2009

94

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

between 2004 and 2008 are analysed in Section 8.7 below.

1.15

Unit costs planned in Nov. 2008

Actual unit costs

Unit costs planned in Nov. 2009

1.10
1.05
1.00

Euro 2008 / km

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

0.60

Spain Canarias

Spain Continental

United Kingdom

Italy

Germany

France

Figure 109: Trend in en-route ANS real unit costs for the five largest States (2004-2013) in
2008
8.4.6

Figure 109 indicates that, except for Italy, all the largest States en-route unit costs are
planned to increase in 2009. This is particularly the case in Germany (+16%), France
(+13%), Spain Canarias (+13%) and Spain Continental (+9%).

8.4.7

The unit costs forward-looking profile provided by all the five largest States in November
2009 (see blue dotted line in Figure 109) were revised upwards especially for the years
2009 and 2010. In order to understand the drivers for differences in planned profiles,
Figure 110 above compares the costs and traffic planned by the five largest States for the
purposes of the Enlarged Committee meeting in November 2009 with the plans provided
in November 2008.

8.4.8

Figure 110 clearly indicates that all the largest States anticipated the impact of the
economic downturn on the traffic growth by adjusting their traffic forecast downwards in
November 2009 (orange bars below the orange line). In November 2009, Spain
significantly revised downwards its planned traffic volumes (i.e. around -20% for the
period 2009-201340) reflecting the fact that the traffic forecast used in November 2008
was over estimated, due to a decision taken in support of airspace users to maintain the
unit rate in 2009 according to the data presented to the June 2008 Enlarged Committee41.
All else being equal, this over-estimation of the traffic forecast will result in underrecoveries to be borne by airspace users in future years.

8.4.9

Figure 110 also indicates that for France, Germany, Spain Canarias and, to a lesser extent,
the UK, 2008 actual costs were lower than the plans made in November 2008. This is
undoubtedly the sign of tighter cost control in these States.

40

41

Note that Spain presented a new traffic forecast in the context of the March 2009 Enlarged Committee session.
This new profile was significantly lower than the planned data provided in November 2008. As a result,
compared to the forecasts made in March 2009, planned traffic volumes have been revised downwards in
November 2009 by some -10% for the period 2009-2013.
As referred in the Action Paper provided by the Spanish Ministerio de Fomento for the purposes of the Enlarged
Committee for Route Charges (CE-R, March 2009).

PRR 2009

95

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

1 000
-7%

-24%

-20%

-26%

-28%

-29%

1 000

500
0%
-3%

-10%

-13%

-14%

-16%

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

500

250

250

200

200

150

150

-6%

-28%

-30%

-31%

-33%

-24%

100

100

-5%

-9%

-13%

-16%

-17%

-18%

50

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

50

0
2008

300

Costs planned in Nov. 2008

Costs planned in Nov. 2009

Costs planned in Nov. 2008

Costs planned in Nov. 2009

Traffic planned in Nov. 2008

Traffic planned in Nov. 2009

Traffic planned in Nov. 2008

Traffic planned in Nov. 2009

Italy

1 000
-3%

-1%

-12%

800

-10%

-9%

-9%

800
600

600

400
-2%

-2%

-5%

400

-5%

-6%

-7%

200

200

2009

2010

2011

2012

1 500

1 750
-2%
-10%

1 250
1 000

-4%

-4%

-11%

-6%

-4%

-11%

-11%

-5%

-5%

1 500
1 250
1 000

750

750

500

500

250

250
0
2008

2013

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Costs planned in Nov. 2008

Costs planned in Nov. 2009

Costs planned in Nov. 2008

Costs planned in Nov. 2009

Traffic planned in Nov. 2008

Traffic planned in Nov. 2009

Traffic planned in Nov. 2008

Traffic planned in Nov. 2009

Germany

United Kingdom

1 250

1 750

CP3

1 500

1 000
-2%

-8%

-9%

-10%

-11%

6%

5%

-10%

1 000

750
500

4%

750

250

1 250
-1%

-6%

-7%

2008

2009

2011

2012

-8%

-12%

1 000

500

750

-1%

-8%

-4%

-3%

-3%

2 011

2 012

2 013

250
0

2 008

2013

1 000
750

500

0
2010

-7%

-11%

1 250

-5%

-1%

500

4%

1 500

1 500

2 009

2 010

Costs planned in Nov. 2008

Costs planned in Nov. 2009

Costs planned in Nov. 2008

Costs planned in Nov. 2009

Traffic planned in Nov. 2008

Traffic planned in Nov. 2009

Traffic planned in Nov. 2008

Traffic planned in Nov. 2009

Figure 110: Changes in planned en-route costs and traffic for the five largest States (2008)
8.4.10 The costs profile provided by the four of the five largest States for the period 2009-2013
were revised downwards in November 2009. This indicates a degree of reactivity to the
sudden and significant decrease in traffic experienced at the end of 2008.
8.4.11 As mentioned in Footnote 39, the planned costs provided for the UK in Figure 110 are
computed as the product of the expected number of chargeable service units with the UK
planned unit rates. Since in the UK the en-route ANSP (NATS) does not operate under
the full cost-recovery regime but under a regime of independent economic regulation, the
data reported in Figure 110 (blue line and blue bars) reflect planned revenues rather than
planned costs. It should be emphasised that in both November 2008 and November 2009
the data provided for the years 2008-2010 are in line with the UK CAA proposal for CP2.
On the other hand, the UK CAAs proposals for CP3 have not yet been determined so the
planned costs data provided for the year 2011 onwards (on the basis of NATS Business
Plan) are not directly comparable with the information provided for the years 2008-2010.
The cost increases projected by NATS during 2011-13 reflect reduced operating costs
being offset by increasing pensions costs and an increase in the cost of capital.

PRR 2009

Kilometres (M)

CP2

2 000
En-route national costs
(M2008)

1 750

1 500

Kilometres (M)

2 000
En-route national costs
(M2008)

-11%

0
2008

2 000

1 750

Kilometres (M)

1 000

En-route national costs

(M2008)

1 200

France

2 000

1 200

Kilometres (M)

En-route national costs

(M2008)

1 400

1 250

Kilometres (M)

1 500

En-route national costs

(M2008)

1 500

Kilometres (M)

En-route national costs

(M2008)

Spain Canarias

Spain Continental

2 000

96

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

8.4.12 In June 2009, for the purposes of the Enlarged Committee meeting on Route Charges, the
five largest States provided the list of the cost-containment measures that will be
implemented from 2009 onwards. For the two years period 2009-2010, the five largest
States plan to save some 400M. On an annual basis, this represents some 5% of their
total national cost-bases.
8.4.13 NATS implemented a cost reduction programme on operating costs (reduction of some
50M) by end 2010 (equivalent to some 7% of the NATS en-route annual cost-base).
NATS also plan to save some 300M in CP3 (2011-2015) with significant savings arising
from a change in pension arrangements42.
8.4.14 The cost-containment measures implemented by DSNA for the 2009 are associated with a
reduction in non-staff operating costs (5M) and in capital related costs (25M), together
amounting to some 3% of the annual en-route cost-base. Furthermore, staff reductions
negotiated in the last collective agreement would generate some 20M of savings per
annum.
8.4.15 In Spain, the State will bear some 10% of the en-route cost-base (84.7M) in order to
maintain the 2010 unit rate at the same level as in 2009: EUROCONTROL costs (i.e.
62.5M) will not be charged to airspace users and costs relating to MET and supervisory
activities were reduced by 21.8M43. Furthermore, Aena implemented specific cost
containment measures in 2009 which are expected to bring savings of some 37M
(mostly relating to productivity improvements and reduction of ATCO overtime hours).
8.4.16 In 2009 and 2010, Italy will use its special reserve (stabilisation fund) to finance part of
the en-route cost-base. Furthermore, a cost cutting programme is expected to generate
savings amounting to some 30M in 2010 (some 5% of the annual en-route cost-base).
8.4.17 The overall objective of the cost-containment measures implemented by DFS in 2009 is
to save some 35M (some 5% of the en-route annual cost-base). These savings would
arise from a reduction of operating expenses and depreciation costs. DFS also launched a
cost-efficiency plan for 2010 in which 50M are expected to be saved compared to 2009
plans. Germany also decided to reduce DFS return on equity from 8% in 2008 to 2.3% in
2010.
8.4.18 Clearly, due to their relative weights, it is important that these cost-containment measures
be implemented by the five largest States and that the planned decreases in en-route costbases for 2009 and 2010 materialise.
8.4.19 The right-hand side of Figure 111 indicates that overall for the remaining 25
EUROCONTROL Member States, costs forecasted in November 2008 for the period
2009-2013 were revised upwards in November 2009 plans. This clearly contrasts with
the downwards revision of costs for the five largest States (see the left-hand side of
Figure 111). The sharp economic downturn requires all States/ANSPs to ensure that their
plans are consistent with the new economic and traffic environment.

42
43

A defined contribution scheme has been proposed by NATS to newly-recruited staff (instead of a defined benefit
scheme). Following this change, around 1B are planned to be saved over the next 15 years.
It should be noted that a specific law (Ley 9/2010) has been adopted in Spain on 15 April 2010 in order to
address some structural performance issues in Aena.

PRR 2009

97

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

9 000

6 000

8 000

5 000

-2.8%

7 000

-9.3%

-12.5%

-13.3%

-14.4%

-14.5%

4 000

6 000

3 000

5 000

2 000

4 000

-2.5%

-3.2%

-5.6%

-5.0%

-5.6%

-6.0%

3 000

1 000
0

2008

2009P

2010P

2011P

2012P

5 000

5 000

4 500

4 500

4 000

4 000

3 500
-0.1%

-4.2%

-6.3%

-5.0%

-6.3%

-4.1%

3 500

3 000

3 000

2 500

2.9%

0.5%

3.5%

5.0%

6.6%

2009P

2010P

2011P

2012P

2013P

-1.3%

2 000

2013P

2008

Kilometres (M)

Remaining EUROCONTROL Member States

7 000

En-route national costs

(M2008)

Five largest States (aggregated data)

Kilometres (M)

En-route national costs

(M2008)

10 000

2 500
2 000

Costs planned in Nov. 2008

Costs planned in Nov. 2009

Costs planned in Nov. 2008

Costs planned in Jun. 2009

Traffic planned in Nov. 2008

Traffic planned in Nov. 2009

Traffic planned in Nov. 2008

Traffic planned in Jun. 2009

Figure 111: Changes in planned en-route costs and traffic for the five largest States versus
the remaining 25 States (2008)

8.5

The components of en-route ANS costs (European and State level)

8.5.1

In June 2009, Member States provided

2008 actual en-route costs data according
to the EC regulation laying down a
Common Charging Scheme for ANS (EC
regulation 1794/2006) [Ref. 33].

8.5.2

ANS costs are broken down according to

the components indicated in Figure 112.
Costs associated with the CNS
infrastructure amount to some 18% of the
total cost-base, while 65% directly
relates to ATM. Supervision and other
State costs represent some 2% of the total
en-route cost-base in 2008. Typically,
these costs relate to States regulatory
and supervision functions (e.g. NSAs).

Supervision
& other
EURO
State costs
CONTROL (incl. SAR)
Agency
2%
8%
MET
5%
AIS
2%
Surveillance
7%

ATM
65%

Navigation
4%
Com.
7%

Figure 112: Breakdown of en-route ANS

costs at European system level (2008)

8.5.3

From an economic point of view, CNS costs (i.e. 18%) are likely to have different
characteristics and drivers than ATM costs. CNS costs are infrastructure costs and as such
are mainly fixed costs in the medium term.

8.5.4

Each of the ANS components are analysed below in order to identify the drivers for the
European States performance in terms of cost-effectiveness.

ATM/CNS PROVISION COSTS (INCLUDING AIS & MAASTRICHT COSTS)

8.5.5

The bulk of total ANS costs (i.e. some 88%) relate to the provision of ATM/CNS. These
costs are largely under the direct control and responsibility of ANSPs. They are linked to
the capacity to be provided for a safe and efficient conduct of traffic demand. ATM/CNS
provision costs form the basis of the ANSP cost-effectiveness benchmarking analysis
presented in Section 8.6 of this chapter.

AERONAUTICAL MET COSTS

8.5.6

Figure 113 shows the trend at European level of MET costs recovered through en-route
charges between 2004 and 2010 for a consistent sample of 28 EUROCONTROL Member
States for which data for a time-series analysis was available

PRR 2009

98

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

400

At European level, en-route MET

costs, i.e. some 5% of en-route ANS
costs, amounted to some 325M in
2008. It should be noted that the enroute MET costs decreased by -9% in
real terms between 2004 and 2008.
This is an appreciable contribution to
the en-route ANS cost-effectiveness
improvement. This also indicates that
trends in en-route MET costs can be
decoupled from trends in traffic
growth.

-5%

-4%

-1%

0%

1%

-1%

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

359

342

328

324

325

328

325

300
M (2008)

8.5.7

200

100

0
MET costs (M 2008)

Figure 113: Changes in en-route MET costs at

European level (2004-2010) in 2008

8.5.8

The-9% decrease at European system level is mainly due to decreases in Italy and
Germany (-22% and -35%, respectively) where MET costs represent 15% and 10% of the
total MET costs at European system level, respectively.

8.5.9

It should be noted that the

organisational and operational
responsibility for provision of
MET services varies by State.
In a majority of cases these are
provided by the national MET
institution/authority, however in
several cases MET services are
provided either wholly or
partially by the en-route ATS
provider (see Figure 114).
Among the largest five States,
only Italy has its en-route ATS
provider which is also, albeit
partially, responsible for MET
services.

MET services provided internally

Lower Airspace

Figure 114: Arrangements for provision of MET

services

8.5.10 Figure 115 also shows that the share in en-route MET costs in total en-route national costbase varies from 13% to 1%. The main drivers for such large differences include:

44

Differences in MET costs allocation between en-route and terminal ANS;

Differences in policy for charging MET costs to aviation (e.g. subsidies, allocation of
core costs);

Genuine differences in MET infrastructure and levels of MET products and

services44; and,

Genuine cost-effectiveness differences.

It should be noted that the UK MET costs includes the cost of the World Area Forecasting Centre (WAFC).

PRR 2009

99

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

14%

Proportion of MET costs in total en-route costs

12.7%

12%

9.8%

10%

7.8% 7.7%
7.6%

8%

7.2%
6.5% 6.5%
5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.8%
5.6%

6%

4.6%

4%

4.2% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0%

4.0% 3.9%
3.8% 3.6%

3.5%

1.8% 1.7%

2%

1.5% 1.5%

Norway

Albania

Czech Republic

Finland

Slovak Republic

Spain Continental

FYROM

Hungary

Denmark

Spain Canarias

Sweden

Germany

United Kingdom

Portugal (FIR Lisboa)

Greece

Netherlands

Belgium/Lux.

France

Slovenia

Malta

Ireland

Bulgaria

Switzerland

Turkey

Cyprus

Italy

Austria

Moldova

0%

Figure 115: Share of en-route MET costs in total en-route national cost base (2008)
8.5.11 As highlighted in the 2004 PRC Report on aeronautical MET costs [Ref. 35], there is a
need to establish a data flow in order to consistently measure MET products and services
at European system level. This would increase transparency and would allow to compute
the MET cost-effectiveness KPI which could be used to compare performance across
MET providers.
EUROCONTROL AGENCY COSTS (EXCLUDING MUAC)
8.5.12 EUROCONTROL Agency costs can be split
into
two
main
categories:
the
EUROCONTROL cost base (Parts I and IX,
531.6M in 2008) and the CRCO costs (Part
II, 18.2M in 2008).
8.5.13 In 2008, the EUROCONTROL Agency cost
base (Parts I and IX) represents 7.8% of
total European en-route ANS costs, which is
lower than in 2007 (8.3%). As indicated in
Figure 116 the relative share of
EUROCONTROL Agency costs is expected
to remain fairly constant in 2009 and 2010,
below the 8% threshold.

10%

8.5%

8.6%
8.3%

8%

7.2%

7.8%

7.9%

7.8%

2008

2009P

2010P

6%

4%

2%

0%
2004

2005

2006

2007

Past (Pensions) Benefit Obligations (PBO)

Pensions
EUROCONTROL Agency costs (excl. Pension Scheme + PBO)

Figure 116: EUROCONTROL Agency costs

relative to total European en-route ANS costs

8.5.14 Figure 117 displays the breakdown of EUROCONTROL Agency costs per establishment
and expenditure between 2004 and 2008.

PRR 2009

100

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

Yearly costs (M)

Establishment

2004

CND/ASRO/MIL/HMU
Resources
CFMU / EAD
Institutional bodies
Pension in charge of the budget
PBO
Total Parts I & IX
Price Index
Real costs (2008) Total Parts I
& IX

2005

205.7
68.2
99.8
6.4
20.7

2006

2007

Yearly costs (M)

2008

400.8
1.076

215.3
73.5
113.5
6.4
48.6
35.4
492.7
1.103

226.1
71.5
111.7
7.0
65.2
35.4
516.8
1.129

220.2
71.1
119.9
5.0
69.2
35.8
521.2
1.149

232.4
68.6
119.9
5.1
69.4
36.2
531.6
1.201

447.4

536.4

549.8

544.6 531.6

%
%
08/04 08/07
13%
6%
1%
-4%
20%
0%
-21%
1%
236%
0%
1%
33%
2%
12%
4%
19%

Type of expenditure

Staff costs
PBO
Pensions
Operating costs
Depreciation costs
Interest
Total Parts I & IX
Price Index
Real costs (2008)
-2%
Total Parts I & IX

2004
188.1

2005

2006

2007

2008

20.7
89.2
93.0
9.7
400.8
1.076

192.9
35.4
48.6
99.5
107.8
8.6
492.7
1.103

209.0
35.4
65.2
141.1
59.4
6.8
516.8
1.129

219.6
35.8
69.2
143.8
45.7
7.2
521.2
1.149

221.9
36.2
69.4
140.0
56.5
7.5
531.6
1.201

447.4

536.4

549.8

544.6

531.6

Figure 117: EUROCONTROL Agency costs per establishment & expenditure (Parts I &
IX)45
8.5.15 Figure 117 shows that EUROCONTROL cost-base increased by 19% in real terms
between 2004 and 2008. This increase is mainly due to the increase of pension relatedcosts, i.e. pensions charged to the budget and Pension Benefit Obligations (PBO).
8.5.16

Figure 117 also indicates that between 2007 and 2008, the total cost-base for the
EUROCONTROL Agency decreased by -2% in real terms. This is the second consecutive
year that the EUROCONTROL Agency costs decrease in real terms. It is also noteworthy
that the 2008 actual EUROCONTROL Agency costs (i.e. 531.6M) are below the plans
made in November 2007 (i.e. 536.3M which included the 98% cap).

8.5.17 Figure 117 indicates that the decrease in the EUROCONTROL cost-base is mainly due to
the containment of staff costs (-3% in real terms) and the decrease of non-staff operating
costs (-7% in real terms). On the other hand, Figure 117 shows that depreciation costs
increased by +20% in real terms between 2007 and 2008. This increase is partly due to a
larger depreciation of intangible assets (some 17M) in 2008 compared to previous
years46.
8.5.18 Figure 118 below shows that the EUROCONTROL cost-base is planned to decrease by 5.9% for the period 2009-2013. The EUROCONTROL Agency decided to freeze its 2010
cost-base at 2008 levels. The right-hand side of Figure 118 indicates that in November
2009, compared to November 2008 plans, the EUROCONTROL costs projected for 2010
onwards have been revised downwards.
600

2.4%

-2.6%

-1.3%

-1.3%

EUROCONTROL Agency (Parts I & IX)

-3.1%

500

600

400

500

M2008

M (2008 prices)

0.0%

300

-0.9%

-5.6%

-5.3%

-6.7%

2011P

2012P

-9.6%

400
300

200

200

100

2008

2009P

2010P

Costs planned in Nov. 2008

0
2008

2009P

2010P

2011P

2012P

2013P

Costs planned in Nov. 2009

2013P

Figure 118: EUROCONTROL costs forward-looking projections (Nov. 2008- Nov. 2009)
8.5.19 The EUROCONTROL Organisation is supporting the Agency in initiating a
reorganisation process to be more in line with stakeholders expectations and with a new
economic reality. This process should lead to genuine efficiency improvements and cost
savings.

45

46

In Figure 116 and Figure 117 the item Pensions corresponds to the pensions charged to EUROCONTROL
budget while the PBO results from the implementation of the 2004 pension reform to rebuild the Projected
Benefit Obligations.
It is planned that by 2012 all the remaining intangible assets will be full depreciated.

PRR 2009

101

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

%
%
08/04 08/07
18%
1%
1%
236%
0%
57%
-3%
-39%
24%
-23%
5%
33%
2%
12%
4%
19%

-2%

8.6

Terminal ANS cost-effectiveness KPI for EU States

8.6.1

In November 2009, EU Member States provided 2008 actual terminal ANS costs data
according to the EC regulation laying down a Common Charging Scheme for ANS (EC
regulation 1794/2006, [Ref. 33]). This is definitively a significant step forward towards
greater transparency on these costs. This information is now analysed for the first time in
a PRR to provide an overview and an initial assessment of terminal ANS costeffectiveness.

8.6.2

EC regulation 1794/2006 [Ref. 33]

covers both en-route and terminal ANS.
It applies to all 27 EU States as well as
associated States having signed specific
agreement with the Community. Figure
119 displays the States covered by the
Regulation as well as their status
concerning the provision of terminal
ANS data.

8.6.3

Data were not provided by Albania,

Croatia, F.Y.R Macedonia, Serbia,
Montenegro, Turkey and Ukraine which
are not bound to SES regulations.

8.6.4

Furthermore, Art. 1(5) of the regulation

indicates that Member States with
airports handling less than 50 000
movements may decide not to apply the
regulation.

TNC provided
TNC not provided as airports < 50 000 mvts
TNC not provided

Figure 119: Status of 2008 terminal ANS data

provision

8.6.5

In accordance with this article, four States (Estonia, Latvia, Malta and Slovak Republic)
did not provide any data. Luxembourg did not provide complete data for the period 20082013. Similarly, the associated States such Norway and Switzerland did not report
terminal ANS costs according to the EC regulation 1794/2006.47

8.6.6

According to this Regulation, terminal ANS costs

relate to the costs of:

47

48

Aerodrome control services, aerodrome FIS

including air traffic advisory services and
alerting services;

ATS relating to the approach and departure of

aircraft within a certain distance of an airport
on the basis of operational requirements; and,

An appropriate allocation of all other ANS

components, reflecting a proportionate
attribution between en-route and terminal
services.

Scope of EC regulation 1794/2006

All airports above 150 000 commercial
air transport movements48 are covered by
this Regulation. Airports below 50 000
movements may be exempted at the
discretion of States, while airports
between 50 000 and 150 000 movements
may only be exempted when they fulfil
certain criteria related to the economic
and regulatory environments in which
they operate. In total, the Regulation
covers around 215 airports within the
Community, which represents some 74%
of the total Community air transport
movements.

For these reasons, terminal ANS costs analysed in this Section differ from the data reported in Figure 102 which
relate to the 36 ANSPs which provide specific information to the PRC for benchmarking purposes (see Section
8.7).
Counted as the sum of take-offs and landings and calculated as the average over the previous three years.

