The Netherlands Performance Plan RP

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "The Netherlands Performance Plan RP"

Transcription

1 The Netherlands Performance Plan RP [1], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

2 DOCUMENT SUMMARY Objective : This document contains the Netherlands Performance Plan for the first reference period ( ) on cost-efficiency and Military Mission Effectiveness as well as the additional national KPIs on capacity, environment and safety Origin: NSA The Netherlands Audience : FABEC, European Commission Title: Air Navigation Services Performance Plan The Netherlands, Reference period 1: Reference: EU Regulation 691/2010, annex 2 Version: 1.0 Date: June 2011 Status : odraft Released þ Classification : þpublic o FABEC limited o Addressees limited Electronic source Host system Software Size Microsoft Windows XP Microsoft Word Mb DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD Version Date Reason for changes Author of changes First draft Saskia Brouwer Second draft Saskia Brouwer/ Ad van der Westen /06/2011 Third draft Saskia Brouwer/ Ad van der Westen [2], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

3 Document sign off sheet Member States submitting this Performance Plan: Organisation Empowered by the MS The Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment The Netherlands Names and signatures of Members States representatives On behalf of THE STATE SECRETARY OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT, JOOP ATSMA THE DIRECTOR GENERAL FOR CIVIL AVIATION AND MARITIME AFFAIRS, MARK DIERIKX [3], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

4 Contents 1. Introduction The situation a General Introduction b. Geographical Scope of the Plan Overall assumptions for Reference Period a General b Air Traffic Movements Overall Status of Aviation Safety and State Safety Programme Institutional context Description of the outcome of the Stakeholder Consultation Meetings National Performance Targets and Alert Thresholds National performance targets and alert thresholds in each performance area (a) Safety targets and thresholds (b) Capacity targets and thresholds (c) Environment targets and thresholds Cost efficiency in the FIR AMSTERDAM a Determined nominal costs for en route ANS for the reference period b Determined en-route ANS costs in real terms Determined nominal costs for terminal ANS for the reference period En route service units (a) En route service units forecast for each year of the reference period (b) Terminal service units forecast for each year of the reference period Determined en route unit rate Method of calculation of the determined en route unit rate in the FIR Amsterdam Local context and specificities of the determined unit rate in the FIR Amsterdam, achievements in the cost efficiency field in the past and shortcomings Description and justification of the return on equity of the air navigation service providers in relation to the actual risk incurred National alert thresholds Description of investments necessary to achieve the performance targets with a description of their relevance in relation to the European ATM Masterplan and their coherence with the main areas and directions of progress and change set out therein Description and justification of the measures planned to achieve a lower proportion of debt financing and their timing Description of the uncontrollable costs in line with Article 11a. 2 of Regulation (EC) 1794/ EU wide PIs on cost efficiency KPIs on cost efficiency to be used in the second reference period The determined Reporting tables: [4], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

5 2.3. Summary of the (additional) national KPIs Consistency of the performance targets with the European Union-wide performance targets Carry-overs from the years before RP Parameters for risk sharing and incentives Contribution of each accountable entity Entity ((x)) share in the national targets and individually binding performance targets Incentive mechanism to be applied to entity x to encourage targets to be met over the reference period Civil-military dimension of the plan Performance of the FUA concept Additional KPI s Analysis of sensitivity and comparison with the previous Performance Plan Sensitivity to external assumptions Comparison with previous Performance Plan Implementation of the Performance Plan Monitoring and reporting Appropriate measures Adaptation of the Performance Plan Appendices [5], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

6 Acronyms AAS: Amsterdam Airport Schiphol ACC: Area Control Centre AFMU: Air Flow Management Unit AIS: Aeronautical Information Services AMC: Acceptable Means of Compliance ANS: Air Navigation Services ANSP: Air Navigation Service Provider ATCO: Air Traffic Controller ATFCM: Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management ATFM: Air Traffic Flow Management AFMU: Air Traffic Flow Management Unit ATC: Air Traffic Control ATM: Air Traffic Management ATSP: Air Traffic Service Provider ASM: Airspace Management CAA-NL: Civil Aviation Authority The Netherlands CDM: Collaborative Decision Making CDR: Conditional Route CFMU: Central Flow Management Unit CNS: Communication, Navigation and Surveillance CPB: Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis DSNA: French Air Navigation Service Provider EASP: European Aviation Safety Programme EASp: European Aviation Safety Plan FAB: Functional Airspace Blocks FABEC: Functional Airspace Block Europe Central FABEC SSB: States Strategic Board FAQ: Frequently Asked Question FIR: Flight Information Region FL: Flight Level FPP: FABEC Performance Plan FUA: Flexible Use of Air Space IAF: Initial Approach Fix ICAO: International Civil Aviation Organisation IFRS: International Financial Reporting Standards KNMI: Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute KPA: Key Performance Area KPI: Key Performance Indicator LARA: Local and Regional Airspace Management System [6], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

7 LOA s: Letters of Agreement LSSIP: Local Single Sky Implementation Plan LVNL: Air Traffic Control the Netherlands MAA: Military Aviation Authority MET: Meteorological information Mill-ATCC: Nieuw Milligen Area Traffic Control Centre MME: Military Mission Effectiveness MoD: Ministry of Defence MoI&E: Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment MUAC: Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre NSA: PRB: PRC: PRU: National Supervisory Authority Performance Review Body Performance Review Commission Performance Review Unit PRISMIL: Pan-European Repository of Information Supporting Civil-Military Performance Measurement RAT: RP: RMI: Risk Analysis Tool Reference Period Airport Traffic Decree for Schiphol SADIS: Satellite Distribution System (meteorological services) SCM: Stakeholder Consultation Meeting SES: SPP: SSE: Single European Sky State Safety Programme Safety Significant Event STATFOR: Statistic Forecast Eurocontrol SU: TRA: VFR: Service Units Temporary Reserved Airspace Visual Flight Rules [7], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

8 1. INTRODUCTION This document contains the Netherlands Performance Plan, which has a clear link to the Functional Airspace Block Europe Central (FABEC) performance plan in that it elaborates at national level the Netherlands cost efficiency Key Performance Indicators (KPI). The aggregated national cost efficiency figures will be included in the FABEC Performance Plan. The national documents on cost efficiency and the additional national KPIs are to be considered as a specific contribution to the FABEC Performance Plan and will be included in an Annex to the FABEC Performance Plan. The national cost efficiency data are coordinated with the KPIs on capacity, environment, safety and Military Mission Effectiveness (MME) as included in the FABEC Performance Plan The situation 1.1.a General Introduction The Single European Sky (SES) II package was introduced to improve the Air Navigation Service (ANS) performance within the overall objective of the SES initiative to create a single sky in Europe. To improve performance in the European airspace a performance scheme for ANS has been introduced, starting from January The ultimate goal is an improvement of the ANS performance in four Key Performance Areas (KPA), namely safety, environment, capacity and cost efficiency. The first reference period (RP1) of the scheme runs from 1 st January 2012 till 31 st December EU Member States, either individually or jointly within a Functional Airspace Block (FAB), have to develop a national or FAB Performance Plan, with national or FAB targets that are consistent with the European wide targets 1 and setting out the measures (investments, actions plans and incentives) that need to be taken to meet these targets. In addition, the plan contains a description of the monitoring and reporting mechanisms that have been put in place. The Plan covers the reference period and deals with the cost efficiency KPI and the other KPIs on safety, capacity and environment, in keeping with the (provisional) FABEC Performance Plan which covers the EU wide KPAs on safety, environment, capacity and MME. The Plan is in accordance with Regulation (EC) 691/2010, Annex II, the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1794/2006 as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1191/2010 and the Guidance Material (GM) provided by the Performance Review Body (PRB) as issued on 23 rd February The Plan covers the services provided in the Netherlands airspace controlled by Air Traffic Control the Netherlands (LVNL) and in the Netherlands en route airspace controlled by Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC). This Performance Plan has been developed by the Netherlands National Supervisory Authority (NSA), i.e. the Air Traffic Management Division of the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment and the Civil Aviation Authority The Netherlands (CAA-NL). 1.1.b. Geographical Scope of the Plan The accountable entities covered by this national Performance Plan are: LVNL (Air Traffic Control Netherlands) MUAC (Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre) KNMI (Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute) The Ministry of Defence, Royal Netherlands Air Force Civil Aviation Authority The Netherlands (CAA-NL) Eurocontrol 1 (COM) 2011/121/EU Commission Decision of 21 February 2011 setting the European Union-wide performance targets and alert thresholds for the provision of air navigation services for the years 2012 to 2014 [8], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