PRR 2009

102

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

8.6.7

8.6.8

Despite transparency improvements on terminal ANS costs at European level, there is still
a great deal of diversity for the following main reasons:

Whereas harmonised processes and mechanisms for reporting ANS en-route costs and
setting charges are well established, such processes for the determination of terminal
ANS charges only started in November 2009 with the setting of the 2010 terminal
navigation charges (Art 18(2) of EC regulation 1794/2006 [Ref. 33]);

The Regulation foresees a period of convergence towards a common formula for the
computation of terminal service units between 2010 and 2015 allowing States to limit
redistribution effects between airspace users. Therefore, the formula will not be fully
harmonised before 2015, which makes it difficult to compare terminal unit rates until
then;

The Regulation explicitly foresees the possibility to recover terminal ANS costs
through other sources (e.g. cross subsidies such as revenues from other sources). For
cost-effectiveness analysis and benchmarking purposes this requires having an
understanding of, and making a distinction between the costs to provide terminal
ANS and the costs charged for terminal ANS.

In 2008, terminal ANS costs for the 21 States that reported this information amount to
some 1 500M (see also Annex IX). Figure 120 below provides the breakdown of
terminal ANS costs by services (see left-hand side) and by categories (see right-hand
side). By and large the cost breakdown is of the same order of magnitude as for en-route
(see Figure 112).

AIS
2%

MET
4%

Exceptional
items
1.2%

Cost of
capital
5%

Supervision
& other
(incl. SAR)
1%

Depreciation
9%

Surveillance
6%
Navigation
7%

Com.
7%

Other
operating
costs
18%

ATM
73%

Staff costs
66%

Figure 120: Breakdown of terminal ANS costs at European system level (2008)
8.6.9

The unit costs for terminal ANS at European system level are obtained by dividing the
total real terminal ANS costs by the number of IFR airport movements. Figure 121
summarises the main data used to compute the terminal unit costs for 2008. According to
the available data in Figure 121, the unit costs for an IFR movement are 115.
Unfortunately, the data required to compute a 5-years planned profile of terminal ANS
unit costs at European system level was not available for Belgium, Ireland, Portugal,
Romania, Sweden and the UK.
States (reporting terminal ANS charges)
Total terminal ANS costs (M2008)
IFR airport movements (M)
Real unit costs (2008 / IFR airport movement)

2008

2009P

2010P

2011P

22

22

22

22

11/08
22

1.492

1.530

1.535

1.554

4%

13,0
115

Figure 121: Terminal ANS unit costs at European system level (2008)
8.6.10 Figure 121 indicates that at system level, terminal ANS costs are planned to increase by
+4% in real terms between 2008 and 2011. An increase similar as for en-route ANS costs
on the same period (see Figure 103).

PRR 2009

103

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

TERMINAL ANS UNIT COSTS AT STATE LEVEL

8.6.11 Figure 122 shows the terminal ANS unit costs for each of the 22 States that provided
actual 2008 data in November 2009. The year 2008 is the latest for which actual figures
are available at the time of this analysis.
200

188

European system average: 115

per IFR airport movement

173

160
146

140

137

135

132

126
116

120

113

112

106

102
94
87

87

86

84

82

82

80

75

71

40

Sweden

Lithuania

Ireland

Denmark

United Kingdom

Slovenia

Germany

Austria

Poland

Finland

Portugal

Netherlands

Cyprus

Hungary

Italy

Romania

France

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Belgium

Greece

Spain

Figure 122: Terminal IFR ANS costs per IFR airport movement, 2008
8.6.12 Figure 122 indicates that there is a wide dispersion in unit costs for terminal ANS which
vary from 188 for Spain to 71 for Sweden49. In Sweden, most terminal ANS assets (e.g.
TWR buildings, ILS, etc.) and capital-related costs are allocated to the airport division of
LFV and not to the ANS department. As a result, these costs are mainly recovered
through landing fees rather than terminal ANS charges. Therefore, the rather low terminal
unit costs for Sweden illustrate the difficulty of fair cost comparisons where ANS
provision is integrated with airport management50.
8.6.13 Consequently, it is difficult to determine whether the differences shown in Figure 122
above are driven by economic and operational factors (for example, size of operations,
economies of scale, or traffic complexity), differences in charging policy, or purely costallocation differences between en-route and terminal charges which are known to exist
across States/ANSPs. To limit cost-allocation distortions, for benchmarking purposes the
PRC considers that it is preferable to compare gate-to-gate ANSPs cost-effectiveness (i.e.
en-route plus terminal ANS costs, see Section 8.7 below). It is expected that the
application of EC Regulation 1794/2006 [Ref. 33] contributes to reducing these costallocation differences.
8.6.14 The PRC considers that, in the context of SES II performance scheme, it is important to
start monitoring terminal ANS cost-effectiveness. This monitoring will ensure that there
is no distortion in cost-allocation between en-route and terminal ANS during the first
Reference Period. Furthermore, this analysis would constitute a solid ground for the
setting of a EU-wide cost-efficiency target on terminal ANS for future Reference Periods
(i.e. from 2015 onwards).

49

50

The 2008 unit terminal ANS costs reported for Greece in Figure 122 (i.e. 173) have been computed using the
information submitted by Greece in June 2009 since no information relating to 2008 was provided in November
2009.
In fact the situation can be even different across airports operated by the same ANSP.

PRR 2009

104

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

8.7

ANSPs cost-effectiveness benchmarking

8.7.1

The ANSP cost-effectiveness focuses on ATM/CNS provision costs which are under the
direct control and responsibility of the ANSP. Detailed benchmarking analysis is
available in the forthcoming ACE 2008 Benchmarking Report [Ref. 36].

8.7.2

Figure 123 shows a detailed breakdown of gate-to-gate51 ATM/CNS provision costs.

Since there are differences in cost-allocation between en-route and terminal ANS among
ANSPs, it is important to keep a gate-to-gate perspective when comparing ANSPs costeffectiveness.
Exceptional
Items
1.9%
Cost of capital
6.6%
Depreciation
costs
10.9%

Non-staff
operating costs
17.1%

ATM/CNS provision costs ( M)

Staff costs
Non-staff operating costs
Depreciation costs
Cost of capital
Exceptional Items
Total

Staff costs
63.4%

Total
%
4 804 63.4%
1 297 17.1%
828 10.9%
501
6.6%
144
1.9%
7 574 100.0%

Figure 123: Breakdown of gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (2008)

8.7.3

The cost-effectiveness analysis presented in this section is factual. It is important to note

that local performance is impacted by several factors which are different across European
States, and some of these are typically outside (exogenous) an ANSPs direct control. A
genuine measurement of cost inefficiencies would require full account to be taken of
identified and measurable exogenous factors.

8.7.4

The quality of service provided by ANSPs has an impact on the efficiency of aircraft
operations, which carry with them additional costs that need to be taken into
consideration for a full economic assessment of ANSP performance. The quality of
service associated with ATM/CNS provision by ANSPs is, for the time being, assessed
only in terms of ATFM ground delays, which can be measured consistently, can be
attributed to ANSPs, and can be expressed in monetary terms. The indicator of
economic cost-effectiveness is therefore the ATM/CNS provision costs plus the costs of
ATFM ground delay, all expressed per composite flight-hour.

GATE-TO-GATE COST-EFFECTIVENESS
2004-2008 TRENDS
8.7.5

The top of Figure 125 displays the trend at European level of the gate-to-gate economic
cost-effectiveness indicator between 2004 and 2008 for a consistent sample of 33 ANSPs
for which data for a time-series analysis was available. At system level, unit economic
costs slightly reduced by -2.7% between 2004 and 2008 (-0.7% a year).

8.7.6

Figure 125 shows that unit economic costs fell steadily until 2006, stabilised in 2007 and
increased in 2008. The drivers for this increase are shown in Figure 124 which indicates
that in 2008, traffic growth slowed down from +4-6% a year to +1.6%. In the meantime,
ATM/CNS provision costs increased by +0.9% in real terms.

51

That is the aggregation of en-route and terminal ANS.

PRR 2009

105

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

ATM/CNS provision costs

20%

Composite flight-hours

Unit costs of ATFM delays

+17.8%

16%
12%
+4.4%

4%

+0.9%

+8.1%

+7.1%
+5.5%
+4.9%

8%
+4.5%
+1.6%

+0.9%

+1.6%

0%
-2.2%

-4%

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

Figure 124: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs, traffic and ATFM delays (2004-2008)
8.7.7

At the same time, the unit costs of ATFM delays increased substantially (+8.1%), which
is disappointing given the relatively low traffic growth in 2008. The result was an overall
rise in 2008 of +0.6% in the economic cost per composite flight-hour.

8.7.8

Figure 125 shows that economic costs per composite flight-hour have increased since
2004 in 11 ANSPs. The largest increases have been in NAVIAIR (+84%), DCAC Cyprus
(+75%) and Croatia Control (+55%). For these three ANSPs, the rise in unit economic
costs is mainly due to a significant increase of ATFM delays52. In particular, following
the implementation of the DATMAS system, NAVIAIR experienced significant delays
during four months in 2008. In several ANSPs, unit economic costs significantly
decreased as a result of improved quality of service and/or greater financial costeffectiveness. The largest decreases have been observed for ATSA Bulgaria (-39%) and
Oro Navigacija (-31%).

8.7.9

The decrease in unit economic costs in three of the five largest ANSPs (DFS (-4%),
DSNA (-3%) and ENAV (-16%) significantly contributed to the fall observed at
European system level. On the other hand, unit economic costs increased for NATS +4%
since the reduction in ATM/CNS provision costs was not sufficient to compensate for the
rise in ATFM delays. For Aena, the combination of increases in ATM/CNS provision
costs and in ATFM delays led to an increase in unit economic costs (+7%) between 2004
and 2008. A main driver for this increase relates to Aena ATCO employment costs per
hour which were the highest in 2004 and which increased by an additional +8% over the
period.

52

The ATFM delays data reported in Figure 124 and Figure 125 relate to the minutes of ATFM delays greater than
15 minutes. These include en-route ATFM delays but also delays arising from the terminal environment (i.e.
from aerodrome capacity and weather issues).

PRR 2009

106

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

2004

2005

PRR 2009

2006

2007

2008

Figure 125: ATM/CNS cost-effectiveness comparisons, 2004-2008 (real terms)

107

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

IAA

Support costs per composite flight-hour 2008

Support costs per composite flight-hour 2004

400

200

0
UkSATSE

MATS

DHMI

MK CAA

LGS

Oro Navigacija

SMATSA

EANS

ATSA Bulgaria

LPS

DCAC Cyprus

ROMATSA

HungaroControl

Croatia Control

Finavia

Slovenia Control

LFV/ANS Sweden

HCAA

Avinor

NAVIAIR

ANS CR

DSNA

PANSA

IAA

NATS

ENAV

Skyguide

MoldATSA

600
NATA Albania

Gate-to-gate support costs per composite flight-hour

EANS

Employment costs per ATCO-hour 2004

MUAC

LFV/ANS Sweden

HCAA

DCAC Cyprus

Finavia

LGS

100

MATS

200

Croatia Control

283

HungaroControl

400

DHMI

284
Employment costs per ATCO-hour 2008

Avinor

291

2008

SMATSA

307
ATCO-hour productivity 2008

Oro Navigacija

300

2007

PANSA

324

2006

NAVIAIR

Aena

20

Austro Control

40

DFS

2005
IAA

DFS

Austro Control

2.0

1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0

Aena

LVNL

DFS

PANSA

NAVIAIR

Skyguide

DCAC Cyprus

Croatia Control

Austro Control

LGS
EANS

MATS

MK CAA
MoldATSA

MUAC

UkSATSE

Finavia
LFV/ANS Sweden

ROMATSA

MATS
Slovenia Control

SMATSA
Oro Navigacija

HungaroControl

Oro Navigacija
Aena

DHMI

NATA Albania

IAA
Avinor

UkSATSE

DHMI

LPS

MoldATSA

Croatia Control

Finavia

ATSA Bulgaria

Belgocontrol

ATSA Bulgaria

DSNA
NATA Albania

LGS
LFV/ANS Sweden

HCAA

NATS
Slovenia Control

HCAA

Avinor
SMATSA

MK CAA
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)

ENAV

ENAV

LVNL
HungaroControl
DSNA

LPS
ANS CR

DCAC Cyprus

ROMATSA

Gate-to-gate ATCO-hour productivity

PANSA

NAVIAIR

ANS CR

2008

NATS

60

Slovenia Control

80

DSNA

84

NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)

90

ATSA Bulgaria

2004
100

ENAV

120

ANS CR

97

2008

Skyguide

83

2007
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)

0.0

MoldATSA

0.2

LVNL

0.4

Belgocontrol

0.6

UkSATSE

100

2006
0.78

NATA Albania

2005
0.75

NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)

2004
0.71

LPS

0.69

NATS

ROMATSA

0.8

2007

MUAC

Belgocontrol

100

EANS

200

MUAC

300

Skyguide

400

DFS

0.69

2006

487

Aena

2005

484

Austro Control

2004
482

per composite flight-hour (2008 prices)

ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour

MK CAA

495

Composite flight-hour per ATCO-hour on duty

per composite flight-hour (2008 prices)

500

per ATCO-hour on duty (2008 prices)

Composite flight-hour per ATCO-hour on duty

500

per composite flight-hours (2008 prices)

per ATCO-hour on duty (2008 prices)

ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hour

LVNL

Belgocontrol

per composite flight-hour (2008 prices)

600

Economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness

900

800
Unit economic costs 2004

700

600

500

400

300

200

100
0

ATCO-hour productivity 2004

Gate-to-gate employment costs per ATCO-hour

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

8.7.10 The cost-effectiveness indicator can be broken down into three main key economic
drivers: (1) ATCO-hour productivity, (2) employment costs per ATCO-hour and (3)
support costs per composite flight-hour. Figure 126 shows how the various components
contributed to the overall improvement in cost-effectiveness (-7.3% decrease in unit
costs) between 2004 and 2008.
8.7.11 The increase in ATCO employment costs (+21.1%) was not compensated by the increase
in ATCO-hour productivity (+12.6%), thereby resulting in increased ATCO employment
costs per composite flight-hour (+7.5%). Figure 126 also indicates that traffic volumes
increased much faster (+16.9%) than support costs (+2.0%), resulting in an appreciable
decrease of the support costs per composite flight-hour (-12.8%). The central part of
Figure 126 shows that between 2004 and 2008, given the respective weights of ATCO
costs (31%) and support costs (69%), the overall unit costs decreased by-7.3%.
Weight
31%
+21.1%

Decrease in
unit ATM /CNS
provision costs
2004-2008

Weight
69%
+16.9%
decreased
support costs
per composite
flight-hour

+12.6%
+7.5%

increased increased
ATCO-hour employment
productivity costs per
ATCO-hour

increased
ATCO
employment
costs per
composite flighthour

+2.0%
"Support
costs effect"

"Traffic
effect"

-7.3%
-12.8%

Figure 126: Breakdown of changes in cost-effectiveness, 2004-2008 (real terms)

8.7.12 The decrease in support costs per composite flight-hour is consistent with expectations of
scale effects in the provision of ATM/CNS services: as the main part of support costs are
generally fixed costs in the short and medium terms, these are not expected to change
proportionally with traffic volumes.
8.7.13 Further details about the changes in ATCO-hour productivity, employment costs per
ATCO-hour and unit support costs at ANSP level can be found in forthcoming ACE 2008
Benchmarking Report [Ref. 36].

8.8

Conclusions

8.8.1

The PRC cost-effectiveness target proposed in 2003 (i.e. -14% decrease in unit costs for
the period 2003-2008) has been achieved.

8.8.2

This achievement directly translates into savings of some 3 billion with respect to
constant 2003 unit costs. The positive traffic growth during the 2003-2008 period has
greatly contributed to this achievement, along with greater cost-effectiveness awareness
among a majority of ANSPs.

8.8.3

According to benchmarking findings, the decrease in unit costs between 2004 and 2008 is
mainly due to the fact that support costs remained fairly constant while traffic increased
by +17%. This is consistent with expectations of scale effects in the provision of ATC
services. A main part of support costs, which represent 70% of ATM/CNS provision
costs, are generally fixed costs in the short and medium terms and are not expected to
change proportionally with traffic volumes.

PRR 2009

108

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

8.8.4

However, 2008 marks the end of a positive business cycle for the European ANS system
and en-route unit costs are planned to sharply increase in 2009 and 2010. As a result, the
Pan-European target adopted by the Provisional Council in Nov. 2007 (-6% reduction of
unit costs between 2008 and 2010) will not be met.

8.8.5

The economic downturn, which became apparent in summer 2008, has affected the
aviation community throughout 2009 with unprecedented severity, requiring greater
flexibility on ANSPs and EUROCONTROL to adjust to new unfavourable economic
conditions. In this context, no doubt that the pressure to genuinely improve costeffectiveness is high on the agenda of airspace users expectations.

8.8.6

Several European ANSPs have revised their plans accordingly and implemented costcontainment measures for 2009 and 2010. All the five largest States plan to decrease their
en-route cost-base in 2009 or in 2010. EUROCONTROL has decided to freeze its 2010
cost-base at 2008 levels. It is important that these planned cost reductions materialise in
order to minimise under-recoveries that will negatively impact airspace users through
higher charges in future years.

8.8.7

It is however important that the implementation of cost-containment measures does not

contribute to jeopardize the provision of future ATC capacity. The decrease in traffic
offers some breathing space for ANSPs to prioritise the projects with the most promising
capacity outcomes, taking into account trade-offs, so that there is a better match between
capacity and demand when traffic growth resumes.

8.8.8

The current economic crisis clearly shows the limits of the full cost-recovery regime
where the under-recoveries generated in 2008 and 2009 will have to be borne by airspace
users in future years. In the context of SES II, the EC is developing Implementing Rules
on the performance scheme and also amending the Implementing Rules on the Charging
Scheme. These Implementing Rules foresee the introduction of an incentive scheme based
on risk sharing and on the principle of determined costs. This should contribute to better
incentivise performance improvements and balance risks between States/ANSPs and
airspace users.

8.8.9

The transparency of terminal ANS costs charged to airspace users is gradually improving
with the setting of the 2010 terminal navigation charges according to the EC Charging
Scheme Regulation. However, the quality and completeness of data provided vary
significantly across States. This information is now analysed for the first time in a PRR to
provide an overview and an initial assessment of terminal ANS cost-effectiveness.

8.8.10 The PRC considers that, in the context of SES II performance scheme, it is important to
start effective monitoring of terminal ANS cost-effectiveness in order to pave the way for
the setting of future EU-wide cost-efficiency targets.

PRR 2009

109

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

Chapter 9: Economic Assessment

PART III - OVERALL ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
9

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

KEY MESSAGES OF THIS CHAPTER

With the exception of safety where minimum agreed levels must be guaranteed, it is important to
develop a consolidated view in order to monitor overall economic performance for those KPAs for
which economic trade-offs are possible (capacity vs. delays, capacity vs. flight efficiency).
The indicators related to ANS performance at airports are not yet available with a sufficient level of
precision and therefore the economic assessment is limited to en-route ANS. Work is needed to include
ANS performance at airports in the economic assessment as soon as possible.

The first reference period of the SES II performance scheme starting in 2012 will mark a significant
change for European ANS performance and it is important to ensure the development of sound and
relevant key indicators which serve as a foundation for target setting.

Notwithstanding an increase of the unit costs for en-route ANS capacity provision in 2009, total
economic en-route unit costs show a significant decline (-6%) due the reduction of en-route ATFM
delays as a result of the significant reduction of traffic in 2009 and flight efficiency improvements.

9.1

Introduction

9.1.1

This chapter combines key indicators from the previous chapters (safety, service quality,
environment, cost effectiveness) for a consolidated economic assessment of ANS
performance.

9.1.2

The chapter ends with a reflection of the main challenges and developments relevant for
ANS performance in the future.

9.2

Consolidated assessment of ANS performance

9.2.1

Without a doubt, there are interdependencies between the individual key performance
areas evaluated in the individual chapters of this report.

9.2.2

Keeping apart from Safety53 which is difficult to assess in monetary terms and for which
minimum agreed levels must be guaranteed, there are clear trade-offs between the quality
of service domain, cost-efficiency, and the provision of capacity, as illustrated in Figure
127. Insufficient capacity results in lower service quality (non-optimum flight profiles)
while excess capacity entails higher than necessary costs (impact on cost-effectiveness).

9.2.3

In order to develop a consolidated view for those KPAs for which economic trade-offs
need to be considered, ANS performance is expressed in monetary terms.

9.2.4

Thus, the total economic ANS costs consist of direct costs (route and terminal charges)
and indirect costs (delays, non-optimum flight profiles) and enable the monitoring of total
economic costs borne by airspace users while considering relevant economic trade-offs.

9.2.5

The consolidated indicator corresponds to the Strategic economic objective agreed by

Transport Ministers in 2000 to decrease the direct and indirect ATM-related costs per unit
of aircraft operations, which is still relevant under SES.

9.2.6

The ultimate goal must be to provide the necessary airport and en-route capacity within
required safety levels whilst minimising total ANS economic gate-to-gate costs to
airspace users.

53

In addition to the minimum agreed safety levels which are not subject to any trade-offs, it is acknowledged
that there may be interdependencies between safety and other performance areas.

PRR 2009

110

Chapter 9: Economic Assessment

Political
Perspective

ECONOMY

SAFETY

Airspace
User
Perspective

ENVIRONMENT

User
charges

Service Quality
(time, fuel)

Costeffectiveness

Operational
performance

Safety
ANSP
Perspective

Capacity

Figure 127: Perspectives on ANS performance

9.2.7

Safety is not a performance area related only to ANS service provision, but a common
performance area for both airspace users and air navigation service providers. Improper
safety management at operational level or inadequate safety assurance at regulatory level
may equally affect the performance of both types of organisations.

9.3

Estimated economic ANS costs at airports

9.3.1

While ANS performance in the en-route environment is relatively well understood,

measured and managed, the airport environment is generally more complex.

ESTIMATED INDIRECT SERVICE QUALITY COSTS

9.3.2

In order to develop a sound and commonly agreed framework for the measurement of
ANS-related operational performance at and around airports, the PRC launched the ATM
at Airports Performance (ATMAP) project in 2008 (see also Chapter 6).

9.3.3

The ATMAP project aims at developing relevant operational indicators (i.e. inefficiencies
in the taxi-phase, delays due to airborne terminal holdings, etc.) in cooperation with
interested stakeholders and is expected to establish solid and commonly agreed indicators
for the review of ANS-related performance at airports which will also be important in the
context of the SES II performance scheme.

9.3.4

Although some considerable progress has been made, the quantification of ANS-related
inefficiencies at airports is less mature and indicators for the consistent assessment of the
resulting economic impact are still being refined within the ATMAP project.

TERMINAL ANS COSTS

9.3.5

As outlined in Chapter 8.6, despite gradual transparency improvements due to the EC

Charging Scheme Regulation, there is still heterogeneity of situations resulting in
different levels of visibility and transparency on terminal ANS costs at European level.

9.3.6

An additional level of complexity is the possibility to recover terminal ANS costs through
other sources (e.g. cross subsidies such as revenues from other sources).

9.3.7

In view of the varying quality and completeness of data presently available on terminal
ANS costs, it is important to continue monitoring and to develop a deeper understanding
of the reported costs before terminal ANS costs can be considered in an economic
assessment. This is also particularly relevant in the context of the SES II performance

PRR 2009

111

Chapter 9: Economic Assessment

scheme to ensure the development of sound and relevant indicators for the setting of
performance targets.
TOTAL ECONOMIC ANS COSTS AT AIRPORTS
9.3.8

As the costs related to ANS-related performance at airports are not yet available with a
sufficient level of precision no attempt has been made to estimate total economic ANS
costs at airports.

9.4

Estimated economic en-route ANS costs

9.4.1

This section provides a consolidated view of ANS en-route performance for those KPAs
for which economic trade-offs are possible. The resulting economic en-route unit cost
therefore corresponds to the direct and indirect costs borne by airspace users for en-route
ANS in Europe.

ESTIMATED INDIRECT SERVICE QUALITY COSTS

9.4.2

Costs incurred by airspace users due to en-route ATFM delays (applied at the departure
airport) or non-optimum en-route flight profiles arise from extra time and additional fuel
burn (see also Chapter 5).

9.4.3

Figure 128 shows the estimated

costs of en-route ATFM delay in
Europe between 2001 and 2009.

The most comprehensive report on the cost of ATFM delays

is the University of Westminster Report [Ref 37]. The report
is presently being updated.

9.4.4

Total cost of en-route ATFM delay

to European airspace users is
estimated to be 550M in 2009.

Average costs of tactical delay on the ground (engine off)

are approximated to be close to zero for the first 15 minutes
and 82 per minute, on average, for ATFM delays longer
than 15 minutes ( 2008 prices).

9.4.5

Compared to 2008, this represents

a notable reduction of 350M. As
outlined in Chapter 5, the reduction
was
mainly
due
to
the
unprecedented drop in traffic.

Year

Total ATFM
delays (min.)

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

27.6 M
18.0 M
14.8 M
14.9 M
17.6 M
18.4 M
21.5 M
23.8 M
15.2 M

ATFM delay costs:

The estimate includes direct costs (crew, passenger

compensation, etc.), the network effect (i.e. the costs of
reactionary delays that are generated by primary delays) and
the estimated costs to an airline to retain passenger loyalty.
The cost of time lost by passenger is partly reflected.
It should be noted that there are inevitably margins of
uncertainty in the approximation of delay costs.

ATFM Delays > 15 minutes

En-route

Airport

Total

16.2 M
9.0 M
5.6 M
5.2 M
6.3 M
7.7 M
9.2 M
11.2 M
6.9 M

5.7 M
4.9 M
5.5 M
6.1 M
7.4 M
6.7 M
7.7 M
7.6 M
5.3 M

21.9 M
13.9 M
11.2 M
11.3 M
13.6 M
14.4 M
16.9 M
18.9 M
12.2 M

Estimated cost of ATFM delays

(Euro - 2008 Prices)
En-route

Airport

Total

1,350 M 450 M 1,800 M

750 M 400 M 1,150 M
450 M 450 M
900 M
450 M 500 M
950 M
500 M 600 M 1,100 M
650 M 550 M 1,200 M
750 M 650 M 1,400 M
900 M 650 M 1,550 M
550 M 450 M 1,000 M
source: EUROCONTROL

Figure 128: Estimated costs of ATFM delay

9.4.6

Figure 129 shows the estimated cost related to horizontal en-route extension (see Chapter
5). The methodology for measuring flight efficiency has been developed in 2004 and
hence data are not available before 2004.

PRR 2009

112

Chapter 9: Economic Assessment

9.4.8

For the approximation of costs due

to en-route extension, it is important
to recall that the indicator measures
the difference between the actual
flown flight profile and the great
circle distance, which is (due to
capacity and safety constraints) an
unachievable optimum.

Costs of en-route extension:

The costs related to horizontal en-route extension include
both the costs of extra fuel burnt and additional flight time.
In the case of route extension, the additional time is
predictable in most cases and normally reflected in
scheduled flight times. The strategic cost buffer included
in airline schedules is estimated at 41 per minute ( 2008
prices) on average for a flight in Europe to which the cost of
extra fuel is added [Ref. 37].

Total cost related to en-route extension is estimated to be around 2000M in 2009. There
was a notable reduction compared to 2008 which was partly related to improved en-route
flight efficiency (see Chapter 5) but also partly due to the lower jet fuel prices in 2009
(see also Chapter 2).
Cost of FUEL

Total extra time

('000 hrs.)

Cost of time
(2008 prices)

Total extra fuel

(M t)

Cost per tonne

(2008 prices)

2004

435

555

1 350 M

1.45 Mt

399

600 M

1 950 M

2005

427

544

1 350 M

1.42 Mt

549

800 M

2 150 M

2006

440

560

1 400 M

1.46 Mt

611

900 M

2 300 M

2007

470

599

1 500 M

1.56 Mt

605

950 M

2 450 M

2008

473

603

1 500 M

1.57 Mt

770

1 200 M

2 700 M

2009

429

545

1 350 M

1.47 Mt

453

650 M

2 000 M

Year

Total extra
distance (M km)

Cost of TIME

Cost of total extra

fuel (2008 prices)

9.4.7

Total costs
(2008
prices)

Figure 129: Estimated costs of sub-optimal horizontal flight efficiency

EN-ROUTE ANS COSTS

9.4.9

Total en-route ANS costs are projected to be 6800M in 2009 which is an increase
compared to 2008. A more detailed evaluation of en-route ANS costs is provided in
Chapter 8 of this report.

9.4.10 Future assessments of economic en-route ANS costs will also need to consider costs
related to new equipment arising from the ATM Master plan.

9.5

Evolution of Total economic en-route ANS Costs

9.5.1

The following section provides an estimate of total economic ANS en-route costs
between 2004 and 2009.

9.5.2

The Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for total economic en-route ANS costs is the real
unit economic cost, i.e. the deflated ANS cost per km. Figure 130 shows the derivation of
this indicator, and its evolution between 2004 and 2009.

PRR 2009

113

Chapter 9: Economic Assessment

 2008 PRICES

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009 P

6 100

6 200

6 200

6 400

6 700

6 800 (P)

450

500

650

750

900

Cost of route extension (M)

1 950

2 150

2 300

2 450

2 700

2 000

Total economic cost (M)

8 450

8 800

9 200

9 600

10 250

9 350 (P)

Total distance charged (M km)

7 050

7 450

7 800

8 300

8 850

8 550 (P)

Real unit economic cost (/km)

1.20

1.18

1.17

1.15

1.16

1.10 (P)

Cost of capacity (M)

Cost of ATFM en-route delays (M)

550

Figure 130: Total economic en-route costs

9.5.3

The evolution of the economic en-route unit costs at European system level in Figure 131
illustrates the importance of a consolidated view. The notable improvements observed for
direct en-route ANS costs (dark blue) between 2004 and 2008 were almost cancelled-out
by increases in en-route ATFM delays and en-route extension. This indicates the
importance of managing the entire system performance.
1.4
1.2

2008/km

1.0

-2%

-1%

-1%

1%

-6%

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.3

0.07

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.8

Cost of route
extension

0.6
0.4

Cost of ATFM
delay

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

2006

2007

2008

2009P

Cost of capacity

0.2
0.0
2004

2005

Source:
PRC analysis

Figure 131: Real unit economic en-route cost

9.5.4

Despite an increase of the unit costs for en-route ANS capacity provision in 2009, total
economic en-route unit costs show a significant decline (-6%) due to the reduction of
costs related to en-route ATFM delays and flight efficiency improvements which were to
a large extent driven by the significant reduction of traffic and the lower fuel price in
2009 (see Figure 18 in Chapter 2).

9.5.5

The long term analysis in Figure 132 reveals cyclic behaviour which suggests a reactive
management of capacity (i.e. capacity issues are only solved when they appear or
pressing on costs in periods of low delays).

9.5.6

Periods of high delays and low cost, or vice-versa, can be observed until 1999, as shown
in Figure 132. The unit economic cost remains approximately constant, and there is no
improvement in ANS economic costs borne by users.

9.5.7

Such cycles can be avoided and overall performance improved with proactive capacity
management54, based on proper performance indicators and performance management - in
this case capacity management as applied since 2001.

54

Proactive capacity management compensates the lag in raising capacity (typically 3-5 years) by proper planning.

PRR 2009

114

Chapter 9: Economic Assessment

En-route unit costs

Traffic (index: 1990=100)

All States in Route Charges system

Minutes of en-route ATFM delay per flight and traffic

index

2014P

2013P

2012P

2011P

2010P

2008

2009P

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

0
2002

0.5
2001

2000

0.6

1999

1998

0.7

1997

1996

0.8

1995

1994

0.9

1993

1992

1.0

1991

1990

2008 per kilometre

1.1

En-route delay (Summer)

data source : EUROCONTROL/CRCO, CFMU (delay)

Figure 132: Evolution of en-route ATFM delays, unit costs and traffic

9.6

Challenges and developments ahead

9.6.1

The following section outlines some of the main challenges and developments relevant
for ANS performance.

TRAFFIC DECREASE AND ANS PERFORMANCE

9.6.2

After a continuous traffic growth for a number of years, in some parts of Europe at very
high rates, the unprecedented downturn due to the economic crisis in 2008/09 cancelledout three to four full years of traffic growth. Air traffic dropped by 6.6% in 2009 which
effectively cut traffic back to 2005/6 levels (see Chapter 2).

9.6.3

Airlines already in a highly competitive market were forced to quickly adapt to the drastic
changes in market conditions by quickly cutting costs and capacity. The temporary
suspension of the use it or lose it rule by the European Commission for the Summer
season 2009 enabled airlines to significantly scale-back capacity without running the risk
of loosing valuable airport slots for the next season.

9.6.4

Despite all cost-cutting measures and capacity reductions in response to the drop in
demand, airlines expect the highest annual loss ever reported for the industry in 2009.
The Association of European Airlines (AEA) forecasts an aggregate loss for its members
of 3 billion which is more than 50% higher than the losses following the events of
11 September 2001.

9.6.5

Despite specific cost containment measures,

ANSPs showed a limited ability to adjust
costs in line with the exceptional fall in air
traffic in 2009. The limited degree of
flexibility to quickly adjust to changing
conditions is partly due to the characteristics
of the cost structure which is largely fixed in
the short term but also due to the lack of
incentives provided by the current ANS
funding system which is based on the full
cost recovery principle.

PRR 2009

115

Full cost recovery regime:

The current ANS funding model is based on the
full cost recovery principle which is an
automatic adjustment of the unit rate charges to
airspace users to recover ANS provision costs
and to account for over or under recoveries from
previous years.
While it ensures financial stability of the ANS
service providers, it lacks incentives to control
costs as any under-recoveries due to higher than
expected costs or lower than expected traffic are
borne by airspace users.

Chapter 9: Economic Assessment

9.6.6

In the very short run, virtually all ATM/CNS provision costs are fixed. However, on
practical timescale, there are degrees of variability of costs to demand. The ATM industry
has demonstrated that support costs (70% of total ATM/CNS provision costs) have a
certain degree of downwards flexibility, for example by reconsidering staffing needs for
support functions.

9.6.7

ATCOs in OPS employment costs (30% of total ATM/CNS provision costs) could be
considered as more variable because they are directly linked to traffic demand, but in
practice they show a very limited degree of downwards flexibility. In fact, in case of
temporary decrease in demand it is neither sensible nor economical to reduce the number
of ATCOs in OPS given the costs and the lead time for recruitment and training. The
cutback of overtime hours and the relinquishment of financial bonuses and rewards are in
practice the main short term measures to reduce these costs.

9.6.8

The unprecedented drop in traffic clearly shows the limitations of the current full cost
recovery regime. ANSPs have no strong incentives to reduce costs and to be reactive to
reductions in traffic levels as rates are adjusted upwards to compensate for lower traffic
volumes.

9.6.9

Significant under-recoveries generated in 2008 and 2009 will have to be borne by

airspace users in future years resulting in an increase of the unit rates in a time when the
industry starts to recover.

9.6.10 Following a plea by the European Commission to freeze or reduce unit rates in 2010, a
number of States have launched various cost containment programmes, as described in
paragraph 8.2.11 in Chapter 8.2. Eight States proposed to freeze unit rates at 2009 levels,
seven States proposed reductions below 2009 levels and 19 States proposed increases
over 2009 levels.
9.6.11 In the context of the SES II performance scheme, the EC is developing implementing
rules which require the setting of binding national/FAB performance targets in four
performance areas (Safety, Cost-effectiveness, Capacity, and Environment) and the
introduction of a corresponding incentive scheme.
9.6.12 The incentivisation of ANS performance would need to be linked to a mechanism which
balances the risks between States/ANSPs and airspace users. ANSPs should be allowed to
build up financial reserves when they perform well (service quality, cost efficiency) but
should have to bear a risk when traffic falls below planned levels or when their costs are
above pre-determined levels.
9.6.13 Overall, the significant drop in air traffic demand resulted in an improvement of ANS
service quality. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in a small number of ANSPs the
significant traffic decrease did not result in a similar delay decrease (see Chapter 5) and as
a result the summer en-route ATFM delay target was not met in 2009.
9.6.14 Compared to 2006 when the level of traffic was similar, ATFM en-route delays decreased
by 8.5% and en-route flight efficiency improved by 1.1% which is due to the continuous
addition of capacity improvements over the past three years.
9.6.15 Despite the cost containment measures at some ACCs (see also paragraph 8.2.11 in
Chapter 8) and the adaptation of available capacity to reduced demand, effective capacity
increased by 0.4% in 2009 compared to 2008.

PRR 2009

116

Chapter 9: Economic Assessment

ATM SYSTEM UPGRADES AND REPLACEMENTS

9.6.16 As outlined in Chapter 5, a large number of ANSPs plan major upgrades or a replacement
of their ATM system over the next 5 years.
9.6.17 Figure 133: shows that 14 ACCs already upgraded their Flight Data Processing (FDP)
system in 2008. This is significantly more than in any of the 5 preceding years.
9.6.18 Between 2009 and 2015, 31 more upgrades or replacements of FDP system55 are planned
which requires substantial capital expenditure. It will be a challenge for ANSPs to deploy
these new systems without negatively impacting the level of service quality provided
[Ref 36].
FDPS upgrades & replacements
ATHINAI

BRATISLAVA

BRUSSELS

BARCELONA

ANKARA

BUCHAREST

ANKARA

BARCELONA

BREMEN

BRINDISI

BUDAPEST

BUCHAREST

CANARIAS

BEOGRAD

NICOSIA

BEOGRAD

BRATISLAVA

MUNCHEN
ZURICH

CHISINAU

RHEIN

BRUSSELS

LISBOA

BREMEN

RHEIN

CHISINAU

BRINDISI

MACEDONIA

MADRID

ISTANBUL

SOFIA

ISTANBUL

CANARIAS

MILANO
NICOSIA
PADOVA
ROMA
WARSZAWA

PALMA
PRAHA
SEVILLA
SKOPJE

KYIV
LANGEN
MUAC
MUNCHEN
RIGA
SOFIA

KYIV
L'VIV
MALMO
TALLINN
WARSZAWA

LANGEN
LJUBLJANA
MADRID
MILANO
PADOVA
PALMA

TALLINN

PRAHA

TIRANA

ROMA

VILNIUS

SEVILLA

WIEN

SKOPJE
TAMPERE
TIRANA
VILNIUS
WIEN

<2005

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012-2015

>2015

Figure 133: FDPS system upgrades and planned replacements

9.6.19 Notwithstanding the uncertainties attached to the current air traffic forecasts, it is
important to continue to close existing capacity gaps and to carefully plan future capacity
increases and system upgrades in order to be able to accommodate future traffic demand
without costly service quality penalties.
9.6.20 A proactive capacity planning and management is especially important considering the
fact that structural decisions concerning capacity (recruitment, investment, major airspace
redesign, and operational agreements within FABs) typically have an operational effect
after 3-5 years.
SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY PERFORMANCE SCHEME
9.6.21 The SES Performance Scheme is designed to be a powerful driver of European ANS
performance. The Scheme will include European Union wide targets in four key
performance areas (Safety, Cost-efficiency, Capacity, and Environment) which are
transposed into binding national/FAB targets for which clear accountabilities must be
assigned.
9.6.22 The first reference period of the SES II performance scheme starting in 2012 will mark a
significant change for European ANS performance and it is important to ensure the
development of sound and relevant key indicators which serve as a foundation for target
setting (see also Chapter 8).

55

The upgrades are partly necessary due to changes in the ICAO flight plan format.

PRR 2009

117

Chapter 9: Economic Assessment

SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY ATM RESEARCH (SESAR)

9.6.23 The SES II package also includes a technological pillar (see also Chapter 1.3.). The
SESAR programme constitutes the R&D branch of the European SES initiative. As such
it should deliver technological solutions and operational concepts and outline expected
costs and benefits before decisions on the implementation are taken.
9.6.24 For the benefit of the entire European aviation community, it will be important to ensure
consistency and close coordination between ANS performance review in Europe and
developments within SESAR.

9.7

Conclusions

9.7.1

The indicators related to ANS performance at airports are not yet available with a
sufficient level of precision and therefore the economic assessment is limited to en-route
ANS. Work is needed to include ANS performance at airports in the economic
assessment as soon as possible. This is particularly important in the context of the SES II
performance scheme.

9.7.2

With the exception of safety where minimum agreed levels must be guaranteed, it is
important to develop a consolidated view in order to monitor overall economic
performance for those KPAs for which economic trade-offs are possible (costs related to
capacity provision vs. costs associated with service quality).

9.7.3

The significant improvements observed for direct en-route ANS costs between 2004 and
2008 were almost cancelled-out by increases in en-route ATFM delays and en-route
extension. This indicates the importance of managing the entire system performance.

9.7.4

Notwithstanding an increase of the unit costs for en-route ANS capacity provision in
2009, total economic en-route unit costs show a significant decline (-6%) due the
reduction of en-route ATFM delays and flight efficiency improvements which were to a
large extent driven by the significant reduction of traffic in 2009.

9.7.5

The first reference period of the SES II performance scheme starting in 2012 will mark a
significant change for European ANS performance and it is important to ensure the
development of sound and relevant key indicators which serve as a foundation for target
setting.

PRR 2009

118

Chapter 9: Economic Assessment

ANNEX I - SES II PERFORMANCE SCHEME

Article 11 of the Framework Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, as amended by

Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of 21 October 2009
Article11
Performance scheme
1.

2.

3.

To improve the performance of air navigation services and network functions in the
single European sky, a performance scheme for air navigation services and network
functions shall be set up. It shall include:
(a)

Community-wide performance targets on the key performance areas of safety, the

environment, capacity and cost-efficiency;

(b)

national plans or plans for functional airspace blocks, including performance

targets, ensuring consistency with the Community-wide performance targets; and

(c)

periodic review, monitoring and benchmarking of the performance of

air navigation services and network functions.

In accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 5(3), the Commission
may designate Eurocontrol or another impartial and competent body to act as a
"performance review body". The role of the performance review body shall be to assist
the Commission, in coordination with the national supervisory authorities, and to assist
the national supervisory authorities on request in the implementation of the performance
scheme referred to in paragraph 1. The Commission shall ensure that the performance
review body acts independently when carrying out the tasks entrusted to it by the
Commission.
(a)

The Community-wide performance targets for the air traffic management network
shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the regulatory procedure
referred to in Article 5(3), after taking into account the relevant inputs from
national supervisory authorities at national level or at the level of functional
airspace blocks.

(b)

The national or functional airspace block plans referred to in point (b) of

paragraph 1 shall be drawn up by national supervisory authorities and adopted by
the Member State(s). These plans shall include binding national targets or targets
at the level of functional airspace blocks and an appropriate incentive scheme as
adopted by the Member State(s). Drafting of the plans shall be subject to
consultation with air navigation service providers, airspace users' representatives,
and, where relevant, airport operators and airport coordinators.

(c)

The consistency of the national or functional airspace block targets with the
Community-wide performance targets shall be assessed by the Commission using
the assessment criteria referred to in point (d) of paragraph 6.
In the event that the Commission identifies that one or more national or
functional airspace block targets do not meet the assessment criteria, it may
decide, in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 5(2) to
issue a recommendation that the national supervisory authorities concerned
propose revised performance target(s). The Member State(s) concerned shall
adopt revised performance targets and appropriate measures which shall be
notified to the Commission in due time.

119

Where the Commission finds that the revised performance targets and appropriate
measures are not adequate, it may decide, in accordance with the regulatory
procedure referred to in Article 5(3), that the Member States concerned shall take
corrective measures.
Alternatively, the Commission may decide, with adequate supporting evidence, to
revise the Community-wide performance targets in accordance with the
regulatory procedure referred to in Article 5(3).

4.

(d)

The reference period for the performance scheme shall cover a minimum of three
years and a maximum of five years. During this period, in the event that the
national or functional airspace block targets are not met, the Member States
and/or the national supervisory authorities shall apply the appropriate measures
they have defined. The first reference period shall cover the first three years
following the adoption of the implementing rules referred to in paragraph 6.

(e)

The Commission shall carry out regular assessments of the achievement of the
performance targets and present the results to the Single Sky Committee.

The following procedures shall apply to the performance scheme referred to in paragraph
1:
(a)

collection, validation, examination, evaluation and dissemination of relevant data

related to the performance of air navigation services and network functions from
all relevant parties, including air navigation service providers, airspace users,
airport operators, national supervisory authorities, Member States and
Eurocontrol;

(b)

selection of appropriate key performance areas on the basis of ICAO Document

No 9854 "Global Air Traffic Management Operational Concept", and consistent
with those identified in the Performance Framework of the ATM Master Plan,
including safety, the environment, capacity and cost-efficiency areas, adapted
where necessary in order to take into account the specific needs of the single
European sky and relevant objectives for these areas and definition of a limited
set of key performance indicators for measuring performance;

(c)

establishment of Community-wide performance targets that shall be defined

taking into consideration inputs identified at national level or at the level of
functional airspace blocks;

(d)

assessment of the national or functional airspace block performance targets on the

basis of the national or functional airspace block plan; and

(e)

monitoring of the national or functional airspace block performance plans,

including appropriate alert mechanisms.

The Commission may add to the list of procedures referred to in this paragraph. These
measures designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation, by supplementing
it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to
in Article 5(4).
5.

The establishment of the performance scheme shall take into account that en route
services, terminal services and network functions are different and should be treated
accordingly, if necessary also for performance-measuring purposes.

6.

For the detailed functioning of the performance scheme, the Commission shall, by
4 December 2011, and within a suitable time frame with a view to meeting the relevant
deadlines laid down in this Regulation, adopt implementing rules in accordance with the
regulatory procedure referred to in Article 5(3). These implementing rules shall cover the
following:
(a)

the content and timetable of the procedures referred to in paragraph 4;

120

(b)

the reference period and intervals for the assessment of the achievement of
performance targets and setting of new targets;

(c)

criteria for the setting up by the national supervisory authorities of the national or
functional airspace block performance plans, containing the national or functional
airspace block performance targets and the incentive scheme. The performance
plans shall:
(i)

be based on the business plans of the air navigation service providers;

(ii)

address all cost components of the national or functional airspace block

cost base;

(iii)

include binding performance targets consistent with the Community-wide

performance targets;

(d)

criteria to assess whether the national or functional airspace block targets are
consistent with the Community-wide performance targets during the reference
period and to support alert mechanisms;

(e)

general principles for the setting up by Member States of the incentive scheme;

(f)

principles for the application of a transitional mechanism necessary for the

adaptation to the functioning of the performance scheme not exceeding
12 months following the adoption of the implementing rules.