9 LVNL (Air Traffic Control the Netherlands) LVNL has been certified for Air Traffic Services (ATS), Communication, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS) and Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) provision and by law been designated as ANSP. ANS are provided at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, Rotterdam-The Hague Airport, Groningen Eelde Airport and Maastricht Aachen Airport. At Amsterdam Airport services are provided by two control units, namely Schiphol Tower and Schiphol Approach. LVNL provides en route ANS in the airspace beyond a radius of 20 km (= 12 nautical miles) around all controlled airports in the terminal charging zone above Flight Level (FL) 30 up to FL 245. Furthermore, LVNL provides terminal services below FL 30 within a radius of 20 km around the four mentioned controlled airports. MUAC (Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre) Under the Maastricht Agreement of 1986, four States, namely Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have entrusted the air navigation services in the upper airspace above ft (FL 245) of the Benelux area and the North Western part of Germany to MUAC, which is part of the Eurocontrol organisation. Under the same agreement the four contracting States put, free of charge, specified installations, equipment and air-ground and ground-ground communication facilities at the disposal of MUAC. In addition, other facilities and services which are essential to the operation of the MUAC services, such as AIS, Meteorological (MET) information and navigational facilities are also made available, free of charge. MUAC is a certified ANSP. It is located in the Netherlands and has by Dutch law been designated. MUAC provides en route air navigation services in the entire Flight Information Region (FIR) Amsterdam above FL 245. KNMI (Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute) KNMI has been certified as an ANS provider for meteorological services in the Amsterdam FIR and has by law been designated. Civil Aviation Authority The Netherlands (CAA-NL) CAA partly acts as NSA for Air Traffic Management (ATM and is within the Ministry separated from the policy bodies (organizational separation), i.e. the Directorate General Civil Aviation and Maritime Affairs. It is also separated from the KNMI. LVNL and MUAC are not part of the ministerial organization. Ministry of Defence/ Royal Netherlands Air Force Civil-military cooperation in the Netherlands airspace has been and is increasingly being realized along Flexible Use of Airspace (FUA) lines, with the ultimate goal of a joint and integrated approach to airspace management. Options for closer operational cooperation are being looked into. For the use of airspace by the military, the Minister of Defence has by law his own accountability. Eurocontrol Eurocontrol, the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation is an intergovernmental organization. The Dutch financial contribution to Eurocontrol, based on a sharing key, is part of the costs for ANS provision in the FIR Amsterdam. The geographical scope of the Plan covers the Amsterdam FIR, both for civil and military aviation. The map below shows the geographical situation of the Dutch airspace [9], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

10 Map 1 FIR Amsterdam Airport operators are currently not taking part in the performance scheme, although they do have an important role to play in the KPA environment and in terminal related PIs. Within the relevant en route airspace, air traffic services are provided under delegated arrangements (so called letters of agreement, LOAs) with Belgium, Germany, the UK and Denmark Overall assumptions for Reference Period a General For a correct understanding of the Plan, it is necessary to present its context and especially the assumptions that have been made during its development. This section deals with: the expected general economic situation in The Netherlands at the start of RP1 and the expected traffic volume; the status of aviation safety and the State Safety Programme (SPP); the institutional context for the ANS provision covered by the Plan. General economic situation For a realistic picture of the expected trends in civil aviation and ANS provision as well as of the possible ANS performance improvements in the first reference period, the main economic developments have been described in general, qualitative terms. These developments are the basis for the determination of the traffic volumes and the service units volumes in the FIR Amsterdam. The developments also substantially affect the required airspace capacity and the cost efficiency. Although a considerable global economic growth is expected for the period, the economic perspectives for Europe and the Netherlands are considerably less optimistic. Nevertheless, the Dutch economy will to some extent profit from the global economic growth. [10], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

11 In the coming years there will be a modest growth in the gross domestic product and in private consumption, with zero growth in State consumption. Inflation will remain relatively low; wages are expected to increase only slightly in real terms, while the unemployment rate will decrease gradually. The oil price will remain considerably above $ 100 per barrel. The Euro/dollar parity is expected to remain unchanged, i.e. 1 = $ 1,35 1,40. The table 1 below summarizes the key economic indicators for the years These data are taken as reference for the macro-economic scenarios for the 1 st reference period. Indicator Relevant world trade (%) 7,40% 6,90% Average oil price in $ per barrel Average GDP in Bln (constant prices) change n/n-1 1,75% 1,5% 1,6% 1,7% 1,6% Inflation, average consumer prices 2,3% 2,2% 2,0% 1,9% 2,0% long term Interest rate in % (April 2011) 3,65% Private consumption 0,8% 1,0% Annual average growth : +1,25% State consumption 2,6% 2,6% 2,4% 2,5% Public deficit (% of GDP) -3,8% -2,7% -2,1% -1,8% -2,6% Gross public debt (% of GDP) 65,6% 66,5% 66,6% 66,6% 66,3% Table 1. Key Economic Indicators The macroeconomic forecasts for the Netherlands are based on the CPB Economic Policy Analysis 2012 and the IMF World Economic Outlook of April b Air Traffic Movements It is estimated that civil aviation will continue to grow during the coming two decades, both worldwide and in Europe (and in the Netherlands). The STATFOR Medium-Term Forecast - Base Scenario (February 2011) has been used as a basis for the Plan. See also section 2.2. STATFOR indicates that air traffic in the Netherlands is expected to grow between 1,9% and 4,2% in the first reference period, with an average baseline growth of 3% per annum. The table below shows the en route traffic forecast for the Air Navigation Service Provision in FIR Amsterdam. FIR Amsterdam en route Traffic forecast period Year Annual traffic movements (in thousands) * # SUs (x thousand) ** Table 2. en route traffic forecast * STATFOR Medium-Term Forecast Flight movements, February 2011 ** STATFOR Medium-Term Forecast for Service Units: Base scenario, February Overall Status of Aviation Safety and State Safety Programme The overall level of aviation safety in the Netherlands is high. According to the ICAO Safety Oversight Audit of 2008 the Netherlands ranks among the global top ten. It is the Netherlands ambition for the short term to maintain the current high level of safety and to go on improving it. The White Paper on Dutch Aviation ( Luchtvaartnota ) of 2009 has set the ambition for the long term to reach the global top 5. To further this ambition the MoI&E has developed a State Safety Programme (SSP), describing the current safety situation, and a policy document (Beleidsagenda Luchtvaartveiligheid )) which describes the manner in which the Netherlands will improve aviation safety. These two documents are in line with the European Aviation Safety Programme (EASP) and the European Aviation Safety Plan (EASp). The mission for safety as mentioned in the SSP is: to make aviation as safe as possible. The new Beleidsagenda Luchtvaartveiligheid uses the following principles, namely: a high safety level and continuous improvement; the sector to take its own responsibility; [11], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

12 a decrease in pressure from regulations and administrative burdens. As required by Regulation 2007/1315/EU, the NSA shall issue a safety directive as soon as it has detected the occurence of an unsafe condition in a functional system requiring immediate action. At this moment no safety directives are pending Institutional context No major changes in the ATM organisation have recently taken place or are currently envisaged in the 1 st reference period. However, closer civil-military cooperation is being looked into. This might lead to organisational changes and unforeseen costs, possibly during the first reference period. The institutional context of ANS provision is as follows: 1. The Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (MoI&M, Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu ) 2 is the State authority for civil aviation in the Netherlands. Within MoI&E, the Directorate General for Civil Aviation and Maritime Affairs (DGLM, Directoraat-Generaal Luchtvaart en Maritieme Zaken ) is responsible for the development of aviation policy and legislation, including transport, environment and safety. 2. Policy implementation and supervision have been delegated to the Civil Aviation Authority The Netherlands (CAA-NL, Inspectie Verkeer en Waterstaat ), which is also a part of MoI&E. For the SES, part of the Civil Aviation Authority The Netherlands acts as NSA. 3. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is the State military authority responsible for military aviation. By law airspace regulation is a joint responsibility of the civil and military authorities and is realized by MoI&E in cooperation with the MoD. Within the MoD, the Military Aviation Authority (MAA, Militaire Luchtvaart Autoriteit ), established in July 2005, closely co-operates with the civil authorities of DGLM and CAA-NL. The military ANSP organisation controls part of the airspace, including all military air bases (some of which with structural civil joint use). The Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF), as part of the MoD, operates MilATCC Nieuw Milligen. 4. Air Traffic Control Netherlands (LVNL, Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland ) is the national air navigation service provider (a corporatised public entity since January 1993 Independent Administrative Body - ZBO). While accountable to MoI&E for its performance, LVNL is a separate entity from DGLM and CAA-NL. The Aviation Act stipulates that LVNL, MilATCC and MUAC share the responsibility for the provision of ANS to all air traffic within the Amsterdam FIR, each within its own area of responsibility. Air Navigation Services located at Amsterdam Airport cover both Schiphol and Rotterdam -The Hague Approach. ATS, CNS and all other activities directly related to Groningen Airport Eelde and Maastricht Aachen Airport are part of the ATM Service Provision of the LVNL Regional Unit. LVNL and MilATCC operate the joint civil-military Airspace and Flow Management Unit (AFMU). 5. The EUROCONTROL Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC) MUAC is part of Eurocontrol. At the request of the Benelux and Germany, MUAC is operated as a EUROCONTROL Agency service under the Maastricht Agreement of 25 November It is a certified ANSP and designated by law to provide services in the upper airspace of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and the North Western part of Germany. 6. The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI, Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut ) is an agency within MoI&E and is responsible for the provision of meteorological services to aviation in the Amsterdam FIR. KNMI is certified as a provider for meteorological services (MET) and has been designated as such by law. 7. Eurocontrol and NSA The Netherlands is a Eurocontrol member State and carries 3% of the yearly Eurocontrol (Part I and IX) costs. 2 The Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, the former State authority for civil aviation, has been merged with the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment into the new Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. [12], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

13 1.5. Description of the outcome of the Stakeholder Consultation Meetings In preparation of the Dutch Performance Plan two national Stakeholder Consultation Meetings (SCMs) have been held on 12 th April 2011 and 19 th May 2011, respectively. These SCMs focused on costefficiency and on the additional national KPIs of capacity, environment and safety. At the first meeting the focus was on the preliminary data and targets for cost efficiency and capacity The additional KPIs for environment and safety were also discussed. The aim was to receive provisional advice on these issues from stakeholders. The second SCM was held 19 th May and focused on the final cost efficiency and capacity targets as well as on investments and equity capital. The aim of this SCM was to get a final advice from the stakeholders and agreement on the targets set. The stakeholders consulted consisted mainly of civil air space users, air navigation providers and airports. Main issues raised: At the 1 st SCM the following main issues were raised: A solid cost-benefit analysis of the investments planned for the first reference period is missing; The targets for cost-efficiency and (FABEC) capacity should be more ambitious; Stakeholders are of the opinion that there is no justification for the buildup of equity capital to be financed by the users, considering the lack of ambitious targets for cost-efficiency and the fact that the risk borne by the ANSPs is limited; The targets for the additional national KPIs on capacity (average ATFM delay (terminal and enroute) and sustainability are not ambitious enough, considering LVNL s current performance. NSA opinion to the issues raised: In reply to the issues raised, it was stated that: More information on the investments planned will be made available prior to the 2 nd SCM; The target for cost-efficiency is a balanced target, in line with EU wide target. A more ambitious target is not possible, considering the cost containment measures already taken by LVNL in 2009 and Equity capital is necessary, considering future ANSP risks. 2 nd SCM In relation to the Netherlands Performance Plan the airspace users associations expressed in a letter their concerns on the following issues: The EU wide cost-effectiveness target is not being met over the reference period mainly due to the increasing MUAC contribution; the users expect States to be responsible for all the elements within their cost base; The combined en route and terminal capacity/delay target of 1 minute is considered insufficient as it will not drive the required capacity improvements; Major investments must be linked to benefits and value. Given the limited risk for ANSPs from the traffic risk-sharing mechanism together with the safeguards of uncontrollable costs the users do not believe there is any justification for the proposed build-up of equity capital for traffic or cost risks; KNMI and NSA costs have not been discussed as they were dealt with satisfactorily during the first SCM. KNMI sets an outstanding example for MET providers, by reducing its cost base with almost 17% in SCM outcomes: As a result of the 1 st SCM it was agreed that: The targets set for the additional national capacity KPI will be looked into, with a view to set a target which is more ambitious and in line with LVNL s current performance. The feedback on the comments of the users in the 2 nd SCM is as follows: A reduction in the MUAC costs is a joint responsibility of the 4 MUAC States. Taking into account the intergovernmental status of MUAC, cost reductions are only possible in the long run and by [13], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

14 unanimity of the 4 States; More transparency will be given of the total MUAC costs (including the cost for CNS infrastructure of the other ANSPs used by MUAC free of charge), the distribution of the total MUAC costs over the 4 States and the MUAC revenues (again in total and per State of origin) Without the change in the MUAC cost sharing key, The Netherlands would have met the cost efficiency target; The change in the cost sharing key wiped out the cost efficiencies realised by MUAC in the FIR Amsterdam; Without this change in the cost sharing key the targeted determined en route unit rate in 2014 would have been 11.2% (yearly average of -3.9%) lower than in The 2014 average en route delay targets for MUAC (0.22) and LVNL (0.18) are completely in line with the capacity reference values of the PRU and thus consistent with and contributing to the EU wide target; LVNL will analyze the feasibility of a decrease in the total ATFM delay per flight in cooperation with KLM and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Particular attention will be paid to the role and responsibilities of the various parties involved; An extensive explanation of the rationale and the building up of LVNL equity capital is included both in this Performance Plan and in the additional information on the reporting tables of the en route cost data. The consultation documents, including the invitation and the list of participants, as well as the minutes of both SCMs are included in the appendices. [14], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

15 2.NATIONAL PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND ALERT THRESHOLDS 2.1. National performance targets and alert thresholds in each performance area This section contains the mandatory target for cost-efficiency and the additional national (K)PIs and targets on safety, capacity and environment. The mandatory EU-wide KPIs and PIs on safety, environment and capacity are part of the FABEC Performance Plan. Military Mission effectiveness is also included in the FABEC Performance Plan. The cost efficiency target is applicable to all the accountable entities in the Netherlands, with the exception of the military. The additional national KPIs on safety, capacity and environment are only applicable to LVNL and limited to Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (a) Safety targets and thresholds In addition to the mandatory EU-wide and FABEC safety KPIs, the Netherlands has selected one national PI for safety, showing LVNL s contribution to aviation safety. The indicator is ATC related accidents and incidents. An accident or incident is considered to be ATC related as soon as the following criteria are met: Loss of separation between an aircraft and one or more aircraft and/or ground vehicles; An aircraft or ground vehicle which deviates from an ATC instruction or procedure; An aircraft or ground vehicle which does not properly carry out an instruction or has by mistake not been given an instruction; Loss of or degraded ATC services / failure of technical functions. Targets For RP1 no targets have been set. Parameters The parameter is the number of ATC related incidents per severity class, in accordance with ESARR2. 3 Data sources The main data source for ATC related accidents and incidents is the electronic watch report. ( wachtrapport ). Furthermore, Air Safety Reports are used, submitted by pilots and vehicle drivers (b) Capacity targets and thresholds In addition to the mandatory EU-wide and FABEC capacity KPI, the Netherlands has set two mandatory national capacity KPIs and associated targets. These KPIs are: the total average ATFM delay for terminal and en route per flight; sustainability of the declared capacity for the 1 st inbound peak. Targets The table below shows the targets set for the first reference period. As a result of the 1 st SCM, it was agreed that the targets would be looked at again. The total ATFM delay (terminal and en route) will be reviewed during the first reference period, with a view to setting a more ambitious target for the second reference period. As the terminal delay may be caused by various actors (ANSP, airport and users) it is necessary to analyse first the consequences of a more ambitious target, e.g. on cost-efficiency, capacity, safety. 3 In accordance with EU Regulation 691/2010 the second PI is the application of the severity classification of RAT. LVNL has the intention to develop an AMC for transposing the SSE method into the RAT severity classification. [15], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

16 The year round target for sustainability has been adjusted (from 85% to 92.5%) on the basis of current LVNL performance. However, KLM as the main user of Schiphol has indicated that the sustainability target in 2013 and 2014 should be adjusted to 93% to meet their requirements. LVNL is at present analyzing the feasibility of increasing the target to 93% in 2013 and 2014.There are no associated thresholds for both KPIs. Capacity KPI Actual performance Target Intermediate Value Intermediate Value Target Total average ATFM delay per flight (in minutes) for terminal and en route Sustainability of declared capacity (68) in first inbound peak (in %) 92.5 (target 85%) 92.5% * 92.5 * * pending further analysis of LVNL into raising the target to 93% in 2013 and 2014 to meet KLM user requirements. Table 3. Additional national Capacity intermediate values and targets Rationale for the KPIs and associated targets 1. Total Average ATFM delay per flight for terminal and en route. For Amsterdam Airport Schiphol and its users, the total average ATFM delay is a very important indicator considering its hub function. LVNL will analyse the feasibility of a decrease in the total ATFM delay per flight in cooperation with KLM and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Attention will be given in particular to the role and responsibilities of the various parties involved. Parameters: The total ATFM delay is calculated by taking the minutes of delay per delay cause (en-route or terminal) and the total number of flights. This results in the number of minutes delay per flight. Data source: Information on ATFM delay is provided by Eurocontrol-CFMU, on the basis of information provided by LVNL. 2. Sustainability of declared capacity for the 1 st inbound peak. This KPI has been introduced because it is a useful indicator to assess the reliability of the declared capacity. On the basis of the declared capacity the users plan their operations (crew, ground personnel, aircraft, etc). Sustainability is measured for the 1 st inbound peak for two reasons, namely: There is no spare capacity in the first inbound peak; Insufficient capacity provided in the first inbound peak may affect the entire operation during the rest of the day. The sustainability KPI is calculated by using the formula actual inbound capacity/declared inbound capacity x 100%. Parameters: Actual available inbound capacity in the 1 st inbound peak of the day with a maximum equal to the declared capacity. Datasources: Capacity forecast forms and AAA data (ATC data system) (c) Environment targets and thresholds At present no mandatory EU environment KPIs have been set either at national or at FAB level. The prime responsibility for achieving the EU wide target on environment rests at present with the Network Manager. However, since 2002 a number of national mandatory environment KPIs and associated targets have been applied to LNVL. These KPIs are related to noise abatement (not to flight efficiency). They might have a negative effect on the capacity performance. The KPIs are 11 noise abatement rules relating to runway and route use at Schiphol Airport. The table below summarizes the rules and associated targets. [16], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