121

ANNEX II - FRAMEWORK FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

The figure below shows the principal measures of traffic and their relationships, as well as
corresponding indicators.
RPK
(Revenue pax-km)
Load factor (%)

ASK
(Available seat-km)
Average aircraft
seat capacity

Max. Take-Off
Weight (t)

Flight distance
(km)
Average speed
(km/h)
Average length
(km)

Flight-hours
(h)
Average flight
duration (h)

Flights
(N)

Framework for traffic analysis

The societal end result of air transport measured in Revenue Passenger Kilometres (RPK) results
from a combination of factors:
the average flight length reflects the average distance between origins and
destinations of flights in the network (not of passenger journeys)

average aircraft seating capacity, it is related to Maximum Take-Off Weight

(MTOW);

load factors

122

ANNEX III - ACC TRAFFIC AND DELAY DATA (2006-2009)

State

ACC Name

Daily Traffic

Delay per flight (min/flight)

Airport delay share of total delay

2006

2007

2008

2009

2006

2007

2008

2009

2006

2007

2008

2009

327

389

405

442

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0%

0%

0%

0%

Albania

Tirana

Armenia

Yerevan

Austria

Wien

1897

2072

2108

1976

119

0.0
1.1

0%

1.4

2.1

1.6

73%

44%

35%

25%
58%

Belgium

Brussels

1630

1630

1606

1470

0.4

0.3

0.6

0.6

73%

76%

69%

Bosnia-Herzegovina

Sarajevo

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0%

0%

0%

0%

Bulgaria

Sofia

619

705

1187

1230

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0%

0%

49%

0%

Bulgaria

Varna

434

458

344

0.0

0.0

0.0

0%

0%

0%

Croatia

Zagreb

829

974

1039

1063

1.6

0.8

2.1

0.7

1%

5%

0%

0%

Cyprus

Nicosia

590

660

739

729

0.8

1.6

2.7

2.4

1%

5%

3%

2%

Czech Republic

Praha

1597

1690

1782

1707

1.0

0.9

0.5

0.3

18%

14%

11%

12%

Denmark

Kobenhavn

1429

1493

1456

1354

0.6

0.3

2.6

0.1

41%

61%

13%

74%

Estonia

Tallinn

332

386

433

401

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0%

0%

0%

0%

Finland

Rovaniemi

96

92

92

92

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0%

0%

0%

0%

Finland

Tampere

475

460

474

444

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

70%

83%

97%

55%
29%

France

Bordeaux

2178

2313

2324

2121

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.0

16%

11%

21%

France

Brest

2320

2490

2460

2248

0.5

0.2

0.1

0.1

1%

2%

1%

1%

France

Marseille AC

2659

2868

2867

2692

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.1

0%

0%

0%

0%

France

Paris

3357

3476

3449

3265

1.2

1.0

1.0

0.7

67%

49%

48%

71%

France

Reims

2305

2450

2457

2174

0.4

0.6

0.5

0.1

1%

2%

0%

6%

FYROM

Skopje

315

330

336

337

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0%

0%

0%

0%

Germany

Berlin

913

Germany

Bremen

1001

1741

1762

1623

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.4

75%

68%

42%

42%

Germany

Langen

3504

3596

3577

3363

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.3

88%

87%

75%

53%

Germany

Munchen

3521

3914

4021

3780

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

60%

55%

50%

53%

0.4

42%

Germany

Rhein

3709

3921

4012

3744

0.1

0.3

0.9

0.6

0%

0%

0%

0%

Greece

Athinai+Macedonia

1492

1642

1699

1693

0.8

1.4

2.2

2.2

78%

59%

32%

47%

1553

1588

1602

1572

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.1

67%

63%

100%

63%

567

622

620

520

0.2

0.1

1.5

0.1

77%

86%

76%

99%

1146

1205

1204

1086

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

13%

0%

6%

0%

778

837

865

817

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.0

99%

93%

90%

99%
100%

Hungary

Budapest

Ireland

Dublin

Ireland

Shannon

Italy

Brindisi

Italy

Milano

1786

1893

1783

1664

1.4

0.8

0.2

0.1

79%

95%

96%

Italy

Padova

1715

1879

1799

1673

0.3

0.6

0.4

0.2

21%

39%

78%

89%

Italy

Roma

2478

2705

2699

2585

0.8

0.8

0.5

0.1

76%

93%

98%

98%

Latvia

Riga

416

476

515

460

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0%

0%

0%

0%

Lithuania

Vilnius

356

476

583

515

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0%

0%

0%

0%

Maastricht

Maastricht

4207

4410

4395

4068

0.3

0.6

0.5

0.0

0%

0%

0%

0%

Malta

Malta

207

223

231

233

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100%

0%

0%

0%

Moldova

Chisinau

75

94

110

119

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0%

0%

0%

0%

Netherlands

Amsterdam

1433

1490

1439

1331

0.4

0.8

1.1

0.3

80%

91%

96%

86%

Norway

Bodo

508

527

530

522

0.5

0.0

0.1

0.0

8%

28%

75%

100%

Norway

Oslo

830

886

929

866

0.1

0.4

0.2

0.1

48%

46%

91%

89%

Norway

Stavanger

523

556

558

540

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.4

1%

11%

22%

6%

Poland

Warszawa

1246

1411

1558

1438

1.5

2.3

2.2

1.8

30%

15%

4%

3%

1035

1096

1121

1036

0.1

0.4

0.4

0.1

82%

30%

55%

83%

258

265

283

274

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0%

0%

0%

0%

1136

1182

1212

1186

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0%

0%

100%

0%

1045

1218

1314

1373

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

4%

9%

0%

0%

855

840

891

880

0.1

0.5

0.2

0.1

0%

0%

0%

0%

Portugal

Lisboa

Portugal

Santa Maria

Romania

Bucuresti

Serbia and Montenegr Beograd

Slovak Republic

Bratislava

Slovenia

Ljubjana

539

624

671

632

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

0%

3%

19%

1%

Spain

Barcelona AC+AP

2115

2321

2250

2033

0.9

0.5

0.4

0.2

20%

37%

48%

33%

Spain

Madrid

2688

2904

2860

2609

1.6

1.9

1.1

1.2

63%

54%

32%

36%

Spain

Palma

712

749

733

678

0.3

0.6

0.9

0.6

99%

99%

99%

77%

Spain

Sevilla

1025

1100

1067

956

0.4

0.3

0.1

0.2

11%

20%

7%

16%

Spain Canarias

Canarias

830

844

840

730

0.5

0.4

0.5

1.7

31%

35%

35%

9%

Sweden

Malmo

1323

1366

1448

1271

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

13%

11%

2%

15%

Sweden

Stockholm

1107

1116

1128

1028

0.0

0.5

0.1

0.1

90%

97%

89%

73%

Switzerland

Geneva

1704

1832

1813

1645

0.8

1.0

0.8

0.4

18%

30%

36%

46%

Switzerland

Zurich

2040

2127

2156

2014

1.6

1.8

1.1

0.8

21%

33%

28%

24%

Turkey

Ankara

1310

1427

1544

1600

0.1

0.2

0.5

0.2

100%

78%

55%

55%

Turkey

Istanbul

1165

1470

1567

1653

0.5

0.3

0.9

1.6

96%

100%

100%

99%

Ukraine

Dnipropetrovs'k

61

60

45

0.0

0.0

0.0

0%

0%

0%

Ukraine

Kharkiv

276

324

308

0.0

0.0

0.0

0%

0%

0%

Ukraine

Kyiv

477

547

488

0.0

0.0

0.1

100%

0%

70%

Ukraine

L'viv

371

428

416

0.0

0.0

0.0

0%

0%

0%

Ukraine

Odesa

183

208

202

0.0

0.0

0.0

0%

0%

0%

Ukraine

Simferopol

460

481

463

0.0

0.0

0.0

0%

0%

0%

Ukraine

Donets'k

37

37

0.0

0.0

0%

0%

United Kingdom

London AC

5349

5508

5427

4980

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.2

1%

0%

1%

1%

United Kingdom

London TC

3738

3854

3780

3480

0.8

1.0

1.1

0.6

89%

85%

93%

81%

United Kingdom

Manchester

1620

1666

1569

1352

0.6

0.3

0.2

0.1

20%

37%

39%

69%

Regulations on traffic volumes EGLL60, EHFIRAM, LEBLFIN, LECMARR1 have been reclassified as airport regulations.
ACCs geographical areas might change thru times, preventing year to year comparison (e.g.: SOFIA and VARNA)

123

data source : EUROCONTROL

ANNEX IV - TRAFFIC COMPLEXITY

The PRU, in close collaboration with ANSPs, has defined a set of complexity indicators that
could be applied in ANSP benchmarking. The complexity indicators are computed on a
systematic basis for each day of the year. This annex presents for each ANSP the complexity
score computed over the full year (365 days).
The complexity indicators are based on the concept of interactions. Interactions arise when
there are two aircraft in the same place at the same time. For the purpose of this study, an
interaction is defined as the simultaneous presence of two aircraft in a cell of 20x20 nautical miles
and 3,000 feet in height.
For each ANSP the complexity score is the product of two components:

Complexity score = Traffic density x Structural index

Traffic density indicator is a measure of the potential number of interactions between aircraft.
The indicator is defined as the total duration of all interactions (in minutes) per flight-hour
controlled in a given volume of airspace.
The structural complexity originates from horizontal, vertical, and speed interactions. The
Structural index is computed as the sum of the three indicators
Horizontal interactions indicator: A measure of the
complexity of the flow structure based on the potential
interactions between aircraft on different headings. The
indicator is defined as the ratio of the duration of horizontal
interactions to the total duration of all interactions.

Vertical interactions indicator: A measure of the

complexity arising from aircraft in vertical evolution based
on the potential interactions between climbing, cruising and
descending aircraft. The indicator is defined as the ratio of
the duration of vertical interactions to the total duration of
all interactions
Speed interactions indicator: A measure of the
complexity arising from the aircraft mix based on the
potential interactions between aircraft of different speeds.
The indicator is defined as the ratio of the duration of speed
interactions to the total duration of all interactions

124

ANSP Complexity score (2009)

State

ANSP

Complexity
score
a *e

Adjusted
Density
a

Vertical
b

BE
CH
UK
DE
MUAC
NL
AT
CZ
FR
IT
LY
SI
HU
SK
ES
DK
HR
PL
TR
SE
RO
MK
CY
BU
GR
NO
PT
AL
LV
FI
EE
IE
LT
UA
MD
AM
MT

Belgocontrol
Skyguide
NATS
DFS
MUAC
LVNL
Austro Control
ANS CR
DSNA
ENAV
SMATSA
Slovenia Control
HungaroControl
LPS
Aena
NAVIAIR
Croatia Control
PANSA
DHMI
LFV/ANS Sweden
ROMATSA
MK CAA
DCAC Cyprus
ATSA Bulgaria
HCAA
Avinor
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
NATA Albania
LGS
Finavia
EANS
IAA
Oro Navigacija
UkSATSE
MoldATSA
ARMATS
MATS
Average

13.0
11.6
11.2
11.1
9.5
9.2
7.5
6.7
6.5
5.5
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.3
4.1
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.6
0.9
0.7
0.6
6.0

9.3
11.0
10.4
10.3
10.3
9.6
8.1
7.3
9.3
5.3
8.6
6.1
7.3
5.3
5.8
4.0
5.6
3.7
5.0
3.2
4.9
4.8
4.0
6.9
3.9
2.1
3.3
4.6
3.0
2.0
3.4
4.5
3.2
2.8
1.3
1.0
1.0
7.1

0.43
0.28
0.38
0.30
0.26
0.24
0.21
0.18
0.16
0.28
0.05
0.15
0.08
0.15
0.18
0.18
0.07
0.13
0.14
0.21
0.07
0.10
0.15
0.06
0.13
0.35
0.17
0.06
0.09
0.26
0.14
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.07
0.10
0.12
0.22

125

Structural index
Horizontal Speed
c
d

0.53
0.56
0.41
0.53
0.51
0.38
0.49
0.51
0.39
0.55
0.46
0.49
0.44
0.48
0.40
0.54
0.48
0.51
0.38
0.45
0.36
0.40
0.39
0.24
0.39
0.48
0.40
0.32
0.41
0.34
0.26
0.21
0.34
0.36
0.39
0.36
0.37
0.44

0.44
0.21
0.30
0.26
0.16
0.34
0.21
0.22
0.14
0.20
0.06
0.13
0.13
0.18
0.12
0.20
0.09
0.22
0.11
0.23
0.15
0.08
0.10
0.06
0.11
0.26
0.08
0.05
0.14
0.35
0.17
0.09
0.13
0.17
0.20
0.19
0.12
0.19

Total
e=b+c+d

1.40
1.05
1.09
1.08
0.92
0.96
0.92
0.92
0.69
1.04
0.57
0.78
0.65
0.82
0.71
0.93
0.64
0.87
0.62
0.89
0.57
0.58
0.64
0.36
0.63
1.10
0.65
0.43
0.64
0.95
0.57
0.39
0.54
0.58
0.65
0.65
0.62
0.85

ANNEX V - ATFM DELAYS

The table below provides an overview of key information for the most en-route ATFM delay
generating ACCs in Europe in 2009 (see Chapter 5).

525
266
721
952
735
1 367
1 227
388
618
266

4.9%
7.3%
1.4%
-1.0%
-0.4%
0.3%
-1.4%
8.6%
4.3%
-4.2%

6.2%
4.0%

10.7% -8.0%
12.4% -1.7%
2.0% -6.5%
-1.2% -9.0%
1.7% -6.9%
2.6% -6.9%
-0.2% -6.3%
6.9% 2.1%
3.8% -0.6%
-0.2% -13.3%

900
621
858
710
445
813
774
280
714
420

10.1%
7.0%
9.7%
8.0%
5.0%
9.1%
8.7%
3.1%
8.0%
4.7%

96.3%
99.9%
90.2%
98.9%
82.7%
80.2%
93.1%
70.7%
98.1%
85.5%

1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.2%
1.5%
0.0%

OTHER (Special
event, military, etc.)

ATC Other (strike,

equipment, etc.)

76.0%
82.9%

Weather

ATC Capacity &

Staffing

100%
100%

% of flights delayed >

15 min.

225
193
170
96
83
78
74
70
54
46

14 587
8 891

Avg. en-route delay

per flight

Warszawa
Nicosia
Wien
Madrid
Zurich
Rhein
Langen
Zagreb
Athinai+Macedonia
Canarias

% of total en-route
ATFM delays

Total 2008
Total 2009

Total en-route ATFM

delay (min.)

09/08 growth year on

year

ATFM DELAYS

08/07 growth year on

year

3Y Avg. annual
growth rate (09/06)

IFR flights in 2009

('000)

11 most
congested ACCs
in 2009

Nr. Of days with enroute delay > 1min.

TRAFFIC

1.7
2.3
1.2
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.6

5.0%
6.5%
3.4%
2.1%
1.7%
1.7%
1.8%
2.1%
2.8%
2.9%

9.7% 8.1%
11.0% 2.1%
0.6%
0.1%
9.0%
0.9%
14.3%
17.6%
6.7%
28.7%
0.0%
14.5%

1.8%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
3.1%
1.4%
0.2%
0.5%
0.4%
0.0%

The most en-route ATFM delay generating ACCs in 2009

The table provides an overview of key information for 20 airports with the highest airport ATFM
delay in Europe in 2009 (see also Chapter 6)
.

5.7%
-1.4%
-0.6%
1.4%
-3.0%
-2.9%
4.5%
0.2%
3.1%
-2.0%
-1.8%
1.8%
-1.2%
3.3%
6.1%
0.2%
-2.1%
-1.4%
-5.3%
-4.2%

3.9%
-4.6%
-2.5%
-6.2%
6.4%
-7.4%
-10.0%
-8.3%
-4.9%
-10.7%
-8.9%
-8.0%
-4.3%
-20.4%
-2.6%
-1.4%
-8.2%
-5.8%
-22.7%
-11.6%

100%
100%

39.7%
41.7%

6.8%
3.2%

937
740
398
385
377
330
264
261
143
162
125
116
148
71
70
73
101
66
68
65

14.8%
11.7%
6.3%
6.1%
6.0%
5.2%
4.2%
4.1%
2.3%
2.6%
2.0%
1.8%
2.3%
1.1%
1.1%
1.2%
1.6%
1.1%
1.1%
1.0%

58.6% 3.0% 10.4% 28.1%

10.5% 0.0% 89.3% 0.1%
17.3% 0.4% 70.8% 11.6%
36.4% 0.2% 61.7% 1.7%
70.5% 0.1% 14.1% 15.3%
73.8% 0.2% 18.0% 8.0%
69.9% 1.9% 26.8% 1.4%
4.6% 0.0% 95.3% 0.2%
55.0% 0.0% 42.4% 2.6%
14.9% 1.8% 47.7% 35.6%
51.4% 0.0% 48.6% 0.0%
74.0% 1.5% 23.1% 1.4%
10.0% 53.4% 34.3% 2.3%
60.1% 1.2% 29.9% 8.9%
46.1% 5.4% 24.0% 24.5%
100.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
73.3% 0.0% 23.2% 3.5%
9.9% 41.8% 44.2% 4.2%
90.8% 3.1%
0.0% 6.0%
93.8% 0.1%
2.3% 3.8%

43.1% 10.4%
48.8% 6.4%

Top 20 airports with the highest airport ATFM delay in Europe in 2009

126

Avg. airport ATFM

delay per arrival

9 233
6 318

Weather

ATC Other (strike,

equipment, etc.)

5.9%
-1.8%
-0.8%
-1.0%
3.6%
0.0%
0.4%
-1.1%
0.3%
-3.1%
-2.6%
0.7%
-1.4%
-1.7%
3.8%
1.6%
-2.3%
1.9%
-5.5%
-1.9%

ATC CAPACITY &

Staffing

135
231
233
262
103
217
130
197
125
112
201
81
112
38
77
17
88
21
10
7

% of total airport
ATFM delays in
2009

Istanbul/Ataturk
Frankfurt
London/Heathrow
Paris/Charles-De-Gaulle
Athens
Madrid/Barajas
Vienna
Munich
Zurich
Brussels
Amsterdam
Geneva
Paris/Orly
London/City
Berlin-Tegel
Diagoras
Palma De Mallorca
Pisa San Giusto
Madrid/Torrejon
Cannes Mandelieu

Minutes of ATFM
delay ('000)

Total 2008
Total 2009

OTHER (Special
event, military, etc.)

ATFM DELAYS
09/08 growth year
on year

08/07 growth year

on year

3Y Avg. annual
growth rate

Arrival flights in
2009 ('000)

TRAFFIC

6.9
3.2
1.7
1.5
3.7
1.5
2.0
1.3
1.1
1.4
0.6
1.4
1.3
1.9
0.9
4.4
1.1
3.1
7.1
9.3

ANNEX VI - TOP 50 MOST-CONSTRAINING POINTS

Waypoint

State

RESMI
RIDSU
MOU
TRA
KUDES
BOMBI
ALSUS
ARTAX
SPY
MAKOL
LOHRE
BAG
KFK
MUT
MJV
ALG
VADOM
TINTO
BUK
DERAK
LAM
DJL
GEN
PAM
STG

France
Germany
France
Switzerland
Switzerland
Germany
Cyprus
France
Netherlands
Bulgaria-Turkey
T
k
Germany
Turkey
Turkey
Turkey
Spain
Italy
France
Italy
Turkey
France
UK
France
Italy
Netherlands
Spain

On
border
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

Constrained
flights
49 902
27 503
51 343
40 284
38 930
62 790
19 561
46 633
34 790
24 980
31 804
34 597
53 790
16 864
23 466
29 711
12 677
11 977
26 540
22 624
24 495
31 721
31 447
24 529
26 223

Extra miles
Total
Per
000s
flight
1 204
24
1 150
42
1 114
22
812
20
768
20
751
12
698
36
684
15
634
18
612
25
602
19
584
17
582
11
573
34
566
24
559
19
504
40
500
42
485
18
480
21
471
19
464
15
463
15
450
18
449
17

Waypoint

State

BRD
VLC
BOL
ZMR
*BCN
KEPER
CPT
OLBEN
MILPA
RLP
PIGOS
IST
RBO
PIXIS
TERKU
MAXIR
RDS
WAL
LERGA
ELB
VIBAS
TERPO
DIDAM
BAKUL
ROMIR

Italy
Spain
Italy
Spain
Spain
France
UK
Switzerland
France
France
France
Turkey
Spain
France
France
France
Greece
UK
France
Italy
Spain
France
Netherlands
France
Switzerland

On
border
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

Constrained
flights
17 751
36 778
38 637
40 659
25 729
17 200
31 958
19 024
24 817
26 701
15 654
15 421
9 041
21 513
13 793
13 047
21 561
43 505
33 994
40 408
25 224
16 634
24 196
14 803
11 505

WAL
#
CPTLAM
# #

SPY
##DIDAM
PAM #
LOHRE
RIDSU
##
# BOMBI

STG
#
ZMR
#

VADOM
TERKU
# #
#
RLP
TERPO RESMI
#
TRAROMIR
#
#
#
KEPER
##
#
#DERAK
MOU
# # KUDES
#
ARTAX
DJL
OLBEN
#
#PIXIS
#
LERGAMILPA
#
GEN
#
MAXIRPIGOS
# #
ELB BOL
#
#
RBO
*BCN
TINTO
#
#
#
ALG
#
VLC
MJV
#
#

MAKOL
#
IST
#

BUK
##
BAG
KFK
#

BRD
#

MUT
#

VIBAS
#

RDS
#

Most constraining points in 2009

127

ALSUS
#

Extra miles
Total Per
000s flight
432
24
427
12
426
11
422
10
420
16
415
24
409
13
403
21
398
16
389
15
382
24
382
25
374
41
370
17
361
26
359
28
357
17
352
8
344
10
340
8
339
13
338
20
329
14
328
22
325
28

ANNEX VII - PEOPLE AFFECTED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE AT MAIN AIRPORTS

The tables below show the number of people exposed to noise from major European airports.