17 Rules Runway and Route Usage Target 1 Vertical corridor deviations by approaching aircraft outside the TMA during daytime 5% 2 Vertical corridor deviations by approaching aircraft within the TMA during daytime 15% 3 Horizontal corridor deviations by approaching aircraft outside the TMA during night time 0.05% 4 Vertical corridor deviations by approaching aircraft outside the TMA during night time 0.05% 5 Vertical corridor deviations by approaching aircraft within the TMA during night time 0.05% 6 Horizontal corridor deviations by departing aircraft during daytime 3% 7 Horizontal corridor deviations by departing aircraft during night time 0.05% 8 Vertical corridor deviations by departing aircraft within the TMA 0.05% 9 Vertical corridor deviations by departing aircraft outside the TMA 10% 10 Deviations from runway usage by departures 0 11 Deviations from runway usage by arrivals 0 Table 4. Noise abatement rules applicable at Schiphol Airport. Target It is not allowed to exceed any of the percentages set for each of the applicable rules. The RMI (Airport Traffic Decree Schiphol Airport) targets are laid down in national law. The main aim is to limit noise pollution around Schiphol, while at the same time creating room for growth of the airport. Rationale As mentioned above, the noise abatement rules (laid down in the Airport Traffic Decree, Schiphol Airport) relate to runway and route use at Schiphol Airport and have been applicable since Schiphol Airport is located in one of the most densely populated areas of the Netherlands. In order to limit the noise hindrance and depending on the circumstances, the use of certain runways or use of runways in certain directions is limited, particularly at night when only two specific runways may be used. Furthermore, there are corridors ( luchtverkeerswegen ) of which the location is such that aircraft fly as little as possible over dense residential areas when approaching or departing from Schiphol. The rules distinguish between flying within or outside the TMA and between day and nighttime. Data sources The RMI rules impose limits on the number of aircraft that may deviate from a route, both horizontally and vertically, and on the number of aircraft that may deviate from the prescribed runway use. The compliance is monitored and reported based on data provided by the AAA system (ATC data system), together with expert judgement/analysis. RMI results are reported monthly. CAA-NL audits the process. National horizontal flight efficiency improvement projects LVNL As indicated in the provisional FABEC Performance Plan, one of the FABEC projects to improve horizontal flight efficiency is the Central West project. A national project, which is related to this project, is the study into a fourth Initial Approach Fix in the South-Eastern part of the Amsterdam FIR. The study will be carried out during the 1st reference period. Furthermore, LVNL is planning a number of Arrival Management Projects during the first reference period. Implementation, and hence benefits, of these projects are expected in the 2nd reference period ( ). MUAC MUAC is implementing the Free Route Airspace (FRAM) concept starting in With FRAM, 142 additional direct routes will become available and will complement those already introduced as part of the FABEC Night Route Network programme. At (pre) tactical level, MUAC air traffic controllers usually offer direct routes when available. FRAM will allow these routes to be flight planned, which generate significant advantages such as better flight and network predictability, better flight efficiency, reduced fuel carriage, higher cost-effectiveness and reduced environmental impact. FRAM also [17], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

18 provides an initial operational validation for conceptual elements of the SESAR ATM Target Concept. It is therefore a first step towards the implementation of aircraft operators preferred business trajectories Cost efficiency in the FIR AMSTERDAM General introduction The FABEC States Strategic Board (SSB) has decided that for the first reference period the provisional FABEC Performance Plan (FPP) will focus on the KPAs of Safety, Environment, Capacity and Military Mission Effectiveness. The KPA on Cost Efficiency and the possible interrelations of this KPA with the other KPAs will not be included in the FABEC Plan, but in the separate national Performance Plans. Therefore, the Dutch Performance Plan will focus on the following issues: the determined costs for en route and the costs for terminal air navigation services on a full cost recovery basis as well as possible cost reductions; the forecast of the traffic volume (en route service units) for each year of the reference period. As a consequence, the determined unit rates for the reference period, which are related to these costs and tariff issue raises the following issues to be dealt with: a description and justification of the return on equity of the air navigation service providers in relation to the actual risk incurred; a description of the investments necessary to achieve the performance targets in relation to: v their relevance with the European ATM Master Plan; v their coherence with the main areas and directions of progress and change as set in that plan General principles governing the determined ANS (en route and terminal) costs The general principles for the determined ANS costs are mentioned in. Article 15.2(a) and 2(b) of the service provision Regulation (s (EU) No 550/2004, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1070/2009, set out the principle Commission Regulation of the determined costs. Articles 3.2 and 3.3 of the Charging Regulation (EU) No 1794/2006, as amended by (EU) No 1191/2010 prescribe that the determined ANS costs shall be financed by means of the charges imposed on the users and/or other revenues. For determined costs of terminal ANS the other revenues may include cross-subsidies in accordance with Community law. Article 6.1 makes a distinction between the determined costs (to be established in accordance with Article 15 of the Service Provision Regulation and for performance purposes) and the actual costs (to be established for charging purposes). Determined costs are defined by the European Commission as the costs that are considered necessary in each of the years of the Performance Plan reference period to deliver the forecasted number of service units, given the level of the targets for capacity and environment while assuming the safety level will remain at least the same. In both cost concepts the costs shall be composed of eligible services, facilities and activities. The distinction between the determined costs and the actual costs is very clear in both the traffic risk volume (Article 11a.1) and the cost risk (Article 11a.2). The determined cost level shall be fixed for each year of the performance reference period before the start of that period. This is in line with Article 15.3(c) of Regulation (EU) No 550/2004, which specifies that the charges shall be set in advance per calendar year on the basis of the determined costs, or may be set under conditions established by Member States for determining the maximum level of the unit rate or the maximum revenue for each year over a period not exceeding five years. MUAC For MUAC specific financial arrangements have been agreed upon and are included in the financial protocol to the Maastricht Agreement. It stipulates that the investment expenditure shall be covered by a special annex in the Eurocontrol budget and balanced by receipts from the German Ministry of Defence for the military part of the investment expenditure, on the one hand, and by receipts from route charges, on the other hand. The four national contracting parties therefore include their part of [18], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

19 the annual amortization and interest on the Maastricht capital expenditure in their national en route cost bases. The mechanism is cost neutral for the Eurocontrol Member States as a whole. The investment expenses are pre-financed through the Eurocontrol budget (all States) and covered by bank loans but reimbursed (interest costs included) by the 4 contracting States. Operating expenditure in respect of the Maastricht Centre is offset by direct contributions from the four contracting States for the control of General Air Traffic (GAT) and by a special contribution from the German Ministry of Defence for the military part of the operating costs. Although the contributions are calculated and based on the MUAC budget, a correction mechanism ensures that only actual expenses are claimed. The cost-sharing formula applied to the operational expenses as well as to the amortization and interest costs of the capital expenditure (non military part) by the four contracting States is based on the number of air traffic control personnel assigned to the control sectors serving their specific part of the airspace on 1 st January of the budgetary year. For RP1, the four Contracting States agreed this cost sharing key would be fixed during the whole period The traffic volume risk will not be not applicable to MUAC in the first reference period as MUAC does not have equity capital. Possibilities to build up equity capital will be looked into during RP a Determined nominal costs for en route ANS for the reference period The following entities are involved in the en route traffic service provision in the FIR Amsterdam: Air Traffic Control the Netherlands (LVNL) Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC) Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) National Supervisory Authority (NSA) Eurocontrol The table below contains the determined costs of each of these entities for the en route ANS provision. The MUAC costs are calculated on the basis of the cost sharing keys, which will be valid for the period An average inflation rate of 2% per year is forecasted (see macro economic scenarios). ANS en route costs (x 1.000) per entity 2009 A 2010 A LVNL total costs %n/n-1-7,7% -3,1% -1,6% 1,3% 3,2% MUAC total costs for the Dutch airspace (*) %n/n-1-5,8% -5,5% 8,5% 3,8% 4,4% KNMI MET NSA (incl. other State costs) - Eurocontrol Total ANS en route costs (x 1.000) in FIR Amsterdam %n/n-1-10,9% -2,0% -2,1% -2,1% 0,0% %n/n-1 27,4% 0,0% 0,0% %n/n-1 14,1% 2,6% -4,9% 0,6% 2,2% %n/n-1-5,8% -2,1% 0,1% 1,5% 3,1% (*)This figure represents the MUAC costs for the Dutch airspace and is influenced by application of an agreed cost sharing key. Table 5. Determined en route nominal costs (x 1.000) in FIR Amsterdam breakdown per entity [19], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

20 Figure 1. Determined en route nominal costs (x 1.000) in FIR Amsterdam breakdown per entity In line with Article 6.1(a) of Regulation (EC) 1794/2006 the following costs are included in the determined en route costs for the first reference period Staff costs Other operating costs Depreciation costs Interest costs Exceptional items The table below contains the cost data for the en route ATS provision broken down by nature. ANS en route costs (x 1.000) by nature 2009 A 2010 A Staff costs %n/n-1-12,6% -2,0% 0,9% 3,0% 3,6% Other operating costs %n/n-1 13,7% -6,8% 4,1% -2,0% 1,6% Depreciation %n/n-1-8,7% 6,5% -8,5% 4,6% 5,2% Interest %n/n-1 9,2% -9,0% -8,9% -20,4% -2,0% Eurocontrol costs %n/n-1 14,1% 2,6% -4,9% 0,6% 2,2% Exceptional items %n/n-1 Total ANS costs by nature %n/n-1-5,8% -2,1% 0,1% 1,5% 3,1% Table 6: Determined en route nominal costs (x 1.000) in FIR Amsterdam breakdown by nature [20], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

21 Figure 2. Determined en route nominal costs (x 1.000) in FIR Amsterdam breakdown by nature In the table below the main cost changes and adjustments outside the International Accounting Standards are given for each organization, including those having a significant impact on the overall costs. Major reallocations of ANS costs to the en-route and terminal activities have not taken place since 2008 and are not foreseen before the end of RP1. Based on the use of the facilities for either en route or terminal traffic only marginal changes in the allocation sharing keys have been implemented. Changes in year N are based on the actual allocation of resources in year N-2. Costs by nature Staff costs Other operating expenses Depreciation Interests Exceptional items LVNL MUAC KNMI Eurocontrol 2012: no real wage increase 2013 and 2014: 1.5% annually real wage increase Career progression Annual inflation rate 2% Salary index: 2.5% nominal or 0.5% real Career progression: 1.1% Annual inflation rate 2% Expiry of ATCO lease to Vienna at the end of 2013 Table 7. Information on changes in the costs by nature 2.2.2b Determined en-route ANS costs in real terms 2012: zero-growth of salaries (no compensation) Annual inflation rate 2% Salary index: 2.5% nominal or 0.5% real Career progression: 1.1% The different elements of the conversion of the determined en route costs from nominal terms into real terms are indicated in the table below, including a justification of the rationale for the national average inflation assumption and a link to public official sources. Based on the economic forecasts of the CPB Economic Policy Analysis, the inflation rate has been set at 2% per year. As the depreciation costs of LVNL, KNMI and MUAC are determined on the basis of the historic value (historic capitalization costs), depreciation costs are not related to the inflation rate. Interest costs are not related to inflation. Thus, the inflation rate is corrected for the depreciation costs and the interest costs. If these costs are equal to for instance 20% of the total costs, the weighted average inflation rate is 20% below the assumed originally used inflation rate. [21], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

22 The cost data in the table below are both in nominal and in real terms. This table is a summary of the data given in Appendix A, which is in line with annex 2 of the Regulation1794/2006. Cost by nature (x 1000) In nominal terms In real terms Staff costs Other operating costs Depreciation Interest Eurocontrol costs Exceptional items Total Table 8. Conversion of nominal costs into real costs in Euros 2009 breakdown by costs by nature Cost by entity (x 1000) In nominal terms In real terms LVNL total costs MUAC total costs for the Dutch airspace (*) KNMI (MET) NSA Eurocontrol Total (*) This figure represents the MUAC costs for the Dutch airspace and is influenced by application of an agreed cost sharing key. Table 9. Conversion of nominal costs into real costs in Euros 2009 breakdown by organization The table below gives the conversion of the determined costs in nominal terms to determined costs in Euros A 2010 A 2011 F Total determined costs in nominal terms Inflation % 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% Inflation index (2009 = 100% 101,0% 103,0% 105,1% 107,2% 109,3% 100) Total determined costs in real terms (at 2009 prices) % n/n-1-6,8% -4,0% -1,9% -0,5% 1,1% Table 10. Conversion of total determined costs in nominal terms into total determined costs in Euros [22], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

23 Fig. 3. Nominal and real determined en route costs in FIR Amsterdam Determined nominal costs for terminal ANS for the reference period The Netherlands has decided to defer the entry into force of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 as amended by this Regulation on terminal charges until December 31 st By mentioning the decision in this chapter, the Netherlands has thus notified the Commission thereof. The decision implies that there will be no cost efficiency target in the form of a determined terminal unit rate in FIR Amsterdam during the first reference period. Furthermore, it implies that the full cost recovery system will be applied up until the end of the year In line with Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) 17 of the PRU Guidance Material the current full cost recovery reporting tables and the additional information on the data in the tables are included in appendix A. Tables 11 and 12 contain the terminal cost data, broken down both at the level of ANSP organisation and by cost category. These costs are not binding for the first reference period. ANS en route costs per entity 2009 A 2010 A LVNL total costs %n/n-1 11,7% -12,3% -3,8% 4,7% 0,7% 3,0% KNMI (MET) %n/n-1 102,0% -4,1% -2,1% -2,1% 0,0% Total %n/n-1 13,3% -10,7% -3,8% 4,5% 0,6% 2,9% Table 11. National nominal determined terminal costs breakdown per entity ANS terminal costs x A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 P 2013 P 2014 P Staff ,7% -12,8% -2,4% -1,0% 2,3% 3,1% Other operating costs ,6% 0,1% 11,0% 1,1% -1,5% 1,9% Depreciation ,9% -3,8% 13,4% -13,9% 5,2% 6,6% [23], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

24 ANS terminal costs x A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 P 2013 P 2014 P Cost of capital ,8% -27,7% 42,4% -13,1% -24,4% -4,4% Exceptional items Total costs ,3% -10,7% -3,8% 4,5% 0,6% 2,9% Table 12. National nominal determined terminal costs breakdown by nature En route service units (a) En route service units forecast for each year of the reference period As already mentioned in the introductory chapter on the macro economic scenarios, the traffic volume forecast expressed in number of Service Units is based on the STATFOR Medium Term Forecast, base scenario (February 2011). The table below shows the actual data on the traffic volume in 2009 and 2010 and the forecasts for the years 2011 up until The forecast for 2011 is the same as the figure mentioned in the reporting tables of October # en route SUs in FIR Amsterdam 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 F 2013 F 2014 F En route total service units prior to RP Forecast total service units used for the determined unit rate 4,9% 1,9% 2,3% Source STATFOR medium term forecast of service units ;baseline scenario %n/n-1 STATFOR service units forecast (baseline scenario) February Date of STATFOR SU forecast February 2011 %n/n-1 2,7% 1,9% 2,3% Table 13. En route FIR Amsterdam traffic volume forecast The refreshment traffic forecast of STATFOR (May 2011) has not been taken into account because the differences between this forecast and the February 2011 forecast are very small (0,08%). It would have entailed a total update of the ANSPs Business plans and disproportional number of changes in the Performance Plan and the calculations, without there being any added value. Figure 4. En route FIR Amsterdam traffic volume forecast [24], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

25 2.2.4(b) Terminal service units forecast for each year of the reference period Table 14 gives the forecast of the terminal service units # chargeable terminal SUs in FIR Amsterdam ,1% 1,3% 5,4% 3,3% 1,2% 1,4% Table 14. Terminal traffic forecast FIR Amsterdam Determined en route unit rate In the table below the real en-route determined unit rate for FIR Amsterdam is presented for each year of the first reference period resulting from the costs and traffic developments as described in the previous paragraphs, together with the EU-wide target. Total en route determined costs in real terms (at 2009 prices) Average per annum 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D Total en route SUs Real en route determined unit rate in national currency (at 2009 prices) 74,04 67,65 62,94 58,86 57,47 56,84 % n/n-1-8,6% -7,0% -6,5% -2,4% -1,1% -6,4% Real en route determined unit rate in EURO (at 2009 prices) 74,04 67,65 62,94 58,86 57,47 56,84 % n/n-1-6,5% -2,4% -1,1% -3,3% EU-wide target: average determined en route unit rate in EURO (at 2009 prices) Table 15. Real en route determined unit rate in FIR Amsterdam 62,94 60,74 58,61 56,56-3,50% Fig 5. En route costs and unit rate development in FIR Amsterdam In the table below a specification has been given of the development of the partial determined unit rate for each of the organisations involved in the air navigation service provision in the FIR Amsterdam. [25], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