Airport Name
Paris/Charles-De-Gaulle
London/Heathrow
Frankfurt
Madrid/Barajas
Amsterdam
Munich
Rome/Fiumicino
Barcelona
London/Gatwick
Copenhagen/Kastrup
Paris/Orly
Stockholm/Arlanda
Milan/Malpensa
Palma De Mallorca
Dublin
Helsinki-Vantaa
Manchester
London/Stansted
Prague/Ruzyne
Hamburg
Lisbon
Warsaw/Okecie
Nice
Stuttgart
Milan/Linate
Edinburgh
Budapest/Ferihegy
Marseille/Provence
Malaga
Las Palmas
Birmingham
London/Luton
Bergen/Flesland
Toulouse/Blagnac
Glasgow
London/City
Alicante
Otopeni-Intl.
Valencia
Hanover
Aberdeen
Stavanger/Sola
East Midlands
Bergamo/Orio Alserio
Napoli Capodichino
Basle/Mulhouse
Nurenberg
Tenerife Norte
Bristol/Lulsgate
Gotenborg/Landvetter
Luxembourg
Newcastle
Bordeaux/Merignac
Torino/Caselle
Trondheim/Vaernes

ICAO
code
LFPG
EGLL
EDDF
LEMD
EHAM
EDDM
LIRF
LEBL
EGKK
EKCH
LFPO
ESSA
LIMC
LEPA
EIDW
EFHK
EGCC
EGSS
LKPR
EDDH
LPPT
EPWA
LFMN
EDDS
LIML
EGPH
LHBP
LFML
LEMG
GCLP
EGBB
EGGW
ENBR
LFBO
EGPF
EGLC
LEAL
LROP
LEVC
EDDV
EGPD
ENZV
EGNX
LIME
LIRN
LFSB
EDDN
GCXO
EGGD
ESGG
ELLX
EGNT
LFBD
LIMF
ENVA

Area (km2) exposed to

IFR movements Nr of people exposed to
different noise bands
in 2009 ('000) different noise bands (Lden)
(Lden)
>55
>65
>75
>55
>65
>75
525
171,300
1,500
0
224
38
14
467
725,500 56,400
600
247
37
5
463
238,700
0
0
318
55
12
435
39,800
2,700
0
160
33
5
402
43,700
300
0
189
26
4
394
7,800
100
0
157
24
4
324
34,400
2,300
200
130
22
4
279
17,000
100
0
39
12
3
252
11,900
600
0
95
15
2
236
2,600
300
0
30
11
2
224
109,300 16,900 1,400
51
24
6
192
1,400
0
0
64
11
2
188
37,200
900
0
90
14
3
177
12,100
200
0
41
8
2
175
3,000
100
0
28
4
1
172
100
0
0
76
12
1
171
94,000
4,500
0
69
11
2
167
9,400
400
0
74
10
1
160
5,800
0
0
53
9
4
148
51,100
2,400
0
51
8
1
136
136,500 11,500
0
36
6
1
134 4,180,000 80,000
0
39
6
1
131
6,600
0
0
56
9
1
128
44,200
200
0
51
8
1
120
73,800
5,100
0
42
7
1
114
12,400
500
0
34
4
1
109
281,700
2,600
0
127
22
4
103
16,000
900
0
33
5
0
102
6,900
500
100
90
49
5
100
3,600
400
0
18
4
1
99
47,900
2,300
0
31
4
1
99
8,600
100
0
33
5
1
89
0
0
0
43
6
1
87
35,900
500
0
31
5
1
81
63,500
400
0
37
4
1
75
12,200
100
0
8
1
0
74
11,100
100
0
18
4
1
72
3,000
200
0
42
5
1
69
41,900
100
0
19
3
1
68
26,000
700
0
51
7
1
67
14,600
200
0
16
2
0
66
0
0
0
23
4
1
66
10,500
700
0
35
6
1
65
40,300
1,600
0
36
5
1
64
86,500
700
0
13
2
0
61
700
0
0
15
2
0
61
10,600
200
0
33
5
1
59
18,200
1,000
0
12
2
0
59
4,100
0
0
22
4
1
57
300
0
0
19
3
1
54
300
0
0
63
11
2
53
5,900
0
0
21
3
0
52
4,000
0
0
18
3
1
50
7,600
1,300
0
20
4
1
50
800
0
0
17
3
1

Source: European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information

128

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

0.30
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

0.35

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

0.60

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

Euro 2008 / km
0.75

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

Euro 2008 / km

ANNEX VIII - CHANGE IN REAL EN-ROUTE UNIT COSTS

The tables below show the change in real en route unit costs for States, except the five largest,
between 2004 and 2013.
1.20

1.15

1.10

1.05

1.00

0.95

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.70

2008 sample average

0.65

0.55

2008 EUROCONTROL Area average

0.50

0.45

0.40

Switzerland
Belgium/Lux.
Romania
Bulgaria
Slovak Republic
FYROM
Moldova
Austria
Albania
Slovenia
Portugal (FIR
Lisboa)
Croatia

1.00

0.95

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70

2008 EUROCONTROL Area average

0.65

0.60

0.55

2008 sample average

0.50

0.45

0.40

0.35

Netherlands

Denmark

Turkey

Ireland

Malta

Norway

Hungary

Sweden

Greece

Czech Republic

Cyprus

Finland

129

ANNEX IX - LIST OF AIRPORTS APPLYING TERMINAL CHARGES

AUSTRIA

BELGIUM
BULGARIA

CYPRUS

1 Charging Zone for 6 aerodromes

FRANCE
Pau/Pyrnes

Roma Urbe

Linz

Perpignan/Rivesaltes

Salerno

Salzburg

Poitiers/Biard

Torino Aeritalia

Innsbruck

Quimper/Pluguffan

Graz

Reims/Champagne

LATVIA

Klagenfurt

Rennes/St-Jacques

LITHUANIA

1 Charging Zone for 1 aerodrome

Rodez/Marcillac

FINLAND
FRANCE

Below 50.000 movements

1 Charging Zone for 3 aerodromes
Vilnius

Rouen/Valle-de-Seine

1 Charging Zone for 5 aerodromes

Saint-Etienne/Bouthon

Sofia

Saint-Nazaire/Montoir

LUXEMBOURG

1 Charging Zone for 1 aerodrome

Varna

Tarbes-Lourdes Pyrnes

MALTA

Below 50.000 movements

Burgas

Tours/Val de Loire

NETHERLANDS

Plovdiv

Toussus/Le-Noble

Mainport Schipol

Garna Oryahovitsa

Angers

Rotterdam

1 Charging Zone for 2 aerodromes

Albert Bray

Eelde

Larnaca

Angoulme

Beek

Paphos

ESTONIA

Venezia Lido

Brussels

GERMANY

CZECH REPUBLIC 1 Charging Zone for 4 aerodromes

DENMARK

ITALY

Wien

1 Charging Zone for 16 aerodromes

Kaunas
Palanga

POLAND

1 Charging Zone for 4 aerodromes

1 Charging Zone for 11 aerodromes

Bremen

Warsaw

Praha-Ruzyn

Dresden

Krakow

Brno-Tuany

Dusseldorf

Katowice

Ostrava-Monov

Erfurt

Gdansk

Karlovy Vary

Frankfurt

Wroclaw Airport

2 Charging Zones for 3 aerodromes

Stutgart

Poznan

Kbenhavn-(Charging Zone-1)

Hamburg

Szczecin

Roskilde-(Charging Zone-1)

Hannover

Bydgoszcz

Billund (Charging Zone-2)

Cologne/Bonn

Rzeszow

Below 50.000 movements

Leipzig/Halle

Lodz

1 Charging Zone for 1 aerodrome

Munich

Helsinki-Vantaa

Munster/Osnabruck

Zielona Gora
PORTUGAL

1 Charging Zone for 9 aerodromes

1 Charging Zone for 64 aerodromes

Nuremberg

Lisboa

Charles de Gaulle

Saarbrucken

Porto

Orly

Berlin Tegel

Faro

Nice

Berlin Tempelhof (closed)

Madeira

Berlin Schonefeld

Other Aerodromes (5 aerodromes):

Lyon
Marseille

GREECE

Toulouse
Bordeaux

HUNGARY

Bale
Nantes

IRELAND

1 Charging Zone for 1 aerodrome

Porto Santo

Athens

Ponta Delgada

1 Charging Zone for 1 aerodrome

Santa Maria

Budapest

Horta

1 Charging Zone for 3 aerodromes

Flores

Strasbourg

Dublin

Clermont

Cork

Le Bourget
Other aerodromes (52 aerodromes):

ITALY

ROMANIA

1 Charging Zone for 1 aerodrome

Bucharest Henri Coanda

Shannon

SLOVAK REPUBLICBelow 50.000 movements

1 Charging Zone for 39 aerodromes *

SLOVENIA

1 Charging Zone for 3 aerodromes

Agen/La-Garenne

Bari

Ljubljana

Ajaccio/Campo-Dell'Oro

Orio al Serio

Maribor

Annecy/Meythet

Bologna

Avignon/Caumont

Cagliari

Portoroz
SPAIN

1 Charging Zone for 12 aerodromes

Bastia/Poretta

Catania

Beauvais/Till

Firenze

Barcelona

Bergerac/Roumanire

Fumicino

Palma de Mallorca

Bziers/Vias

Madrid

Genova

Alicante

Biarritz/Bayonne-Anglet

Milano Linote

Valencia

Brest/Guipavas

Milano Malpensa

Bilboa

Caen/Carpiquet

Napoli

Malaga

Calvi/Sainte-Catherine

Olbia

Las Palmas

Cannes/Mandelieu

Palermo

Tenerife N

Carcassonne/Salvaza

Torino Caselle

Tenerife S
Ibza

Chalons/Vatry

Venezia Tessera

Chambry/Aix-les-Bains

Other aerodromes (27 aerodromes):

Chteauroux/Dols

Albenga

Cherbourg/Maupertus

Alghero

Sevilla
SWEDEN

2 Charging Zones for 2 aerodromes

Stockholm-Arlanda

Deauville/Saint-Gatien

Ancona Falconara

Dijon/Longvic

Bolzano

Goteborg-Landvetter
UNITED KINGDOM 2 Charging Zones for 14 aerodromes

Dinard/Pleurtuit-Saint-Malo

Brescia Montichiari

Gatwick (Zone B)

Dle/Tavaux

Crotone

Heathrow (Zone B)

Figari/Sud-Corse

Cuneo

Manchester (Zone B)

Grenoble/Saint-Geoirs

Foggia

Stansted (Zone B)

Hyres/Le-Palyvestre

Forl

Aberdeen (Zone A)

Istres/Le-Tub

Grottaglie

Belfast International (Zone A)

Lannion

Lamezia

Birmingham (Zone A)

La-Rochelle/Ile de R

Lampedusa

Bristol (Zone A)

Le-Havre/Octeville

Padova

Edinburgh (Zone A)

Lille/Lesquin

Pantelleria

Glasgow (Zone A)

Limoges/Bellegarde

Parma

London City (Zone A)

Lorient/Lann-Bihou

Perugia

London Luton (Zone A)

Lyon/Bron

Pescara

Newcastle (Zone A)

Metz-Nancy/Lorraine

Reggio Calabria

East Midlands (Zone A)

Montpellier/Mditerrane

Ronchi dei Legionari

Nmes/Garons

Rieti

*Ciampino-Ami, Treviso S.A.-Ami, Rimini-Ami, Pisa-Ami, Villafranca-Ami, Grosseto - Ami, Brindisi - Ami, Trapani - Ami not included as no data provided for 2008 and 2009

130

ANNEX X - ANSP PERFORMANCE SHEETS

The table below gives the data sources used to compile the ANSP Performance sheets. Please note that data
from ACE are provisional: they are those available on 17 May, 2010.
TRAFFIC
IFR Flight

Source
CFMU

Seasonal Variation
Complexity

CFMU
Report

KEY DATA
Total IFR flights controlled
(000)

CFMU

IFR flights controlled by the ANSP.

For EANS, LGS, Oro Navigacija : source is ACE:
D10 Total IFR flights controlled by the ANSP.
F4 IFR flights controlled by the ANSP (Forecast).
Complexity metrics for ANSP Benchmarking analysis (report by the ACE Working group on
Complexity) [Ref.15].

CFMU

IFR flights controlled by the ANSP.

For EANS, LGS, Oro Navigacija : source is ACE.
D10 Total IFR flights controlled by the ANSP.
F4 IFR flights controlled by the ANSP (Forecast).
IFR flights hours controlled by the ANSP.
For EANS, LGS, Oro Navigacija : source is ACE:
D14 Total IFR flight hours controlled by the ANSP.
F6 Total IFR flight hours controlled by the ANSP (Forecast).
IFR airport movements at airports controlled by the ANSP
For EANS, LGS, Oro Navigacija : source is ACE:
D16- IFR airport movements controlled by the ANSP.
F7- IFR airport movements controlled by the ANSP (Forecast).
ATFM delays due to a regulation applied on a sector or an en-route point.
ATFM delays: see Glossary.
ATFM delays due to a regulation applied on an airport or a group of airports

ACE 56
ACE

C14 -TOTAL STAFF [En route + Terminal] (FTE = full time equivalent).
C4 - ATCOs in OPS [En route + Terminal].

IFR flight-hours controlled

(000)

CFMU

IFR airport movements

controlled (000)

CFMU

En Route ATFM delays

(000 minutes)
Airport ATFM Delays (000
minutes)
Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

CFMU

ATM/CNS provision costs

(million 2004)
Capital Investment (M )

ACE

F10 + F13 :Number of ATCOs in OPS planned to be operational at year end

[ACC+APP+TWR].
A12 TOTAL Controllable ANSP costs [En-route + Terminal] in real term.
F14 - TOTAL Controllable ANSP costs [En-route + Terminal] in real term.
F34 : TOTAL En route + Terminal CAPEX (see Glossary).

SAFETY

ANSP

Annual Report published by the ANSP + other reports.

ACE

ATM/CNS provision costs in real term / Composite Flight hours.

Composite Flight Hours: see Glossary.
Employment Cost in real term:
C15: Staff costs for ATCOs in OPS [En-route + Terminal].
ATCO hours: D20: Sum of ATCO in OPS hours on duty [ACC+APP+TWR].
Support Cost in real term: [ATM/CNS provision costs - Employment Cost].
Composite flight hour: see Glossary.
Composite flight hours: see Glossary.
ATCO hours: D20: Sum of ATCO in OPS hours on duty [ACC+APP+TWR].

COST-EFFECTIVENESS
ATM/CNS provision Cost
Per composite Flight hour
Employment
Cost
Per
ATCO hour
Support Cost Per Composite
Flight Hour
Composite flight hours per
ATCO hours

ACE

ACE

ACE
ACE

EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY 57

Days with En route delay per
flight > 1 minute
En route AFM delay per
flight
En route ATFM delay
% flights delayed

CFMU
CFMU

Delay per delayed flight

CFMU

AIRPORT ATFM DELAY

ATFM Delay per Arrival
flight
ATFM Delay per Arrival
flight (Weather Other)
Airports with ATFM delays

56
57
58

CFMU
CFMU

CFMU

Number of days where en route ATFM delay per flight > 1 min in the ACC.
En-route ATFM delay: see Glossary.
The ACC selected is the ACC which as the maximum number of days with en-route delay per
flight > 1 minute in the year covered by the report.
Days with delays: Days with En route delay greater than 1 minute in the ACC.
Number of flights delayed due to en-route ATFM regulation divided by the total number of
flights.
En route ATFM delay divided by the number of flights.

CFMU

ATFM Delay due to airport regulations divided by the number of flights landing at these
airports. (For all the airports controlled by the ANSP) 58.
Same as above but with the split between delay due to weather or other delays.

CFMU

List of Top 10 Airports with the highest Airport ATFM delay per arrival flight.

See Specification for Information Disclosure, V. 2.6 (DEC 08) document for description of code (e.g. D10).
Regulations on traffic volumes EGLL60, EHFIRAM, LEBLFIN, LECMARR1 have been reclassified as airport
regulations.
Delays due to groups of airports are allocated proportionally to the traffic at these airports.

131

ANSP name

Country

Page

Aena

Spain

A-1

ANS CR

Czech Republic

A-2

ARMATS

Armenia

A-3

ATSA Bulgaria

Bulgaria

A-4

Austro Control

Austria

A-5

Avinor

Norway

A-6

Belgocontrol

Belgium

A-7

Croatia Control

Croatia

A-8

DCAC Cyprus

Cyprus

A-9

DFS

Germany

A-10

DHM

Turkey

A-11

DSNA

France

A-12

EANS

Estonia

A-13

ENAV

Italy

A-14

Finavia

Finland

A-15

HCAA

Greece

A-16

HungaroControl

Hungary

A-17

IAA

Ireland

A-18

LFV/ANS Sweden

Sweden

A-19

LGS

Latvia

A-20

LPS

Slovak Republic

A-21

LVNL

Netherlands

A-22

MATS

Malta

A-23

MK CAA

FYROM

A-24

MoldATSA

Moldova

A-25

MUAC

A-26

NATA Albania

Albania

A-27

NATS

United Kingdom

A-28

NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)

Portugal

A-29

NAVIAIR

Denmark

A-30

Oro Navigacija

Lithuania

A-31

PANSA

Poland

A-32

ROMATSA

Romania

A-33

Skyguide

Switzerland

A-34

Slovenia Control

Slovenia

A-35

SMATA

Serbia and Montenegro

A-36

UkSATSE

Ukraine

A-37

132

Aena, Spain
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+8%

2500

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 120%

-2%

-10%

High

in flights per day

6000
5000

2000

Avg

4000

1500

3000
1000

2000

500

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

1897
1420
2114

1864
1410
2047

1683
1270
1821

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

1398
1501

1063
809

1309
600

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

3966
1966

3973
2005

2064*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

1175
136

1214
30

1197*
33*

1000

0
2007

2008

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

0
2006

2009

Low

* Forecast

Safety
0

"The ACI (Airports Council International) index is is defined as the

number of incidents-accidents occurring on the platform for each
1,000 operations. Following the recommendations of the ACI,
platform incidents are divided into six categories: A and B
(referring to incidents that cause damage to aircrafts); C, D and E
(relating to incidents that cause damage to vehicles or airport
installations); and F (for leaks and spillages). As can be seen from
the attached graphs, the two indices have gone down. In this
respect, the index referring to type F incidents-accidents fell
slightly in 2008, whilst that corresponding to incident-accidents AE has dropped from 0.26 to 0.21."
(Extract from ANSP's 2008 annual report).

ESARR 2 severity classification.

source: Memoria 2008 (ANSP annual report)

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
800

in 2008 per hour

400
200
0
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

120
110
100
90
80
70
60

600

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

2008

2009F

180

191

191

2006

2007

2008

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

250

253

270

0.55 0.56 0.54

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

in days

ACC(s)

in minute per flight

Madrid
ACC

Madrid
Canarias
Sevilla
Palma
Barcelona A.

3
2
1
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

96
46
27
11
4

4.7%
4.0%
1.2%
0.8%
0.7%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

16
39
17
16
15

710
420
72
32
75

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

1.0

0.5

0.0

in minute per flight

All Airports
Airport

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

Madrid/Bara.
Palma De Mal.
Arrecife Lan.
Tenerife Sur.
Ibiza

A-1

1.5
1.1
0.8
0.5
0.3

217
88
21
24
25

Malaga
Barcelona
Alicante
Las Palmas
Fuerteventur.

0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Airports with ATFM Delay

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.5

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

51
139
37
50
18

2008

ANS CR, Czech Republic

Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+6%

800

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 122%

+6%

-5%

High

in flights per day

2500
2000

600

Avg

1500

400

1000

200

500

0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

623
211
188

659
224
195

629
219
180

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

451
76

291
38

182
25

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

868
179

894
183

190*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

128
19

118
18

117*
16*
* Forecast

Safety
0

"No case was recorded in 2008 in which ANS CR employees were

involved in or directly caused an air accident or seriously
endangered the safety of air transport. Incidents in air traffic
caused by ANS CR when providing ATS show a long-term stable
development of both the number of incidents and the seriousness
of their impact on the safety of air traffic. Only five incidents
occurred in 2008 of which, in accordance with the ICAO
classification, one was assessed as Major Incident (third degree
on a five-point scale of seriousness) and one as Significant
Incident (second lowest degree). The remaining cases were as
assessed as No Effect. In spite of the stable increase of air
traffic in the airspace and airports in the Czech Republic, both the
number of incidents and their severity is declining.
(Extract from ANSP's 2008 annual report).
ESARR 2 severity classification.

source: ANS CR

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

in 2008 per hour

2006

2008

2006

2009F

2007

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

120
110
100
90
80
70
60

2007

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

2008

2009F

91

106

2006

2007

365

378

342

83
2006

2008

2007

2008

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

0.96 0.93 0.95

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

120

in days

ACC(s)

100

in minute per flight

Praha
ACC

80

Praha

60
40

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

16

1.8%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

17

182

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

1.0

0.5

0.0

in minute per flight

All Airports
Airport

Prague/Ruzy.

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A-2

0.3

80

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Airports with ATFM Delay

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.5

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

ARMATS, Armenia
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights

Peak Week / Avg Week = 115%

50
40
30
20
10
0
2008

2009

Avg

2008

48
11
19

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

0
0
510**
95**

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

Low

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2007

High

in flights per day

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

60

2006

Complexity

2007

*
*
** source:ARMATS

Safety
ARMATS applied the ESARR 2 Severity classification
scheme. The Safety Management System is built in full
compliance with ESARR 3 and well structured, the safety
department is independent unit. The TOKAI has
implemented as an investigation tool. Risk assessment of
changes and their mitigations always carrying out in line with
ESARR 4 requirements. The licensing procedures are based
on ESARR 5 requirements and it is coordinated with
National CAA.
(Source : ARMATS)

There were no accidents or serious incidents caused by

ARMATS in 2009. There were 17 recorded and internally
investigated occurrences, 10 Incidents 2 significant (C) with
direct and indirect ATM contribution, 8 with no safety effect (E).
The main numbers of incidents happened in the approach phase
of operations. The other 7 ATM Specific Occurrences were no
impact on ability to provide safe ATM Services (the back up
system was malfunctioning). No ATS-related Runway incursions
took place caused by ARMATS.

ESARR 2 severity classification.

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
ATM/CNS provision
Costs
Employment
Cost
* ARMATS
will join
the ATM Cost-Effectiveness
benchmarking
exercise
inSupport
2010Cost per
per composite flight hour

in 2008 per hour

1
1
1
1
0
0
0

per ATCO hour

Composite flight hours

comp. flight hour

in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

110

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

100
90
80
70
60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009

2006

2007

2006

2008

2007

2008

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Yerevan
ACC

Yerevan

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0.0%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

20

0
Jan

2009

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

All Airports
Airport

2
0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A-3

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Airports with ATFM Delay

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

ATSA Bulgaria, Bulgaria

Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+11%

600

Complexity

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

Peak Week / Avg Week = 145%

+8%

-0%

500

High

in flights per day

2000

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Avg

1500

400

1000

300
200

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

500

100
0

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

2007

Low

2008

2009(F)

444
152
76

478
161
83

477
161
74

0
0

1
1

0
0

1278
237

1243
223

230*

79
11

76
14

75*
3*
* Forecast

Safety
The absolute number of aviation incidents in 2008 shows a
decrease, in comparison with the previous year, for the 12-year
period under evaluation, while the relative number (AI per 100,000
flights) is below the average for the period. It can be alleged with a
high degree of probability that the number of events in categories
A and B compared to previous years, can be attributed both to the
dynamic process of upgrading and updating all the elements of
the ATM system (technology, equipment, personnel), and to the
considerable improvement in the operation of the systems of
voluntary and compulsory reporting.
(Extract from ANSP's 2008 annual report).

National severity classification.

source : 2008 Annual report

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

in 2008 per hour

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

140

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

120
100

50

48

47

441

2006

2007

2008

2006

80

359

329

0.64
0.50 0.56

2007

2008

2006

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Sofia
ACC

Sofia

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0.0%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

All Airports
Airport

2
0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A-4

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Airports with ATFM Delay

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

Austro Control, Austria

Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights

Peak Week / Avg Week = 121%

+3%

-7%

1000
800
600
400
200
0
2006

2007

2008

2009

High

in flights per day

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

Avg

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

+8%

1200

Complexity

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

926
305
392

955
316
409

889
289
369

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

605
467

1047
564

858
281

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

833
268

863
259

273*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

160
21

169
16

162*
25*
* Forecast

Safety
No information found in Annual Report

National severity classification.

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
500

in 2008 per hour

300
200
100
0
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

120
110
100
90
80
70
60

400

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

2008

2009F

124

137

146

2006

2007

2008

278

251

259

2006

2007

2008

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

0.92 0.97 1.04

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

200

in days

ACC(s)

in minute per flight

Wien
ACC

150

Wien

100

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

170

7.3%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

16

858

50

1
0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

All Airports

Airport

Vienna
Innsbruck
Salzburg

2
1
0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A-5

2.0
0.9
0.6

130
11
15

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Airports with ATFM Delay

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

Avinor, Norway
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+4%

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 112%

+3%

-4%

High

in flights per day

2000

Avg

1500
1000
500
0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

538
306
750

552
315
761

528
304
729

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

102
70

29
78

71
38

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

982
359

966
372

386*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

187
20

170
7

181*
10*
* Forecast

Safety
0

"There were no aviation accidents in Norwegian aviation where

Avinor was a contributory party in 2008. Five serious aviation
incidents where Avinor was a contributory party were recorded.
The Accident Investigation Boards (AIBN) investigations have a
broader scope than those undertaken by Avinor, and they may
therefore reach different conclusions. The corresponding figures
for 2007 were no aviation accidents and one serious aviation
incident. The corresponding figures for 2006 were one aviation
accident and eight serious aviation incidents."
(Extract from ANSP's 2008 annual report).

ESARR 2 severity classification.

source: AVINOR - flysikkerhet og hms 2008

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
500

in 2008 per hour

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

140

400

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

120

300

100

200

75

80

100
0

100

215

77

262

250

0.70 0.73 0.77

2007

2008

2006

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2006

2007

2006

2008

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Stavanger
ACC

Stavanger
Oslo
Bodo

20

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

46
1
0

2.0%
0.1%
0.0%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

17
15

67
4
0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

All Airports
Airport

2
0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

Oslo/Garder.
Bergen/Flesl.
Stavanger/So.
Tromso/Langn.
Bodo

A-6

0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0

108
44
33
18
19

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Airports with ATFM Delay

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

Belgocontrol, Belgium
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+5%

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 117%

-1%

-9%

High

in flights per day

2000

Avg

1500
1000
500
0
2007

2008

2009

Low

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

600
114
332

594
120
332

542
111
309

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

46
142

101
227

129
175

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

968
228

965
219

211*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

146
22

149
27

152*
27*
* Forecast

Safety
0

"In 2008, Belgocontrol managed a total of 1,147,324 movements

en-route, on approach and at the five Belgian public airports. It
also recorded a total of 32 SROs (36 in 2007 and 31 in 2006) in
which our units were involved. Class A and B incidents,
considered to be the most serious, amounted to 15 in 2008. This
is more than the minimum of 6 A and B incidents in 2004 but
much less than the 22 incidents in 2000 or the 19 incidents in
2001."

source: 2008 Annual Report

(Extract from ANSP's 2008 annual report).

ESARR 2 severity classification.

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
800

in 2008 per hour

100

400

90
80

200

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

110

600

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

124

127

124

2006

2007

2008

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

561

509

510

0.65 0.68 0.69

2006

2007

2008

2006

70

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Brussels
ACC

Brussels

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

27

1.3%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

18

129

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

All Airports

in minute per flight

All Airports

Airport

0.5

3
2

0.0

1
0

Brussels
Liege/Liege
Charleroi

1.0

2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A-7

1.4
0.6
0.0

112
15
15

Arrival
flights
('000)

in minute per flight

1.5

Airports with ATFM Delay

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

Croatia Control, Croatia

Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+17%

500

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 146%

+6%

+2%

400

High

in flights per day

2000

Avg

1500

300

1000

200

500

100
0

0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

386
156
85

411
162
86

419
169
86

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

265
14

808
1

280
0

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

740
194

758
207

218*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

62
5

61
4

67*
3*
* Forecast

Safety
No Annual Report found

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
400

in 2008 per hour

120

200

100

100

80

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

140

300

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

62

60

64

2006

2007

2008

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

281

260

239

0.63 0.67 0.68

2006

2007

2008

2006

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2007

En route ATFM delay

200

in days

ACC(s)

in minute per flight

Zagreb
ACC

150

Zagreb

100

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

70

4.2%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

17

280

50

1
0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

All Airports
Airport

2
0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A-8

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Airports with ATFM Delay

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

DCAC Cyprus, Cyprus

Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+12%

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 128%

+12%

-2%

High

in flights per day

1000
800

Avg

600
400
200
0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

242
111
62

272
124
64

268
122
62

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

359
21

720
19

621
10

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

250
66

n/a
68

67*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

39
n/a

35
5

49*
5*
* Forecast

Safety
No Annual Report found

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
400

in 2008 per hour

120

200

100

100

80

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

140

300

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

42

44

2006

2007

56

271

253

2008

2006

2007

181

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

0.84 0.85 0.89

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2008

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

250

in days

ACC(s)

200

150

100

in minute per flight

Nicosia
ACC

Nicosia

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

193 10.1%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

23

621

50

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

All Airports
Airport

Larnaca

0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A-9

0.4

24

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Airports with ATFM Delay

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

DFS, Germany
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+5%

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 114%

+2%

-7%

10000

High

in flights per day

8000

Avg

6000
4000
2000
0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

2891
1404
2154

2935
1443
2155

2728
1333
1991

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

893
1301

2132
1605

1973
1246

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

4689
1727

4789
1716

1691*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

839
82

824
79

900*
125*
* Forecast

Safety
0

While the number of aircraft movements increased, the number

of occurrences decreased. In 1975, 0,74 million controlled flights
produced 210 occurrences of categories A and B. In 2008, only 4
occurrences were recorded for 3,15 million flights. One was
considered as category A and three as category B. Among those,
one falls under the responsibility of DFS.
(Translated from ANSP's 2008 annual report)

ESARR 2 severity classification.

source : DFS 2008 mobility report

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

in 2008 per hour

2006

2008

2006

2009F

2007

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

120
110
100
90
80
70
60

2007

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

2008

2009F

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

113

128

138

308

287

275

0.87 0.91 1.02

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

in days

ACC(s)

in minute per flight

Rhein
ACC

Rhein
Langen
Bremen
Munchen

3
2
1
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

78
74
20
15

3.9%
3.0%
1.5%
0.9%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

15
21
17
19

813
774
151
235

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

1.5

in minute per flight

All Airports
Airport

1.0
1

0.5
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Airports with ATFM Delay

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

Frankfurt
Munich
Berlin-Tegel
Dusseldorf
Stuttgart

A - 10

3.2
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.5

231
196
77
107
64

Hamburg
Cologne/Bonn
Schoenefeld-.
Hanover
Muenster-Osn.

0.5
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

2.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

74
65
34
34
13

2008

DHMI, Turkey
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights

Peak Week / Avg Week = 129%

+8%

+5%

800
600
400
200
0
2006

2007

2008

2009

High

in flights per day

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

Avg

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

+10%

1000

Complexity

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

732
622
568

792
674
603

828
717
619

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

17
240

135
674

49
986

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

4870
655

4876
701

784*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

227
51

237
81

241*
82*
* Forecast

Safety
0

In 2008, a total of 123 incident reports have been investigated and

44 of which were classified as ATM related.
(Extract from ANSP's 2008 annual report)

ESARR 2 severity classification.

source: 2008 ANSP's annual report

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
400

in 2008 per hour

120

200

100

100

80

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

140

300

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

22

21

22

315

2006

2007

2008

2006

263

246

2007

2008

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

0.67 0.66 0.65

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

in minute per flight

Ankara

80

ACC

60

Ankara
Istanbul

40

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

2
1

0.3%
0.1%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

22
19

40
8

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

2006

2007

2008

2009

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

Istanbul/At.
Antalya
Ankara-Esenb.
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 11

7.0
0.8
0.0

135
62
27

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

DSNA, France
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+6%

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 120%

-0%

-7%

10000

High

in flights per day

8000

Avg

6000
4000
2000
0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

2935
2168
1929

2925
2178
1933

2715
2031
1817

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

1466
1007

1377
842

496
730

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

8870
2672

8734
2662

2723*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

1121
170

1125
144

1190*
144*
* Forecast

Safety
0

The safety event analysis body (ITES) is the organisation in

charge of centralising the analysis of air navigation safety events
that are estimated to be very important (a), or important (b). In
2008, ITES analysed 45 safety events in 10 sessions, against 42
in 2007.
The causes and contributing factors identified by the analysis are
divided as follows:
- the individual (48%)
- communication between individuals (30%)
- organisation, tools and rules (11%)
- context and environment (11%).
This distribution is identical to that for 2007.
(Extract from ANSP's 2008 annual report)
National severity classification.

source: ANSP's 2008 annual report

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
500

in 2008 per hour

300
200
100
0
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

120
110
100
90
80
70
60

400

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

2008

2009F

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

71

81

86

291

296

296

0.75 0.79 0.81

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Paris
ACC

Paris
Brest
Marseille A.
Reims
Bordeaux

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

8
6
5
4
2

1.2%
0.4%
0.3%
0.9%
0.1%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

17
21
20
14
27

236
62
61
98
20

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

1.5

in minute per flight

All Airports
Airport

1.0
1

0.5
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Airports with ATFM Delay

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

Cannes Mand.
Paris/Charle.
Paris/Orly
Lille/Lesqui.
Toussus Le N.

A - 12

9.4
1.5
1.3
1.1
0.9

7
262
112
10
6

Lyon/Sartola.
Nice
Marseille/Pr.
Ajaccio
Paris/Le Bou.

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

2.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

61
65
51
7
27

2008

EANS, Estonia
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+12%

200

Complexity

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

Peak Week / Avg Week = 114%

+13%

-10%

High

in flights per day

500
400

150

200

50

100

0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2008

2009(F)

153
54
35

173
60
42

156*
55*
28*

0
0

3
0

0
0

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

120
34

122
37

n/a

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

10
3

11
3

11*
3*

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Avg

300

100

2007

* Forecast

Safety

ESARR 2 severity classification.

source: ANSP's 2008 annual report

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
200

in 2008 per hour

120

100

100

50

80

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

140

150

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

50

44

47

2006

2007

2008

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

131

125

110

1.21 1.20 1.15

2006

2007

2008

2006

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Tallinn
ACC

Tallinn

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0.0%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

18

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

2
0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 13

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

ENAV, Italy
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+8%

2000

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 126%

-3%

-6%

High

in flights per day

6000
5000

1500

Avg

4000
3000

1000

2000

500

1000

0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

1675
1113
1473

1631
1111
1410

1533
1036
1322

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

331
1374

75
818

17
333

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

2698
1183

2764
1206

1189*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

650
170

652
174

637*
148*
* Forecast

Safety
0

ENAV S.p.A. successfully managed to maintain its high safety

record in 2009.
(Source: ENAV).

ESARR 2 severity classification.

source: ENAV

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
500

in 2008 per hour

300
200
100
0
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

120
110
100
90
80
70
60

400

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

2008

2009F

100

101

97

2006

2007

2008

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

338

328

336

0.73 0.84 0.81

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Padova
ACC

Padova
Milano
Roma
Brindisi

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

2
0
0
0

0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

20
20
38
8

14
0
2
0

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

1.5

in minute per flight

All Airports
Airport

1.0
1

0.5
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Airports with ATFM Delay

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

Milan/Linate
Milan/Malpen.
Torino/Casel.
Rome/Fiumici.
Venice/Tesse.

A - 14

0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2

60
94
25
162
38

Bergamo/Orio.
Napoli Capod.
Cagliari Elm.
Firenze/Pere.
Bari Palese

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

2.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

32
32
19
15
15

2008

Finavia, Finland
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights

Peak Week / Avg Week = 113%

+7%

-8%

250
200
150
100
50
0
2006

2007

2008

2009

High

in flights per day

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Avg

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

-0%

300

Complexity

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

234
112
272

250
116
279

230
108
261

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

4
20

1
22

6
8

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

511
193

507
204

207*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

55
13

55
5

56*
8*
* Forecast

Safety
The reporting of various types of discrepancies has been
encouraged for years, and the threshold for reporting has
consequently become lower and the number of reports has
increased for the fifth year in a row. There were 1,627 (1,257)
notifications in 2008. The majority of the discrepancies concerned
the operations of aircraft or their technical problems, but also to a
considerable extent Finavias own operations.
()
There were no serious dangerous situations arising from Finavias
operations, although Finavias operations were a contributory
factor in four instances where damage occurred.
(Extract from ANSP's 2008 annual report).

Unknown severity classification.

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
400

in 2008 per hour

100

200

90
80

100

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

110

300

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

75

76

2006

2007

64

70

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

188

199

192

0.69 0.72 0.62

2006

2007

2008

2006

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2008

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

in minute per flight

Tampere

80

ACC

60

Tampere
Rovaniemi

40

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

5
0

0.2%
0.0%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

25

6
0

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

Helsinki-Va.

0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 15

0.1

86

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

HCAA, Greece
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+10%

800

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 150%

+3%

-1%

High

in flights per day

3000
2500

600

Avg

2000
1500

400

1000

200

500

0
2007

2008

2009

Low

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

621
467
453

643
484
443

638
472
458

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

352
499

945
446

714
643

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

1613
508

1870
530

n/a

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

203
n/a

n/a
15

n/a
n/a
* Forecast

Safety
No Annual Report found

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
500

in 2008 per hour

300
200
100
0
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

120
110
100
90
80
70
60

400

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

2008

2009

76

75

76

2006

2007

2008

287

241

2006

2007

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

0.65 0.69 0.76

2008

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Athinai+Mac.
ACC

Athinai+Mac.

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

54

3.9%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

30

714

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

2006

2007

2008

2009

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

Kos
Diagoras
Athens
Iraklion/Nik.
Ioannis/Kapo.

A - 16

6.2
4.4
3.7
1.7
0.4

7
17
102
24
8

Makedonia
Mitilini

0.2
0.0

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

26
5

2008

HungaroControl, Hungary
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+2%

800

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 136%

+1%

-2%

High

in flights per day

2500
2000

600

Avg

1500

400

1000

200

500

0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

615
200
125

622
202
119

607
195
110

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

9
15

0
10

15
24

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

686
189

691
185

185*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

71
19

74
14

85*
11*
* Forecast

Safety
The results of safety management system accomplished in 2008
show the following numbers:
In 2008 the number of flights provided by air navigation services
flight information service included grew by 1.19% to 658 871,
those using only air traffic control service by 0.73% to 619 998.
The number of incidents significant in relation to the activities of
HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co. in 2008 was lower, 9 incidents, than
the maximum acceptable value (12 incidents) included in the
Companys safety improving plans.
The operation or malfunction of technical devices caused no
problems in the safe execution of services.
(Extract from ANSP's 2008 annual report).

ESARR 2 severity classification.

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
400

in 2008 per hour

200
100
0
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

120
110
100
90
80
70
60

300

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

2008

2009F

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

62

60

61

248

233

242

0.83 0.84 0.82

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Budapest
ACC

Budapest

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0.2%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

15

15

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

Budapest/Fe.

0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 17

0.5

54

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

IAA, Ireland
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+6%

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 117%

+1%

-12%

High

in flights per day

2000

Avg

1500
1000
500
0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

595
282
282

598
285
279

526
256
233

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

5
29

100
254

0
22

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

448
230

483
228

229*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

109
18

113
21

107*
30*
* Forecast

Safety
No information found in Annual Report

ESARR 2 severity classification.

source: IAA - Air Proximity Occurrences

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
400

in 2008 per hour

200
100
0
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

120
110
100
90
80
70
60

300

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

2008

2009F

83

77

86

228

225

229

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

2008

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

0.88 0.95 1.00

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

in minute per flight

Dublin

80

ACC

60

Shannon
Dublin

40

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

10

0
0

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

1.5

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

Dublin

1.0
1

0.5
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 18

0.3

87

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

2.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

LFV/ANS Sweden, Sweden

Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+3%

1000

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 112%

+4%

-11%

800

2000

600

1500

400

1000

200

500

High

in flights per day

2500

Avg

0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

707
430
529

732
444
538

651
400
482

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

25
213

78
48

20
19

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

974
502

1021
514

528*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

153
22

163
21

190*
28*
* Forecast

Safety
No accidents were caused by the operations of ANS during
2008.
(Extract from LFV 2008 annual report).
"In 2008, there were 20 accidents in Swedish aviation, excluding
sports1 activities. This is less than in 2007 when there were 25
accidents. During 2008, there was one death in Swedish aviation
which is the same as the previous year. Four people died while
participating in aviation sports during 2008.
There have been no accidents in regular and charter traffic during
2008. There have also not been any accidents in commercial
aviation with lighter aircraft. The flight safety goal for commercial
aviation was a reduction in the number of accidents. However, in
commercial aviation with helicopters there was one accident.
(Extract from SIKA Lutfart 2008)
ESARR 2 severity classification.

Source: SIKA Luftfart 2008

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
400

in 2008 per hour

120

200

100

100

80

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

140

300

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

64

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

74

73

164

164

174

0.68 0.70 0.70

2007

2008

2006

2007

2008

2006

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

in minute per flight

Malmo

80

ACC

60

Stockholm
Malmo

40

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

2
2

0.1%
0.2%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

19
17

6
13

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

All Airports
Airport

2
0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Airports with ATFM Delay

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

Stockholm/A.
Stockholm-Br.
Gotenborg/La.
Goteborg-Sav.
Malmoe/Sturu.

A - 19

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0

96
24
28
5
13

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

LGS, Latvia
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+16%

200
150
100
50
0
2007

2008

2009

High

in flights per day

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

250

2006

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

Peak Week / Avg Week = 114%

Low

2008

2009(F)

192
64
41

223
66
58

n/a
n/a

0
0

0
0

0
0

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

293
60

309
64

n/a

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

21
10

20
12

21*
n/a

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Avg

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

+15%

300

Complexity

2007

* Forecast

Safety
0

"The Civil Aviation Agency's database shows that for Latvian air
navigation services the most common problems have occurred in
connection with the provision of separation between aircraft
(separation provision). Among these events, there were three
serious incidents which took place in Riga FIR."
(Translated from the 2008 Flight Safety Review)

In 2008 LGS had 3 separation infringements and 1 ground

communication failure. Other occurrences were severity class 5
(no affect on ATM).
(source: LGS)

ESARR 2 severity classification.

source: 2008 gada Lidojumu drobas prskats (Flight Safety Review)

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
400

in 2008 per hour

120

200

100

100

80

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

140

300

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

29

31

28

2006

2007

2008

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

253

237

210

0.76 0.74 0.75

2006

2007

2008

2006

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Riga
ACC

Riga

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0.0%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

2
0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 20

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

LPS, Slovak Republic

Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights

Peak Week / Avg Week = 139%

+6%

-2%

300
200
100
0
2006

2007

2008

2009

High

in flights per day

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

Avg

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

-2%

400

Complexity

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

323
72
42

344
79
46

336
76
39

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

154
0

54
0

19
0

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

459
111

469
111

114*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

39
8

43
5

48*
9*
* Forecast

Safety
In 2008 the department of SAF received 225 reports on
occurrences in air traffic. 105 occurences were subject to internal
investigation. Occurrences of insignificant operational influence on
ATS provision were investigated as well. They were aimed at
finding if LPS SR, . p. played a role in their appearance. The
department of SAF carried out investigation of 3 voluntary reports.
SAF investigation of occurrences in air traffic was conducted in
close collaboration with the Civil Aviation Authority of the Slovak
republic. Based on the investigation of occurrences, SAF
department issued 222 recommendations to increase the level of
safety.
(Source: LPS).

ESSAR 2 severity classification.

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

in 2008 per hour

2006

2008

2006

2009F

2007

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

120
110
100
90
80
70
60

2007

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

2008

2009F

55

54

53

2006

2007

2008

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

413

368

378

0.51 0.52 0.57

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Bratislava
ACC

Bratislava

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0.4%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

16

19

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

2
0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 21

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

LVNL, Netherlands
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+4%

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 111%

-3%

-8%

High

in flights per day

2000

Avg

1500
1000
500
0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

588
152
504

573
152
496

530
142
453

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

43
415

26
545

21
126

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

1047
195

1030
194

197*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

159
9

162
14

188*
7*
* Forecast

Safety
0

In 2008, LVNL registered 3,900 reported incidents with relevance

for safety, compared with 3,840 in 2007.
The total number of incidents in 2008 was not much larger than
that in 2007. Unauthorised crossings of the airspace in the
Schiphol air traffic zone remain at a relatively high level. This was
also the case in the airspace of the regional airports: Groningen
Airport Eelde and Maastricht Aachen Airport.
Similarly, the number of runway incursions at Schiphol airport did
not differ significantly from that in previous years.
In 2008, there were no incidents leading to a serious risk on
Schiphols runways and taxiways.
(Extract from 2008 ANSP's annual report)
In 2008 LVNL made use of an internal severity classification
scheme (V1-V4) for incidents, as well as of the ESARR-2 severity
classification scheme.
source: ANSP's 2008 annual report

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
800

in 2008 per hour

120

400

100

200

80

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

140

600

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

2008

2009F

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

91

103

117

479

455

443

1.00 0.98 0.88

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Amsterdam
ACC

Amsterdam

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0.3%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

14

21

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

All Airports

2.0

Airport

1.5
1.0

Amsterdam
Groningen-Ee.
Rotterdam

0.5
0.0

Airports with ATFM Delay

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 22

0.6
0.0
0.0

201
10
11

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

2.5

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

MATS, Malta
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights

Peak Week / Avg Week = 126%

+4%

+1%

80
60
40
20
0
2006

2007

2008

2009

High

in flights per day

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Avg

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

+8%

100

Complexity

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

82
38
30

85
41
30

85
41
29

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

0
0

0
0

1
0

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

176
48

151
52

55*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

14
1

13
1

13*
1*
* Forecast

Safety
RWY Incursions
RWY Excursions
Loss of Separation
Bird Strikes
Loss of Communications G to A
Loss of Surveillance
*
**
***

4 occurrences***
2 occurrences**
1 occurrence
4 occurrences
6 occurrences*
7 occurrences*

These were all related to the East sector.

These were related to GA aircraft
These were mainly vehicles RWY incursions

In total, MATS had more than 200 Occurrences reported by

Operations and another 110 reported by the Technical section.
(source: MATS)
ESARR 2 severity classification.