26 Entity Cumulative LVNL 41,97 38,59 37,58 37,18-8,1% -2,6% -1,1% -11,4% KNMI 2,99 2,74 2,58 2,47-8,5% -5,9% -4,1% -17,4% MUAC (*) 11,15 11,30 11,29 11,30 1,4% -0,2% 0,1% 1,3% NSA/Eurocontrol 6,83 6,24 6,03 5,90-8,7% -3,3% -2,2% -13,6% Total 62,94 58,86 57,47 56,84-6,5% -2,4% -1,1% -9,7% EU-wide target 62,94 60,74 58,61 56,56-3,5% -3,5% -3,5% -10,1% (*)This figure represents the MUAC part for the Dutch airspace and is influenced by application of an agreed cost sharing key Table 16: development of the partial determined unit rates No other KPIs on cost efficiency than the en route determined unit rate will be used in FIR Amsterdam in RP Method of calculation of the determined en route unit rate in the FIR Amsterdam This paragraph describes the calculation of the determined en route unit rate in the FIR Amsterdam in a step-by-step manner: 1. First of all, the concept of determined costs has been defined. Determined costs are the costs considered necessary to process the forecasted traffic volume, taking into account the targets set on capacity and environment. 2. Based on the reporting tables of November 2010 which are used for the calculation of the en route unit rate 2011 and based on the changes that have already occurred and are to be expected since September 2010, the organizations involved in the en route ATC in the FIR Amsterdam have updated staff costs, other operating expenses, depreciation costs and interest costs for the period ,. The non recurring IFRS effects 2011 on the costs of Eurocontrol and MUAC have been excluded from this cost base. This is in line with the way the European Commission has set the cost efficiency target. The costs of these organizations for the various categories add up to the gross determined costs in nominal Euros in the FIR Amsterdam. 3. The under recoveries of LVNL in the years 2008 and 2009, mainly as an effect of the combination of the cost reduction measures, the social costs of staff cuts and the tariff stabilization are considered legacy costs, to be included in the chargeable unit rate. 4. The total determined costs in nominal Euros have to be corrected (deflated) with the inflation rate to calculate the total determined costs in real prices Euro Based on the inflation rates mentioned in the reporting tables of November 2010 for each year a cumulative inflation correction factor has been calculated. The inflation rate is the average of the inflation rates in the period published by the Dutch CPB Economic Policy Analysis. 5. The accumulated inflation correction factor is used to convert the total determined costs in nominal terms into the total determined costs in real prices (Euro 2009). 6. The determined costs in real prices (Euro 2009), divided by the number of total service units in line with the STATFOR medium term forecast February 2011, base scenario, result in the determined unit rate in real prices Local context and specificities of the determined unit rate in the FIR Amsterdam, achievements in the cost efficiency field in the past and shortcomings The difference between the targeted EU wide en route unit rate development and the development of the Dutch targeted en route unit rate are explained in section 2.3. [26], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

27 Description and justification of the return on equity of the air navigation service providers in relation to the actual risk incurred. As LVNL will become subject to the traffic volume risk and the cost risk mechanisms, the building up of an equity capital is considered necessary to absorb fluctuations in operating results. The method of building up equity capital is subject to consultation. No capital costs will be included in the chargeable unit rate in the first reference period National alert thresholds Both the traffic volume alert threshold and the cost alert threshold have been set at 10%. There is no reason for deviation from the threshold level mentioned in Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 21 February Description of investments necessary to achieve the performance targets with a description of their relevance in relation to the European ATM Masterplan and their coherence with the main areas and directions of progress and change set out therein. Appendix C shows the investments of LVNL, MUAC and KNMI required to achieve the performance targets, including their relevance in relation to the European ATM Master Plan 5 and their coherence with the main areas and directions of progress and change set out therein. Where possible, an indication is given of the nature of this relationship, by classifying the investments into ATM Master Plan Operational Improvement (OIs), Interoperability Implementing Rules (IR) and Community Specifications (CS) Description and justification of the measures planned to achieve a lower proportion of debt financing and their timing. Equity capital LVNL It was decided to apply the volume risk as of the first reference period despite a lack of equity. During the first reference period (RP1) of the Performance Plan LVNL aims to build up an equity capital to meet the traffic volume risk. The aim is to have built up an equity capital of M 22 at the end of the first reference period. Rationale At the moment LVNL is fully debt financed. It has no equity capital to absorb negative operating results. Due to the absence of any equity capital and the negative en route and terminal appropriation funds (together about M 35 at the end of 2010) LVNL is already nearing the limits of a sound financial situation. Continuation of the current situation could lead to possible non compliance with the Common Requirements on financial strength (and could thus possibly jeopardize LVNL s certification), even in a full cost recovery situation. Exposure to the newly introduced traffic volume risk and cost risk will further deteriorate LVNL s financial risk profile. In the EU Regulation 1794/2010, laying down a common charging scheme, amended by EU Regulation 1191/2010, the necessity of equity capital is acknowledged. Article 11a.7 allows ANSPs with an equity capital below 5% of total liabilities to be temporarily exempted from the traffic volume risk. If the traffic risk is exempted the Performance Plan has to include a description of the measures to achieve a lower proportion of debt financing as well as the duration of these measures. The Netherlands has opted for an arrangement under which LVNL is given the opportunity to build up equity capital during the first reference period, while at the same time being exposed to the traffic volume risk. This combination is more advantageous for the users than the building up of an equalization provision without the application of the traffic volume risk, as the traffic volume risk scheme possibly gives them 70% of the additional revenues (in case of a traffic volume increase 4 COM 2011/121/EU Commission Decision of 21 February 2011 setting the European-wide performance targets and alert thresholds for the provision of air navigation services for the years 2012 to More details on the European ATM Masterplan is available at: [27], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

28 above 2% of the forecast) or they bear 70% of the ANSP s loss in revenues (in case of a traffic decrease more than 2%). Method of building up equity capital During the economic crisis the users called for financial relief and favoured a tariff agreement for a 5 year period. In 2009 LVNL and the Dutch State agreed on cost reduction and tariff stabilisation. In line with this agreement LVNL has taken a number of measures (a staff cut of 100 FTE, a decrease in the other operating expenses in combination with a yearly increase of 2% in the LVNL part of the Dutch en route unit rate and a flat LVNL part of the terminal unit rate). In 2009 LVNL and the State have taken a substantial financial risk by stabilising the unit rates for a period of 5 years ( ). The 2009 agreement was subject to user consultation and has been concluded for better and for worse, i.e. in case of a further decrease in traffic volumes LVNL would bear the brunt of the risk, while in case of an increase in traffic and further cost reductions LVNL was allowed to keep the additional revenues to build up an equity capital. It was intended at that time (Nov 2009) to offset LVNL losses in 2008 and 2009 (due to the drastic decrease in traffic) and the forecasted losses in 2010 and 2011 related to the tariff stabilization with the additional revenues resulting from the forecasted increase in traffic volume as from This agreement is still valid. The current forecasted traffic increase enables LVNL also to build up equity capital. Technically, the building up of equity capital is realised by adding an amount of M 22 to the actual costs in 2010 as an exceptional item. A study into the necessary financial coverage of the volume and cost risks at the start of RP2 has been carried out by a consultancy firm. Based upon this study and other considerations, it was concluded that at the end of the first reference period equity capital of at least M 22 is necessary. Reduction in LVNL unit rate Based upon the positive effects of the LVNL cost reduction measures and taking into account the increasing traffic volumes LVNL and the State have also agreed on a reduction of the LVNL unit rates. As from 2011 to 2014 the en route unit rate will be reduced by 1% (instead of the earlier agreed upon annual increase of 2%), while the LVNL terminal rate will be reduced by 2% (instead of the earlier agreed upon flat rate for the period ). Summary The table below shows the combined effects of: the reduction in LVNL s currently negative appropriation fund; the building up of equity capital. x Total Total Per entity LVNL LVNL KNMI Eurocontrol Total LVNL KNMI Eurocontrol MUAC Eurocontrol HQ/NSA Total LVNL KNMI Eurocontrol MUAC Eurocontrol HQ/NSA [28], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

29 x Total Total * Equity capital is calculated with the formula: M 42,906 (M 20, result); see also Table 17. Carry overs per year and by organisation For the purpose of transparency, this table will be updated and included in the additional information on the en route cost data and unit rates in the coming years. Prerequisites 1. As soon as the appropriation funds are completely phased out and the equity capital will be equal to M 22, the State and LVNL will decide upon the best possible allocation of additional revenues amongst the stakeholders, e.g. a reduction in the chargeable unit rate or an addition to the capital reserves; 2. If the service volume will decrease below 95% of the level as indicated in the base scenario of the STATFOR Medium term forecast of February 2011, LVNL unit rates will be adapted. These two prerequisites will be assessed each year. 3. Calculation of a return on equity will not be included in the cost base and the chargeable unit rate in the first reference period. Return on equity will not be considered as an uncontrollable cost in this period Description of the uncontrollable costs in line with Article 11a. 2 of Regulation (EC) 1794/2006. The categories of costs, non-exhaustively mentioned in the table below are considered to be uncontrollable: Number Category as mentioned in EU-regulation 1794/ Unforeseen changes due to national pension regulations and pension accounting regulations. Eligible changes to be based on National Law and regulations 2 Unforeseen changes due to national taxation law 3 Unforeseen and new cost items not covered in the national Performance Plan but required by law 4 Unforeseen changes in costs or revenues based on obligations set by international agreements Unforeseen and uncontrollable costs by nature Specification Eligible changes to be introduced by the external Pension Fund (Stichting ABP Pensioenfonds) which is responsible for setting premiums etc. Unforeseen changes in employer s contribution to pension (incl. early retirement) premiums, insurance contributions Unforeseen changes in interest rates for pensions (incl. early retirement) Unforeseen changes in life expectancy tables Unforeseen changes in earning ceilings/franchises Unforeseen changes in retirement age Unforeseen changes in international financial reporting standards (IFRS and IAS) Unforeseen change in applicable VAT base and percentage Unforeseen changes in other tax laws with an effect on ANSP costs Unforeseen changes in social security regulations and employer contributions (health insurance, unemployment, disability, reintegration) Unforeseen changes in international financial reporting standards (IFRS) Unforeseen changes in Employer Liability Insurance Unforeseen changes in statutory duties Unforeseen changes in EUROCONTROL Budget Part I and Part IX provisions Unforeseen changes in Maastricht Agreement (Eurocontrol Part III provisions) Unforeseen changes in ICAO regulations [29], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

30 Number Category as mentioned in EU-regulation 1794/2006 Unforeseen and uncontrollable costs by nature Specification 5 Significant changes in interest rates on loans Every change Unforeseen changes due to new international states agreements (delegation of airspace, LOAs) Unforeseen MUAC: changes in OAT cost-sharing agreement Unforeseen MUAC: changes in financial, contract regulations and staff regulations 6 Differences from projected inflation rates (in line with Article 6a Regulation 1794/2006 on Common Charging Scheme, amended by Regulation 1191/2010 Table 18: Uncontrollable costs by nature Including the inflation part of o salary increases o increases in pension (incl. early retirement) premiums General salary increases resulting from direct negations between unions and ANSP or ANSP related organisations (MUAC exempted) are not considered as uncontrollable costs EU wide PIs on cost efficiency The following EU wide PIs will be monitored during RP1: 1. Determined en route cost/revenue This indicator provides information about the effectiveness of the ANSPs cost management. 2. Total en route cost per flight hour: This indicator gives insight into degree of productivity development of the ANSPs. This PI is only meant for monitoring purposes and contains no forward looking information. 3. Total economic cost per flight hour: This indicator gives information on all relevant costs related to ANS, not only the costs of the service provision itself, but also the costs of delays and environmental costs. Thus, this indicator gives an idea of the overall ANS performance in financial terms. This PI is only meant for monitoring purposes and contains no forward looking information. 4. Terminal air navigation services costs and unit rates (see also in section ). The differences between the forecasted and the actual terminal air navigation costs and unit rate will be explained to the Commission. This PI has to be monitored because the Commission intends to set a target on the terminal air navigation service unit rates in the second reference period. This PI will be used as a EU wide KPI in RP2. The terminal air navigation costs and unit rate are currently reported once a year to the Commission. The current reporting cycle will be continued KPIs on cost efficiency to be used in the second reference period The determined Terminal Unit rate shall be monitored in the first reference period in preparation of its introduction as KPI in the second reference period Reporting tables: Reporting tables for the costs and unit rate are included in Appendix A. En route: Reporting tables and additional information. Terminal: Reporting tables and additional information. [30], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

31 2.3. Summary of the (additional) national KPIs. This sections summarizes the (mandatory) national KPIs and targets and PIs which will be applicable in the first reference period as set out in the previous section. KPA KPI National targets (a) Safety To maintain current safety levels None None None None (b) Capacity Average Total ATFM delay None (in minutes) terminal and en route Sustainability of the first inbound * 92.5* None peak (in %) (c) Environment Rules related to runway and None route use (no. of deviations) (d) Cost-efficiency Determined en-route unit rate (2009 prices in ) 58,86 57,47 56,84 *Pending LVNL analysis of the feasibility of adjusting the target to 93% in 2013 and Table 19. Summary of targets and thresholds National/ thresholds 10 % (to be applied on both costs and traffic volumes) 2.4.Consistency of the performance targets with the European Union-wide performance targets In this section a comparison is made between the EU wide targets and the targets on cost efficiency in the FIR Amsterdam and the additional Dutch KPIs. a. Safety As indicated in section 2.1.(a) the Netherlands has decided not to set additional mandatory national safety KPIs and associated targets. However, an additional national safety performance indicator (PI) is set and will be (or is) consistent with the second EU-wide safety PI. b. Capacity As a contribution to the FABEC capacity target as described in Chapter 2.1 of the FABEC Performance Plan, the Netherlands has set the reference values for LVNL and MUAC at the level of the reference value as provided by the Eurocontrol planning process, namely at an average delay of 0.18 and 0.22 minutes per flight respectively. The intermediate values for LVNL are set at 0.20 for 2012 and These intermediate values differ from the intermediate values as provided by Eurocontrol. The latter show an increase in time, which the Netherlands does not think to be justified now that the performance scheme focuses on performance improvement. For MUAC the 2014 target and intermediate values are set at the level of the reference values as provided by Eurocontrol. Based on past performance of both LVNL and MUAC, as indicated in the table below, this target should be achievable with the expected traffic increase. By setting a capacity target at this level the Dutch target is consistent with and contributes adequately to the EU-wide target. [31], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

32 2009A 2010A 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014F LVNL En-route ATFM delay prior to RP1 (en-route ATFM delay PM minutes per flight) Reference value from the capacity planning process of EUROCONTROL (en-route ATFM delay minutes per flight) % n/n-1 National/FAB capacity target (en-route ATFM delay in minutes per flight) % n/n-1 Difference between the target and the reference value None MUAC En-route ATFM delay prior to RP1 (en-route ATFM delay minutes per flight) Reference value from the capacity planning process of EUROCONTROL (en-route ATFM delay minutes per flight) % n/n-1 National/FAB capacity target (en-route ATFM delay in minutes per flight) % n/n-1 Difference between the target and the reference value None None None Table 20. Past performance capacity LVNL and MUAC LVNL LVNL offers sufficient en route capacity to handle the forecasted traffic demand and does not expect to experience structural shortages in the first reference period. Most imbalances are solved in the strategic and pre-tactical planning phases, in particular through coordination with the main user, KLM. Therefore there are currently no activities planned to increase significantly the ACC capacity in this period. The focus is on making a better use of available capacity through optimising the sector opening schemes with regard to the expected traffic demand, optimizing ATS route network and procedures and optimising the procedures for issuing regulations. The training of new ATCOs to maintain present capacity will continue as usual. The investments planned in the 1 st reference period as described in Appendix C will enable LVNL to maintain current capacity and to accommodate both future traffic growth as well as the new ATM concept developed in the SESAR program. Furthermore, LVNL and its military partners are enhancing their cooperation. This is expected to have a positive effect on performance in In addition, Airport-CDM will be fully implemented during the first reference period. It is expected to contribute positively to capacity performance. ACC Optimising the sector opening schemes Measures planned Optimise ATFCM procedures with ASM procedures Amsterdam increased cooperation with military ANSP (EHAA) Significant Events Olympic Games Capacity increase p.a. +2% +2% +2% Table 21. LVNL measures and benefits c. Sustainability As has been described in section 2.1.(b) the sustainability target has been set at 92.5%. LVNL is analyzing at present the feasibility of raising the target to 93% for 2013 and 2014, to meet the user requirements of KLM, the main user at Schiphol Airport. d. Total ATFM delay The target for total ATFM delay consists of a combination of terminal and en route delays. The associated target has been set at 1 minute per flight. For the first reference period there is also an EU wide target for en route ATFM delay. As has been mentioned earlier the 2014 target for en route delay has been set at 0.18 minutes per flight, which is consistent with and contributes adequately to the EUwide target. It also means that terminal ATFM delay should not exceed 0.82 minutes per flight. In order to meet this target LVNL, KLM and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AAS) are cooperating to match airport capacity with terminal and en route capacity. This cooperation will be further enhanced by the complete implementation of Airport-Cooperative Decision Making (A-CDM) during the 1 st reference [32], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