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
400

in 2008 per hour

120

200

100

100

80

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

140

300

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

19

28

22

270

257

2006

2007

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

215

0.43

0.54 0.49

2008

2006

2007

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2006

2007

2008

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Malta
ACC

Malta

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0.1%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

28

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

2
0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 23

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

MK CAA, FYROM
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+4%

150

Complexity

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

Peak Week / Avg Week = 163%

+2%

-0%

High

in flights per day

600
500
300

50

200
100

0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2008

2009(F)

123
21
13

125
21
14

125
21
12

0
0

0
0

0
0

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

291
57

292
62

62*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

11
0.3

12
0.3

11*
0.1*

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Avg

400

100

2007

* Forecast

Safety
No Annual Report found

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
500

in 2008 per hour

100

300

90

200

80

100

70

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

110

400

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

21

23

24

392

373

388

0.30 0.31 0.27

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

2008

2006

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Skopje
ACC

Skopje

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0.0%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

2
0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 24

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

MoldATSA, Moldova
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+25%

60

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 130%

+18%

+7%

50

High

in flights per day

200

Avg

150

40

100

30
20
0
2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2007

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

35
9
12

41
10
13

44
11
12

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

0
0

0
0

0
0

321
59

304
56

54*

5
1

5
10

6*
n/a

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

0
2006

2008

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

50

10

2007

Low

2009(F)

* Forecast

Safety
During 2008 Safety & Quality Management Service/MoldATSA
recorded a number of mandatory and voluntary reports of
occurrences in the frame of the Confidential and Mandatory
Safety Occurrences Reporting System and the part of them were
significant with relevance for safety. A number of internal audits
have been conducted and respective corrective measures have
been taken in order to mitigate the risk and reduce impact to
safety.The more serious of above mentioned occurrences was the
accident with an aircraft that also caused the DVOR/DME
Navigation Aid destruction.Others of them were relevant to
communications, navigation and meteo aids disfunction classified
as less serious.
There was a trend of reports increasing in comparison with last
years as a consequence of a well built safety culture and also
awareness of the importance of Safety Occurrences Reporting by
personnel. (source: MoldATSA)
ESARR 2 severity classification.

source: MoldATSA

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
500

in 2008 per hour

140

300

120

200

100

100

80

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

160

400

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

6.5

6.3

2006

2007

8.7

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

386

411

344

0.14 0.14 0.17

2006

2007

2008

2006

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2008

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Chisinau
ACC

Chisinau

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0.0%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

2
0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 25

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

MUAC
Traffic

Key data
IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+5%

2000

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 113%

-0%

-8%

High

in flights per day

5000
4000

1500

Avg

3000

1000

2000

500

1000

0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

1610
575

1608
581

1485
532

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

969
0

778
0

74
0

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

588
223

625
221

237*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

124
13

128
15

130*
13*
* Forecast

Safety
0

In 2008 flights in our airspace were handled with the highest

standards of safety. Safety statistics however suffered a slight
setback compared to the favourable trend of the previous year.
For the first time in five years, we experienced a serious risk
bearing incident (Category A). The number of major incidents
(Category B) remained at the same level as 2007, with a total of
three. Whilst we are clearly dealing with a very small number of
risk bearing incidents, all steps will be taken during 2009 and
beyond to bring about improvements so that all aircraft can benefit
from the highest levels of safety as they travel through the
airspace.
(Extract from ANSP's 2008 annual report).

ESARR 2 severity classification.

source : ANSP's 2008 annual report

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

in 2008 per hour

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

110

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

100
90
80

131

135

135

149

142

149

1.79 1.86 1.86

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

2008

2006

70
60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Maastricht
ACC

Maastricht

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0.3%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

18

74

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

2
0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 26

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

NATA Albania, Albania

Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+4%

+9%

150
100
50
0
2006

2007

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

Peak Week / Avg Week = 155%

2008

2009

High

in flights per day

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Low

2008

2009(F)

142
31
19

148
32
20

161
35
21

0
0

12
0

19
0

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

200
40

231
41

51*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

14
4

14
11

17*
20*

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Avg

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

+19%

200

Complexity

2007

* Forecast

Safety
No Annual Report found

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
500

in 2008 per hour

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

140

400

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

120

300

100

200

10

80

100
0

14

394

358

371

0.40 0.45

2008

2006

2007

2008

2006

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2006

2007

2007

En route ATFM delay

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Tirana
ACC

Tirana

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

14

0.7%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

100

17

19

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

2
0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 27

Arrival
flights
('000)

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

All Airports

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

in minute per flight

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

1.0

0.54

2008

NATS, United Kingdom

Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights

Peak Week / Avg Week = 114%

-2%

-10%

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2006

2007

2008

2009

High

in flights per day

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

Avg

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

+3%

3000

Complexity

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

2505
1449
2026

2466
1471
1975

2230
1310
1789

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

1683
1303

1359
1428

492
624

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

5186
1443

5006
1377

n/a

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

741
169

726
168

n/a
174*
* Forecast

Safety
0

We continue to maintain safety standards and to enhance those

standards wherever possible. We remain committed to the
principle of anticipating and preventing safety incidents before
they can happen, and avoiding risk bearing airproxes. To this end
we have developed a new safety risk index and our strategic plan
for safety places emphasis on reducing this risk index particularly
in the London terminal control operation.
(Extract from ANSP's 2008 annual report)

ESARR 2 compliant severity classification.

source: NATS

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
500

in 2008 per hour

300
200
100
0
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

120
110
100
90
80
70
60

400

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

2008

2009F

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

85

83

96

268

288

281

0.96 0.96 1.14

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

London AC
ACC

London AC
London TC
Manchester
Scottish

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

8
8
1
1

1.0%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

19
28
13
14

328
137
15
12

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

1.5

in minute per flight

All Airports
Airport

1.0
1

0.5
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Airports with ATFM Delay

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

London/City
London/Heath.
London/Gatwi.
London/Luton
Manchester

A - 28

1.9
1.7
0.5
0.4
0.3

38
233
126
49
86

Southampton
London/Stans.
Bristol/Luls.
Edinburgh
Birmingham

0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

2.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

22
83
30
57
50

2008

NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa), Portugal

Traffic
IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights

Peak Week / Avg Week = 115%

+3%

-7%

500
400
300
200
100
0
2006

2007

Complexity

2008

2009

High

in flights per day

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

Avg

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

+6%

600

Key data

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

421
268
268

433
276
274

402
259
258

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

106
45

82
100

8
40

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

712
195

725
198

199*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

139
8

149
7

136*
11*
* Forecast

Safety
During the year of 2008, safety related leaflets/briefing notes and
safety reports have been published and well disseminated across
relevant parts of the company.
In addition to the ATM safety investigation reports, we undertook
10 safety surveys resulting in 13 safety recommendations, 19
suggestions for improvements, 19 safety evaluations, insuring a
safety component in all new projects or in any amendments of the
existing ones.
Statistically, despite the increase in air traffic recorded, NAV
Portugal global number of ATM incidents has remained stable, at
a low level.
(source : NAV Portugal)

ESARR 2 severity classification.

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
500

in 2008 per hour

300
200
100
0
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

120
110
100
90
80
70
60

400

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

2008

2009F

112

107

2006

2007

126

292

298

296

2008

2006

2007

2008

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

0.85 0.95 0.96

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Lisboa
ACC

Lisboa

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0.2%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

13

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

All Airports
Airport

Porto
Lisbon

0.5
1
0.0

Airports with ATFM Delay

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 29

0.6
0.3

27
68

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

NAVIAIR, Denmark
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+4%

800

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 113%

-1%

-9%

600

1500

400

1000

200

500

High

in flights per day

2000

Avg

0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

648
215
362

644
216
373

587
197
336

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

61
96

1231
177

13
38

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

656
234

675
192

202*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

99
27

106
14

109*
20*
* Forecast

Safety
Number of incidents (Antal hndelser) per. 100.000 operations is
the total number of incidents in category A, B and C attributable to
Naviair.
Status for 2008: The requirement was less than 2.5 per 100.000
Operations
The result was 1.8 per 100.000 operations.
Requirement achieved.

source: ANSP's 2008 annual report

Tilgngelighed ODS = Availability ODS

Tilgngelighed radardkning = Availability Radar Coverage
Tilgngelighed radio/ndradiosystemer = Availability of
Radio/Emergency Radio
(source: NAVIAIR)
ESSAR 2 severity classification.

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
500

in 2008 per hour

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

140

400

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

120

300

100

200

80

100
0

68

75

77

217

231

258

0.86 0.82 0.95

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

2008

2006

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2007

En route ATFM delay

300

in days

ACC(s)

250

in minute per flight

Kobenhavn
ACC

200

Kobenhavn

150
100

50

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0.2%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

14

13

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

All Airports
Airport

Copenhagen/.
Billund

0.5
1
0.0

Airports with ATFM Delay

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 30

0.3
0.0

118
19

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

Oro Navigacija, Lithuania

Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+14%

-13%

200
150
100
50
0
2006

2007

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

Peak Week / Avg Week = 113%

2008

2009

High

in flights per day

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Low

2008

2009(F)

157
42
42

178
50
46

156*
44*
31*

0
0

0
0

0
0

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

335
77

320
74

76*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

19
5

19
8

18*
11*

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Avg

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

+17%

250

Complexity

2007

* Forecast

Safety
- 1 incident related to aircraft deviation from applicable published
ATM procedures (severity clas B). Indirect ATM contribution to
that incident was identified.
- 1 incident related to separation minima infringement (ACAS)
(severity class C) was caused due to direct ATM contribution.
(source: Oro Navigacija)

ESARR 2 severity classification.

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
500

in 2008 per hour

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

140

400

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

120

300

100

200

80

100
0

21

23

2006

2007

31

381

316

252

0.57
0.41 0.48

2008

2006

2007

2008

2006

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Vilnius
ACC

Vilnius

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0.0%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

2
0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 31

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

PANSA, Poland
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+13%

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 116%

+10%

-7%

High

in flights per day

2000

Avg

1500
1000
500
0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

541
320
300

596
348
314

552
325
292

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

989
171

1190
50

900
30

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

1534
365

1612
372

431*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

112
2

149
17

179*
25*
* Forecast

Safety
In 2009 PANSA has reached the strategic safety objective
to improve safety levels by ensuring that number of ATM
induced accidents and serious incidents do not increase and
where possible, decrease, irrespective of air traffic rise.
There were no accidents with a direct or indirect ATM
contribution. In 2009 the safety indicator has been calculated
as the total ATM related incidents category A and B per
100.000 movements per year was 0,461. In comparison with
2008 (0.545), the result show positive direction and
decrease of the value about 18 %.

In 2008 PANSA managed to deliver on the assumed safetyrelated goals. Sustaining of the preceding year safety level and,
where possible, enhancing the safety levels against a backdrop of
noticeable increase in traffic volumes and, consequently,
preventing accidents in the air and reducing the volume of serious
incidents with a direct or indirect ATM system contribution was
PANSAs crucial objective. When compared to the year before,
2008 saw no air accident with a direct or indirect ATM system
contribution and the rate of serious air incidents per 100 000
aircraft movements was almost twice lower totalling 0.502 in 2008
(cf.: 0.919 in 2007).

(source: PANSA)
(Extract from ANSP's 2008 annual report).

ESARR 2 severity classification.

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

in 2008 per hour

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

210

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

160
110

64

68

2006

2007

86

207

204

2006

2007

255

0.82 0.86 0.93

2008

2006

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2008

2007

En route ATFM delay

300

in days

ACC(s)

250

in minute per flight

Warszawa
ACC

200

Warszawa

150
100

50

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

225 10.0%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

17

900

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

1.5

in minute per flight

All Airports
Airport

Warsaw/Okec.
Katowice/Pyr.
Krakow/Balic.

1.0
1

0.5
0.0

Airports with ATFM Delay

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 32

0.4
0.1
0.0

67
13
17

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

2.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

ROMATSA, Romania
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+4%

600

Complexity

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

Peak Week / Avg Week = 137%

+3%

High

in flights per day

-2%
2000

500
400

1500

300

1000

200

0
2006

2007

2008

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

0
2009

Low

2008

2009(F)

432
261
144

444
271
159

434
264
168

0
0

0
1

0
0

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

1859
530

1723
523

549*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

133
24

160
19

146*
15*

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Avg

500

100

2007

* Forecast

Safety
The safety goal of Romatsa for 2008 was achieved.
(Extract from ANSP's 2008 annual report).

source:ROMATSA

ESARR 2 severity classification.

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

in 2008 per hour

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

110

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

100
90
80
70

45

50

59

421

2006

2007

2008

2006

300

375

0.36 0.37 0.43

2007

2008

2006

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Bucuresti
ACC

Bucuresti

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0.0%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

2
0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 33

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

Skyguide, Switzerland
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights

Peak Week / Avg Week = 114%

+0%

-7%

1000
500
0
2006

2007

2008

2009

High

in flights per day

4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

Avg

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

+6%

1500

Complexity

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

1239
350
459

1244
354
469

1155
328
440

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

1382
649

941
422

591
267

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

1229
311

1266
329

332*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

219
41

212
38

202*
24*
* Forecast

Safety
0

All serious air traffic incidents are investigated by the Swiss

Federal Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (BFU). In 2008 the
BFU analysed four incidents in which air traffic management may
have been a factor. Since such investigations can take several
months (or even years), no findings on the degree of risk posed
by these incidents or ATMs involvement therein were available at
the time of going to press. The BFU publishes the final reports on
all the investigations it has concluded on its own website.
(Extract from the ANSP's 2008 annual report).

ESARR 2 severity classification.

source : Skyguide

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
500

in 2008 per hour

300
200
100
0
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

120
110
100
90
80
70
60

400

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

2008

2009F

112

114

112

2006

2007

2008

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

349

366

344

1.12 1.17 1.14

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

En route ATFM delay

200

in days

ACC(s)

150
100

in minute per flight

Zurich

ACC

Zurich
Geneva

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

83
18

3.9%
1.6%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

15
15

445
146

50

1
0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

Geneva
Zurich

1
0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 34

1.4
1.1

81
125

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

Slovenia Control, Slovenia

Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+16%

300

Complexity

Peak Week / Avg Week = 134%

+8%

-6%

250

High

in flights per day

1000
800

200

Avg

600

150

400

100

200

50
0

0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2007

2008

2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

231
38
42

249
41
45

233
41
40

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

67
2

8
2

5
0

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

199
76

210
82

84*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

20
4

23
8

24*
2*
* Forecast

Safety
Slovenia Control marked an important step for safety in
december 2008 taken the decision to join Safety Culture
Survey program for ANSP's led by Eurocontrol agency.

Slovenia Control Safety Management System meets all

requirements of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2096/2005
regarding Single European Sky and national regulations as
confirmed by reviews by supervisory authorities of the Civil
Aviation Directorate. In addition, during an external assessment
by Eurocontrol the company's SMS exceeds the target level of
maturity for air navigation service providers in ECAC states. (...)
Slovenia Control recorded a number of 85 safety ocurrence
reports in 2005, 115 in 2006, 220 in 2007 and 241 in 2008. This
clearly indicates an increasing reporting culture within Slovenia
Control. In 2008 no type AA or type A safety occurrence was
reported within the framework of companie's Safety Management
System, while there was one type B safety occurrence, which was
not the result of any direct contributory action by Slovenia Control
employees. Five safety cases of various size and complexity were
processed or commenced in 2008. (...)

(source: Annual report 2008 and Slovenia Control SMS data)

ESARR 2 severity classification.

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

in 2008 per hour

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

160

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

140
120
100

64

67

71

2006

2007

2008

80

243

265

290

0.46 0.45 0.46

2006

2007

2008

2006

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Ljubjana
ACC

Ljubjana

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0.2%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

16

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

Ljubljana

0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 35

0.0

19

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

SMATSA, Serbia and Montenegro

Traffic
IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+16%

600

Key data
Complexity

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

Peak Week / Avg Week = 146%

+8%

+4%

500

High

in flights per day

2500
2000

400

1000

200

500

100
0

0
2007

2008

2009

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

2006

Low

2008

2009(F)

449
188
64

486
205
68

506
208
63

1
0

3
0

2
0

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

822
242

852
222

220*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

74
7

70
23

72*
13*

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Avg

1500

300

2007

* Forecast

Safety
SMATSA Safety department is responsible for collecting,
analysing, sharing and archiving all safety occurrence data.
No accident was induced by ATM.
(source: SMATSA)

ESARR 2 severity classification.

source: SMATSA

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
400

in 2008 per hour

120

200

100

100

80

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour
in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

140

300

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

43

51

46

286

288

255

0.76
0.61 0.69

2006

2007

2008

2006

2007

2008

2006

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2007

En route ATFM delay

100

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Beograd
ACC

Beograd

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

0.0%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

26

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Airport ATFM delay

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

All Airports
Airport

2
0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 36

Arrival
flights
('000)

All Airports

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

in minute per flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

1.0

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

2008

UkSATSE, Ukraine
Traffic

Key data

IFR Flights

Seasonal variation

in thousand flights
+9%

-7%

400
300
200
100
0
2006

2007

Total IFR flights controlled ('000)

IFR flight-hours controlled ('000)
IFR airport movements controlled ('000)

Peak Week / Avg Week = 126%

2008

2009

High

in flights per day

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

Low

2008

2009(F)

373
304
181

406
333
192

378
308
164

0
0

0
0

4
8

Total Staff
ATCOs in OPS

5467
1045

5906
941

980*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million 2008 )

Capital Investment (million 2008 )

153
21

150
15

186*
30*

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes)

Avg

Dec
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

+8%

500

Complexity

2007

* Forecast

Safety
At the state level the SAA of Ukraine in 2008 had used
ICAO classification of occurrences (in accordance with
national rules of accident and incident investigation).

In accordance with national safety related framework regulation,

UkSATSE certified by the Ukrainian CAA in accordance with
national requirements which are compatible with EC Regulation
2096/2005 of 20/12/2005. The safety regulatory audits of the CAA
cover all activities of the UkSATSE with the frequency required by
ESARR 1 and EC Regulation 1315/2007 of 07/11/2007. Since
2007, UkSATSE has implemented:
data collection mechanisms and requirements for severity
classification scheme of ESARR 2;
safety management system in accordance with ESARR 3;
ESARR 4 requirements for risk assessment and mitigation
in ATM;
requirements for ATM services personnel in conformity
with ESARR5;
key requirements of ESARR 6 for software in ATM."
(Source: SAA of Ukraine)
ESARR 2 severity classification.

Source: SAA of Ukraine

Cost effectiveness
ATM/CNS provision Costs
Composite flight hours

ATM/CNS provision Costs

per composite flight hour
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

in 2008 per hour

Employment Cost
per ATCO hour

in 2008 per hour

in 2008 per hour

index 100 in 2006

140

Support Cost per

comp. flight hour

Productivity
composite flight hour
per ATCO hour

120
100

12

12

14

2006

2007

2008

80

426

391

353

0.22 0.28

2006

2007

2008

2006

60
2006

2007

2008

2006

2009F

2007

2008

2009F

2007

En route ATFM delay

in days

ACC(s)

80

60

40

in minute per flight

Kyiv
ACC

20

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

0
Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Kyiv
Donets'k
L'viv
Kharkiv
Simferopol
Dnipropetro. x
Odesa *

% flig
hts
dela
yed

En route ATFM delay per flight

per flight > 1 minute

Days w
ith
delays
>1m

Days with en route delay

2
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0%

Delay pe
r
delayed
flight
Delay ('0
00 min)

En Route ATFM delay

100

41

4
0
0
0
0
0
0

Airport ATFM delay

All Airports

in minute per flight

All Airports
Airport

Kiev - Bori.

0.5
1
0.0

0
2006

2007

2008

2009

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

A - 37

0.2

44

Arrival
flights
('000)

in minute per flight

Airports with ATFM Delay

Other

Delay p
er
arrival
flight

Weather

Arrival
flights
('000)

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

Delay pe
r
arrival flig
ht

ATFM Delay per arrival flight

1.0

0.35

2008

ANNEX XI - GLOSSARY
ACARE

Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe

ACC

Area Control Centre. That part of ATC that is concerned with en-route traffic coming
from or going to adjacent centres or APP. It is a unit established to provide air traffic
control service to controlled flights in control areas under its jurisdiction.

Accident

An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between
the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all
such persons have disembarked, in which:

(ICAO Annex 13)

a)

a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of:

Being in the aircraft, or

Direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have
become detached from the aircraft, or

Direct exposure to jet blast,

except when the injuries are from natural causes, self-inflicted or inflicted by other
persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally
available to the passengers and crew; or
b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:

c)

Adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics

of the aircraft, and

Would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected

component, except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited
to the engine, its cowlings or accessories, or for damage limited to propellers,
wing tips, antennas, tyres, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in
the aircraft skin;

the aircraft is missing or completely inaccessible.

ACE Reports

Air Traffic Management Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) Benchmarking Reports

ACI

Airports Council International (http://www.aci-europe.org/)

AEA

Association of European Airlines (http://www.aea.be)

Aena

Aeropuertos Espaoles y Navegacin Area, ANS Provider - Spain

AGA

Aerodromes Air Routes and Ground Aids

Agency

The EUROCONTROL Agency

AIG

Accident and Incident Investigation (ICAO)

Airside

The aircraft movement area (stands, apron, taxiway system, runways etc.) to which
access is controlled.

AIS

Aeronautical Information Service

AMC

Airspace Management Cell

ANS

Air Navigation Service. A generic term describing the totality of services provided in
order to ensure the safety, regularity and efficiency of air navigation and the
appropriate functioning of the air navigation system.

ANS CR

Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic. ANS Provider - Czech Republic.

ANS Sweden

The LFV Group that is the ANS Provider in Sweden.

ANSB

Air Navigation Services Board

ANSP

Air Navigation Services Provider

APP

Approach Control Unit

ASK

Available seat-kilometres (ASK): Total number of seats available for the

transportation of paying passengers multiplied by the number of kilometres flown

133

ASM

Airspace Management

ASMA

Arrival Sequencing and Metering Area

AST

Annual Summary Templates

ATC

Air Traffic Control. A service operated by the appropriate authority to promote the
safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic.

ATCO

Air Traffic Control Officer

ATFCM

Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management.

ATFM

Air Traffic Flow Management. ATFM is established to support ATC in ensuring an

optimum flow of traffic to, from, through or within defined areas during times when
demand exceeds, or is expected to exceed, the available capacity of the ATC system,
including relevant aerodromes.

ATFM delay

The duration between the last Take-Off time requested by the aircraft operator and the
Take-Off slot given by the CFMU.

(CFMU)
ATFM Regulation

When traffic demand is anticipated to exceed the declared capacity in en-route control
centres or at the departure/arrival airport, ATC units may call for ATFM regulations.

ATK

Available tonne kilometres (ATK) is a unit to measure the capacity of an airline. One
ATK is equivalent to the capacity to transport one tonne of freight over one kilometre.

ATM

Air Traffic Management. A system consisting of a ground part and an air part, both of
which are needed to ensure the safe and efficient movement of aircraft during all
phases of operation. The airborne part of ATM consists of the functional capability
which interacts with the ground part to attain the general objectives of ATM. The
ground part of ATM comprises the functions of Air Traffic Services (ATS), Airspace
Management (ASM) and Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM). Air traffic services
are the primary components of ATM.

ATMAP

ATM Performance at Airports

ATS

Air Traffic Service. A generic term meaning variously, flight information service,
alerting service, air traffic advisory service, air traffic control service.

ATSA Bulgaria

Air Traffic Services Authority of Bulgaria. ANS Provider - Bulgaria.

Austro Control

Austro Control: sterreichische Gesellschaft fr Zivilluftfahrt mbH,

ANS Provider - Austria

AVINOR

Avinor, ANS Provider - Norway

Bad weather

For the purpose of this report, bad weather is defined as any weather condition (e.g.
strong wind, low visibility, snow) which causes a significant drop in the available
airport capacity.

Belgocontrol

ANS Provider - Belgium

CAA

Civil Aviation Authority

CAEP

ICAO Committee for Aviation Environmental Protection

CANSO

Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (http://www.canso.org)

CAP

Corrective Action Plan

CDA

Continuous Descent Approach

CDM

Collaborative Decision Making

CDR

Conditional Routes

CE

Critical Elements (of a States safety oversight system)

CEANS

ICAO Conference on the Economics of Airports and Air Navigation Services

CEATS

Central European Air Traffic System. The CEATS Programme is created to meet the
needs of eight States - Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, the Czech Republic,
Hungry, Italy, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia to co-operate in the provision of air
traffic services within their airspace.

CFMU

EUROCONTROL Central Flow Management Unit

134

CFMU Area

EUROCONTROL Member States in 2005 + Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

CIMACT

Civil-Military ATM/ Air defence Coordination Tool

CNS

Communications, Navigation, Surveillance.

CO2

Carbon dioxide

Composite flight hour

En-route flight hours plus IFR airport movements weighted by a factor that reflected
the relative importance of terminal and en-route costs in the cost base (see ACE
reports)

COP15

15th Conference of the Parties, Copenhagen 2009

CRCO

EUROCONTROL Central Route Charges Office

Croatia Control

Hrvatska kontrola zrane plovidbe d.o.o. ANS Provider - Croatia,

CTOT

Calculated Take-Off Time

DCAC Cyprus

Department of Civil Aviation of Cyprus. ANS Provider - Cyprus.

DFS

DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH, ANS Provider - Germany

DHMi

Devlet Hava Meydanlari Isletmesi Genel Mdrlg (DHMi),

General Directorate of State Airports Authority, Turkey. ANS Provider Turkey.

DMEAN

Dynamic Management of the European Airspace Network

DSNA

Direction des Services de la Navigation Arienne. ANS Provider - France

EAD

European AIS Database

EANS

Estonian Air Navigation Services. ANS Provider Estonia.

EATM

European Air Traffic Management (EUROCONTROL)

EC

European Commission

ECAA

European Common Aviation Area. This is a multilateral agreement signed in

December 2005 by the European Community and 9 partners (Albania, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Montenegro,
Norway, Serbia, United Nations Mission in Kosovo). The ECAA commits the
signatories to continue harmonising with EU legislation. More details are available on
the EC website: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/international/doc/com_2006_0113_en.pdf

ECAC

European Civil Aviation Conference.

ECCAIRS

European accident and incident database

EDCT

Estimate Departure Clearance Time

EEA

European Economic Area (EU Member States + Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein)

EEC

EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre, Brtigny

Effective capacity

The traffic level that can be handled with optimum delay (cf. PRR 5 Annex 6)

ELFAA

European Low Fares Airline Association (http://www.elfaa.com)

ENAV

Ente Nazionale di Assistenza al Volo (ENAV). ANS Provider - Italy

ERA

European Regional Airlines Association (http://www.eraa.org)

ESARR

EUROCONTROL Safety Regulatory Requirement

ESARR 1

Safety Oversight in ATM

ESARR 2

Reporting and Analysis of Safety Occurrences in ATM

ESARR 3

Use of Safety Management Systems by ATM Service Providers

ESARR 4

Risk Assessment and Mitigation in ATM

ESARR 5

Safety Regulatory Requirement for ATM Services' Personnel

ESARR 6

Safety Regulatory Requirement for Software in ATM Systems

ESIMS

ESARR Support Implementation & Monitoring Programme

ESRA (2002)

European Statistical Reference Area (see STATFOR Reports)

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canary Islands, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic,

135

Denmark, Finland, France, FYROM, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy,

Lisbon FIR, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Santa
Maria FIR, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom
ESRA 2008

As above plus Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Poland, Serbia, Montenegro, Ukraine

ETS

Emissions Trading Scheme. The objective of the EU ETS is to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in a cost-effective way and contribute to meeting the EUs Kyoto Protocol
targets.

EU

European Union [Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,

Estonia, Finland, France, Germany , Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom]

EUROCONTROL

The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation. It comprises Member
States and the Agency.

EUROCONTROL
Member States

Thirty-eight Member States (31.12.2009): Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia

& Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia; Turkey, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

EUROCONTROL
Route Charges System

1988 (11 States): Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, France, United Kingdom,

Netherlands, Ireland, Switzerland, Portugal, Austria, Spain.
1997 (23 States): idem + Greece, Turkey, Malta, Cyprus, Hungary, Norway, Denmark,
Slovenia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Italy, Slovak Republic.
2000 (28 States): idem + Romania, Croatia, Bulgaria, Monaco, FYROM.
2001 (29 States): idem + Moldova.
2002 (30 States): idem + Finland.
2003 (31 States): idem + Albania
2004 (31 States): idem
2005 (32 States): idem + Bosnia & Herzegovina
2006 (32 States): idem.
2007 (32 States) idem
2008 (36 States) idem + Serbia, Montenegro, Poland and Lithuania
2009 (37 States) ) idem + Armenia

EUROSTAT

The Statistical Office of the European Community

EVAIR

EUROCONTROL Voluntary ATM Incident Reporting system

FAB

Functional Airspace Blocks

FINAVIA

ANS provider Finland

FIR

Flight Information Region. An airspace of defined dimensions within which flight

information service and alerting service are provided.

FL

Flight Level. Altitude above sea level in 100 feet units measured according to a
standard atmosphere. Strictly speaking a flight level is an indication of pressure, not of
altitude. Only above the transition level (which depends on the local QNH but is
typically 4000 feet above sea level) flight levels are used to indicate altitude, below the
transition level feet are used.

FMP

Flow Management Position

FUA

Flexible Use of Airspace

Level 1

Strategic Airspace Management

Level 2

Pre-tactical Airspace Management

Level 3

Tactical Airspace Management

FYROM

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

136

FYROM CAA

Civil Aviation Authority of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. ANS

Provider FYROM.

GAT

General Air Traffic. Encompasses all flights conducted in accordance with the rules
and procedures of ICAO.
PRR 2009 uses the same classification of GAT IFR traffic as STATFOR:
1.

Business aviation: All IFR movements by aircraft types in the list of business aircraft
types (see STATFOR Business Aviation Report, May 2006, for the list);

2.

Military IFR: ICAO Flight type= 'M', plus all flights by operators or aircraft types for
which 70%+ of 2003 flights were 'M';

3.

Cargo: All movements by operators with fleets consisting of 65% or more all-freight
airframes ;

4.

Low-cost: See STATFOR Document 150 for list.

5.

Traditional Scheduled : ICAO Flight Type = 'S', e.g. flag carriers.

6.

Charter: ICAO Flight Type = 'N', e.g. charter plus air taxi not included in (1)

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

General Aviation

All civil aviation operations other than scheduled air services and non-scheduled air
transport operations for remuneration or hire.

GHG

Greenhouse gases.
GHGs include CO2 - Carbon dioxide, CH4 Methane, N2O - Nitrous oxide,
PFCs Perfluorocarbons, HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons, SF6 - Sulphur hexafluoride.

GIACC

ICAO High-level Group International Aviation and Climate Change

HCAA

Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority. ANS Provider - Greece

HungaroControl

ANS Provider - Hungary

IAA

Irish Aviation Authority. ANS Provider - Ireland

IANS

EUROCONTROL Institute for Air Navigation Services, Luxembourg

IAS

International Accounting Standards

IATA

International Air Transport Association (www.iata.org)

ICAO

International Civil Aviation Organization

IFR

Instrument Flight Rules. Properly equipped aircraft are allowed to fly under badweather conditions following instrument flight rules.

ILOAT

International Labour Office Administrative Tribunal

IMC

Instrument Meteorological Conditions

Incident

An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft

which affects or could affect the safety of operation.

Incident Category A

A serious incident: AIRPROX - Risk Of Collision: The risk classification of an

aircraft proximity in which serious risk of collision has existed.

(ICAO Doc 4444)

Incident Category B
(ICAO Doc 4444)

A major incident. AIRPROX - Safety Not Assured: The risk classification of an

aircraft proximity in which the safety of the aircraft may have been compromised.

Interested parties

Government regulatory bodies, Air Navigation Service Providers, Airport authorities,

Airspace users, International civil aviation organisations, EUROCONTROL Agency,
the advisory bodies to the Permanent Commission, European Commission,
representatives of airspace users, airports and staff organisations and other agencies or
international organisations which may contribute to the work of the PRC.

JU

Joint Undertaking

Just culture

The EUROCONTROL definition of just culture, also adopted by other European

aviation stakeholders, is a culture in which front line operators or others are not
punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are commensurate
with their experience and training, but where gross negligence, wilful violations and
destructive acts are not tolerated.

137

KPA

Key Performance Area

KPI

Key Performance Indicator

Lagging indicators

These measure events that have happened (e.g. safety occurrences), effectiveness of
safety improvement activities, outcome of service delivery. These focus on results and
characterise historical performance.

LAQ

Local Air Quality

LARA

Local And sub-Regional Airspace management support system

LCIP

Local Convergence and Implementation Plan

Leading indicators

Leading indicators give advance information relevant to safety in the future. They are
developed through comprehensive analyses of organisations (ANSPs, States) and are
designed to help identify whether the actions taken or processes in place are effective
in lowering the risk

LGS

SJSC Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme (LGS). ANS Provider - Latvia

LHR

London Heathrow (UK)

Long haul traffic

Traffic flow, for which every airport-to-airport distance is more than 4000km

LP/LD

Low power/Low drag

LPS

Letov Prevdzkov Sluby. ANS Provider - Slovak Republic

LSSIP

Local Single Sky ImPlementation

LVNL

Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland. ANS Provider - Netherlands

Million

Maastricht UAC

The EUROCONTROL Upper Area Centre (UAC) Maastricht. It provides ATS in the
upper airspace of Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Northern Germany.

MATS

Malta Air Traffic Services Ltd. ANS Provider - Malta

MET

Meteorological Services for Air Navigation

MIL

Military flights

MIT

Miles in Trail

MoldATSA

Moldavian Air Traffic Services Authority. ANS Provider - Moldova

MTOW

Maximum Take-off Weight

MUAC

Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre, EUROCONTROL

MUIC

EUROSTAT Monetary Union Index of Consumer Price

NATA Albania

National Air Traffic Agency. ANS Provider - Albania

NATO

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

NATO ACCS

NATO Air Command and Control System

NATS

National Air Traffic Services. ANS Provider - United Kingdom

NAV Portugal

Navegao Area de Portugal NAV Portugal, E.P.E.

NAVIAIR

Air Navigation Services Flyvesikringstjenesten. ANS Provider - Denmark

NM

Nautical mile (1.852 km)

NMD

Network Management and Design

NO2

Nitrogen dioxide

NOx

Oxides of Nitrogen

NSA

National supervisory Authorities

Occurrence

Accidents, serious incidents and incidents as well as other defects or malfunctioning of

an aircraft, its equipment and any element of the Air Navigation System which is used
or intended to be used for the purpose or in connection with the operation of an
aircraft or with the provision of an air traffic management service or navigational aid
to an aircraft.

(Source: ESARR 2)

138

OPS

Operational Services

Organisation

See EUROCONTROL.

Oro Navigacija

State Enterprise Oro Navigacija. ANS Provider - Lithuania

Passenger Load factor

Revenue passenger-kilometres (RPK) divided by the number of available seatkilometres (ASK).

PATA

Polish Air Traffic Agency. ANS Provider - Poland

PC

Provisional Council of EUROCONTROL

Permanent
Commission

The governing body of EUROCONTROL. It is responsible for formulating the

Organisations general policy.

PM10

Particulate Matter, with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers

PRB

Performance Review Body

PRC

Performance Review Commission

Primary Delay

A delay other than reactionary

PRISMIL

Pan-European Repository of Information Supporting Civil-Military Performance

Measurements.

Productivity

Hourly productivity is measured as Flight-hours per ATCO-hour (see ACE reports)

PRR

Performance Review Report

PRR 2007

covering the calendar year 2007

PRR 2008

covering the calendar year 2008

PRR 2009

covering the calendar year 2009

PRU

Performance Review Unit

Punctuality

On-time performance with respect to published departure and arrival times

R&D

Research & Development

RAD

Route availability document

Reactionary delay

Delay caused by late arrival of aircraft or crew from previous journeys

Revised Convention

Revised EUROCONTROL International Convention relating to co-operation for the

Safety of Air Navigation of 13 December 1960, as amended, which was opened for
signature on 27 June 1997.

ROMATSA

Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration. ANS Provider - Romania

RPK

Revenue passenger-kilometre (RPK): One fair-paying passenger transported one

kilometre.

RPK

Revenue Passenger Kilometre

RTA

Required Time of Arrival

RTK

Utilized (sold) capacity for passengers and cargo expressed in metric tonnes,
multiplied by the distance flown.

Runway incursion

European definition: Any unauthorised presence on a runway of aircraft, vehicle,

person or object where an avoiding action was required to prevent a collision with an
aircraft. Source: ESARR 2.
US definition: Any occurrence at an airport involving an aircraft, vehicle, person, or
object on the ground, that creates a collision hazard or results in a loss of separation
with an aircraft taking-off, intending to take off, landing or intending to land. Source:
US (FAA order 8020.11A).

RVSM

Reduced Vertical Separation Minima

SAFREP

EUROCONTROL Director Generals Safety Reporting Taskforce

SAR

Search & Rescue

SARPs

Standards and Recommended Practices (ICAO)

Separation minima

Separation Minima is the minimum required distance between aircraft. Vertically

139

usually 1000 ft below flight level 290, 2000 ft above flight level 290. Horizontally,
depending on the radar, 3 NM or more. In the absence of radar, horizontal separation
is achieved through time-separation (e.g. 15 minutes between passing a certain
navigation point).
Separation
minima
infringement

A situation in which prescribed separation minima were not maintained between

aircraft.

Serious incident

An incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred.

(ICAO Annex 13)

SES

Single European Sky (EU)

http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/air/single_sky/index_en.htm

SESAR

The Single European Sky implementation programme

Severity

The severity of an accident is expressed according to:

the level of damage to the aircraft (ICAO Annex 13 identifies four levels:
destroyed: substantially destroyed, slightly damaged and no damage);
the type and number of injuries (ICAO Annex 13 identifies three levels of
injuries: fatal, serious and minor/none).
PRRs focus on Severity A (Serious Incident) and Severity B (Major Incident).

Skyguide

ANS Provider - Switzerland

Slot (ATFM)

A take-off time window assigned to an IFR flight for ATFM purposes

Slovenia Control

ANS Provider - Slovenia

SMI

Separation minima infringement.

SOx

Sulphur oxide gases

SRC

Safety Regulation Commission

SRU

Safety Regulation Unit

STATFOR

EUROCONTROL Statistics & Forecasts Service

SUA

Special Use Airspace

Summer period

May to October inclusive

Taxi- in

The time from touch-down to arrival block time.

Taxi- out

The time from off-block to take-off, including eventual holding before take-off.

TMA

Terminal manoeuvring area

TMS

Traffic Management System

UAC

Upper Airspace Area Control Centre

UK CAA

United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority

UK NATS

United Kingdom National Air Traffic Services

UkSATSE

Ukrainian State Air Traffic Service Enterprise. ANS Provider - Ukraine

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UR

Unit Rate

US

United States of America

USD

US dollar

USOAP

ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme

VFR

Visual Flight Rules

VLJ

Very Light Jets

VMC

Visual metrological conditions

140

ANNEX XII - REFERENCES

PRC documentation can be consulted and downloaded from the PRC website
http://www.EUROCONTROL.int/prc

ECAC Institutional Strategy for Air Traffic Management in Europe, adopted by ECAC Ministers of
Transport on 14 February 1997.

Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EC)
No 549/2004, (EC) No 550/2004, (EC) No 551/2004 and (EC) No 552/2004 in order to improve the
performance and sustainability of the European aviation system.

Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the framework for
the creation of the Single European Sky (Framework Regulation).

Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of air
navigation services in the Single European Sky (Service provision Regulation).

Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the organisation and use of
the airspace in the Single European Sky (Airspace Regulation).

Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the
European Air Traffic Management Network (Interoperability Regulation).

Regulation (EC) 1108/2009 of the of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC)
No 216/2008 in the field of aerodromes, air traffic management and air navigation services and repealing
Directive 2006/23/EC.
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/single_european_sky/ses_2_en.htm.
PRC Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure, last updated 14 November 2007.
Evaluation of the Impact of the Single European Sky Initiative on ATM Performance Performance Review
Commission (December 2006)
Evaluation of Functional Airspace Block (FAB) Initiatives and their contribution to Performance
Improvement, Performance Review Commission, October 2008.
Review of local and regional Performance Planning, consultation and management processes Performance
Review Commission, (December 2009)
PRC Discussion paper on the implementation of the SES II Performance Scheme. Version 1.2 dated
17 December 2009. http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/public/standard_page/SES_II_Performance_Scheme.html
http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Complexity Metrics for ANSP Benchmarking Analysis, Report by the ACE Working Group on complexity,
2006, Report commissioned by the PRC,
http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/gallery/content/public/Docs/Complexity_%20report.pdf.

16

U.S./Europe Comparison of ATM-related Operational Performance An initial harmonised assessment by

phase of flight, Report jointly produced by the Performance Review Commission and the Air Traffic
Organization Strategy and Performance Business Unit of the FAA.

17

The Propagation of Air Transport Delays in Europe, Joint RWTH Aachen University and EUROCONTROL
study in 2009, www.eurocontrol.int/ecoda

18
19
20

EUROCONTROL, ATM Strategy for 2000+ (November 1998).

EUROCONTROL, IATA, CANSO Flight Efficiency Programme, August 2008.
Evaluation of Civil/Military Airspace Utilisation, Report commissioned by the Performance Review
Commission, (November 2007).

21

Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at
Community airports, http://eurlex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&numdoc=393R0095&lg=en

22
23

IATA Worldwide Scheduling Guidelines, 17th Edition (December 2008).

24

Challenges of Growth Summary Report 2008 Eurocontrol. The study is available at

http://www.eurocontrol.int/statfor/public/standard_page/Challenges_to_Growth.html .

ATM Airport Performance (ATMAP) Framework, Report commissioned by the PRC, (December 2009)
http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/gallery/content/public/Docs/ATMAP_Report_December_2009.pdf

141

25

COM (2008) 389 dated 25.6.2008; title: Single European Sky II: towards more sustainable and better
performing aviation.

26

Mikhail V Chester and Arpad Horvath 2009, Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should
include infrastructure and supply chains, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
California

27

Directive 208/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending
Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission
allowance trading within the Community.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:008:0003:0003:EN:PDF

28

Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a
scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council
Directive 96/61/EC http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:275:0032:0046:EN:PDF

29

Challenges of Growth 2008, EUROCONTROL, www.eurocontrol.int/statfor

30

Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality
and cleaner air for Europe (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:152:SOM:EN:HTML)

31

Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment
of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community
airports http://eurlex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=Directive&an_
doc=2002&nu_doc=30

32

Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the
assessment and management of environmental noise, (OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 1225)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0049:EN:NOT

33

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme
for air navigation services.

34

CANSO communication, 20 April 2009

www.canso.org/xu/document/cms/streambin.asp?requestid=40E65D37...
EUROCONTROL, Report on Aeronautical MET Costs, commissioned by the Performance Review
Commission, May 2004. http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/index.html

35
36

ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) 2008 Benchmarking Report (May 2010), Report commissioned by the
Performance Review Commission.

37

Evaluating the true cost to airlines of one minute of airborne or ground delay (2003) (University of
Westminster), Report commissioned by the Performance Review Commission.

142

Background

About the Performance Review Commission

The Performance Review Commission (PRC) provides independent advice on European Air Traffic Management (ATM) Performance to
the EUROCONTROL Commission through the Provisional Council.

This report has been produced by the Performance Review Commission (PRC). The PRC was established by the Permanent Commission
of EUROCONTROL in accordance with the ECAC Institutional Strategy 1997. One objective of this strategy is to introduce a strong,
transparent and independent performance review and target setting system to facilitate more effective management of the European
ATM system, encourage mutual accountability for system performance

T he PRC was established in 1998, following the adoption of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) Institutional Strategy the
previous year. A key feature of this Strategy is that an independent Performance Review System covering all aspects of ATM in the
ECAC area will be established to put greater emphasis on performance and improved cost-effectiveness, in response to objectives set
at a political level.

All PRC publications are available from the website: http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc

The PRC reviews the performance of the European ATM System under various Key Performance Areas. It proposes performance targets,
assesses to what extent agreed targets and high-level objectives are met and seeks to ensure that they are achieved. The PRC/PRU analyses and benchmarks the cost-effectiveness and productivity of Air Navigation Service Providers in its annual ATM cost-effectiveness
(ACE) Benchmarking reports. It also produces ad hoc reports on specific subjects.

Notice
The PRC has made every effort to ensure that the information and analysis contained in this document are as accurate and complete as
possible. Only information from quoted sources has been used and information relating to named parties has been checked with the
parties concerned. Despite these precautions, should you find any errors or inconsistencies we would be grateful if you could please
bring them to the PRUs attention.

Through its reports, the PRC seeks to assist stakeholders in understanding from a global perspective why, where, when, and possibly
how, ATM performance should be improved, in knowing which areas deserve special attention, and in learning from past successes and
mistakes. The spirit of these reports is neither to praise nor to criticise, but to help everyone involved in effectively improving performance in the future.
The PRC holds 5 plenary meetings a year, in addition to taskforce and ad hoc meetings. The PRC also holds consultation meetings with
stakeholders on specific subjects.
The PRC consists of 12 Members, including the Chairman and Vice-Chairman:

The PRUs e-mail address is PRU@eurocontrol.int

Copyright notice and Disclaimer

Mr. John Arscott Chairman

Mr. Ralf Berghof
Mr. Carlo Bernasconi
Mr Hannes Bjurstrom
Mr. Jean-Yves Delhaye
Mr. Dragan Draganov

Mr. Fritz Feitl Vice-Chairman

Dr Ricardo Genova
Mr Mustafa Kilic
Mr Keld Ludvigsen
Mr. Jaime Valadares
Mr Jan Van Doorn

EUROCONTROL

PRC Members must have senior professional experience of air traffic management (planning, technical, operational or economic aspects) and/or safety or economic regulation in one or more of the following areas: government regulatory bodies, air navigation services, airports, aircraft operations, military, research and development.

European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)

Once appointed, PRC Members must act completely independently of States, national and international organisations.

This document is published by the Performance Review Commission in the interest of the exchange of information.

The Performance Review Unit (PRU) supports the PRC and operates administratively under, but independently of, the EUROCONTROL Agency. The PRUs e-mail address is PRU@eurocontrol.int.

It may be copied in whole or in part providing that the copyright notice and disclaimer are included. The information contained in this
document may not be modified without prior written permission from the Performance Review Commission.
The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of EUROCONTROL, which makes no warranty, either
implied or express, for the information contained in this document, neither does it assume any legal liability or responsibility for the
accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information.
Printed by EUROCONTROL, 96, rue de la Fuse, B-1130 Brussels, Belgium. The PRCs website address is http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc.
The PRUs e-mail address is PRU@eurocontrol.int.

The PRC can be contacted via the PRU or through its website http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc.

PRC PROCESSES
The PRC reviews ATM performance issues on its own initiative, at the request of the deliberating bodies of EUROCONTROL or of third
parties. As already stated, it produces annual Performance Review Reports, ACE reports and ad hoc reports.
The PRC gathers relevant information, consults concerned parties, draws conclusions, and submits its reports and recommendations for decision to the Permanent Commission, through the Provisional Council. PRC publications can be found at www.eurocontrol.int/prc where copies
can also be ordered.

PRR_2009 428x297.indd 2

19/05/10 16:58

PRR 2009 - May 2010

PRR 2009
Performance Review Report
An Assessment of Air Traffic Management in Europe
during the Calendar Year 2009

Performance Review Unit, 96 Rue de la Fuse,

B-1130 Brussels, Belgium

Performance Review Report

For any further information please contact:

Tel: +32 2 729 3956

Fax: +32 2 729 9108
pru@eurocontrol.int
http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc

Performance Review Commission I May 2010

EUROCONTROL

PRR_2009 428x297.indd 1

EUROCONTROL

19/05/10 16:58