33 period. It is expected that this KPI and its associated target will help LVNL in meeting the capacity target. MUAC The investments planned in the 1 st reference period as described in Appendix C will enable MUAC to maintain current capacity or are enablers to accommodate future growth in traffic as well as of the introduction of SESAR compatible ATM-concept(s). ACC Free Route Airspace MUAC Free Route Airspace MARS2 (FRAM) MUAC (FRAM) NTCA NTCA NTCA Cross - validation Generic ATCO Licence AMAN / DMAN interface LUX area redesign MUAC (EDYY) Measures planned LARA TRA12 Released CDR1 in Dutch airspace Traffic Management System (TMS) Levels 1-2 Progressive development and improvement of New FDPS and CWP functions (MTCD, enhanced OLDI, ) Revised pre-tactical process CPDLC monitoring and implementation Annual Capacity +3,5% +3,5% +6,0% increase Table 22. MUAC main capacity measures and benefits f. Environment As explained in section 2.1.(c) the additional mandatory national KPIs on environment are related to noise abatement rules and not to horizontal flight efficiency. These rules limit LVNL s options, to a certain extent, to handle traffic in the most optimal way and might, under certain weather circumstances, have a negative effect on capacity (performance). g. Cost efficiency In the graph below the cumulative changes in each organization s partial determined unit rate are given. Fig. 6. Cumulative change partial en route determined unit rate per organization in FIR Amsterdam [33], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

34 The EU wide target of an annual decrease of 3.5% in the determined en route unit rate is almost completely achieved in the FIR Amsterdam, because: 1. the 2009 cost reduction (100 FTE = 15% of the support staff plus a decrease in the other operating expenses, leading to a decrease in the support staff ratio from 5.1 in 2009 to 4.5 in 2011 and tariff stabilisation measures by LVNL have not left much room for further improvement in the cost efficiency field: nevertheless, LVNL will in the coming years reduce its support staff with 28 FTE. The number of controllers will increase. There will be a net reduction of 104 FTE. Furthermore, the interest costs will decrease by using State loan facilities, both for operating expenses and for investments. 2. After the implementation of AUTO METAR, KNMI has little room left for any further cost reductions. KNMI will reduce its staff by 4.5 FTE and has an ongoing focus on systems automation. 3. On the basis of the cost sharing key agreement for MUAC, lower costs sharing keys have been applied for the Netherlands in This also implied lower costs. However, the application of the same cost sharing key agreement results in higher cost sharing keys for the Netherlands during the first reference period and this is resulting in a more than proportional cost increase. The cost reductions achieved by MUAC are negatively compensated by this higher cost sharing key for the Netherlands and finally have a negative effect on the overall Dutch cost efficiency performance. 4. MUAC is also focusing on cost efficiency and cost reduction measures, inter alia the optimisation of the ATCO deployment, the review of its recruitment programme Ab Initio s by outsourcing its Ab Initio training to FABEC partners, leasing ATCOs to Austrocontrol ( ), a reduction in its support cost ratio, renegotiating running contracts and starting a common procurement of a FABEC compliant New Voice Communication System with DSNA. All in all, the targeted unit rate in the FIR Amsterdam will decrease with 9.7% in the period (compared to 2011). Without the change in the MUAC cost sharing key, the targeted unit rate would decrease with 11.2%. h. Interdependencies between targets The key performance indicators in this Performance Plan should not be considered in isolation, as performance in one area will affect performance in other areas. A balance should be found specifically between the KPAs on capacity and cost efficiency. Capacity investments will in most cases lead to cost increases and should only be considered if a capacity shortage is expected. Whereas a higher target for cost-efficiency will have an effect on capacity as this would most likely result in reducing the number of ATCOs or reducing investments. For LVNL a more ambitious target for capacity will most certainly require higher investments, the more so as their current system already has reached the end of its life cycle. Higher investments will result in a lower performance on cost efficiency. LVNL will only implement replacements of outdated systems in the first reference period. A higher target on cost efficiency will not be feasible, considering the substantial cost containment measures that have already been taken by LVNL in 2009 and In the case of MUAC, a high performing state of the art New FDPS platform is operational. The proposed capacity plan aims at further deploying its capabilities and functionalities to improve ATCO productivity. The current Netherlands targets for cost efficiency and capacity targets are considered to be achievable while maintaining a very high safety standard Carry-overs from the years before RP1 Section already includes a table (table 14) showing the carry overs Parameters for risk sharing and incentives Article 11 of the Performance Regulation describes incentives. A distinction is made between financial and non-financial incentives. No distinction is made between ex ante incentives (both the reward and its volume and the criteria for obtaining the reward are set in advance) and ex post incentives in the [34], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

35 form of corrective actions to be taken in case of underperformance and depending on the cause of the underperformance. In the following table the applicable national incentives for each KPA are presented. KPA Incentive scheme applied on ANSPs National Financial Non-financial Safety n a Ex post: Corrective action(s) depending on the degree and causes of the underperformance Capacity n a Ex post: Corrective action (s) depending on the degree and causes of underperformance Environment Ex post: Financial penalties (related to RMI) Ex post: Corrective action (s) depending on the Cost efficiency Ex ante: Traffic volume risk (Art. 11a CIR) Cost risk (Art. 11a CIR) No financial incentives (Art. 12 CIR) Military Mission n.a. Effectiveness Table 23 Applicable incentives degree and causes of underperformance Na n.a. Safety, capacity and environment There will be no ex ante incentives for safety, environment and capacity in RP1. Ex post incentives will only be applicable to ANSPs and are given in section 6.2. These incentives will only be of a non financial nature. The only exception are the rules related to runway and route use. In case one or more targets in these domains are not met, a financial penalty (bestuurlijke boete) may be imposed up to a maximum of Cost efficiency: traffic and cost risks a. Traffic risk sharing: LVNL will bear the traffic volume risk in line with Article 11 of the Amended Charging Implementing Regulation 6. A plan is developed to build up an LVNL equity capital. The provisions 3 6 of Article 11a will be applied fully. The volume risk percentages are set at the level of 70%, respectively 30% as mentioned in Article 11a. In line with paragraph 7 of Article 11a MUAC will be given the opportunity to build up an equalization reserve and thus will decrease the proportion of debt financing. Before the actual start of this building up of the equity capital it should be clear whether or not the MUAC Agreement will have to be amended. MUAC will not bear a traffic volume risk in RP1. KNMI, NSA and Eurocontrol Headquarter costs are, in line with aforementioned regulation, not subject to the traffic volume risk. In the figure below the traffic volume risk and the revenue distribution effects on ANSPs and users are given. 6 Commission Regulation (EU) No 1191/2010 of 16 December 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services. [35], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

36 Figure 7. Traffic volume risk b. Cost risk The cost risk is applied to the cost bases of all organisations which are involved in ATC in the FIR Amsterdam, with the exception of the difference between the actual and the forecasted levels of uncontrollable costs (see ). c. Alert mechanism In the Netherlands alert mechanisms will be applied to traffic volume and cost efficiency. For both the threshold levels are set at 10 per cent. d. Incentive scheme in respect of users of air navigation services in line with Article 12.3 of Regulation (EC) 1794/2006 No incentive schemes will be applied to users of air navigation services in reference period 1. [36], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

37 3.CONTRIBUTION OF EACH ACCOUNTABLE ENTITY The accountable entities in relation to the KPIs in this plan are: 1. LVNL, in its capacity as ANSP for the Lower airspace 2. MUAC, in its capacity as ANSP for the Upper Airspace 3. KNMI, in its capacity as ANSP for meteorological services (MET) 4. NSA, The Netherlands: costs of supervision 3.1. Entity ((x)) share in the national targets and individually binding performance targets. The table below gives an overview of the accountable entities and their shares in the mandatory EU wide targets and additional national KPIs and targets as given in the previous sections. Cost efficiency is dealt with in a separate table. KPA KPI Accountable entity Reference values and targets Safety ATC related incidents and accidents LVNL No targets set no targets set no targets set Capacity Average ATM delay (en route) in minutes LVNL MUAC Total Average ATFM delay (en route and LVNL terminal) in minutes Sustainability (in %) LVNL 92.5% 92.5%* 92.5*% Environ ment Noise abatement rules (11) LVNL 100% 100% 100% * Pending the outcome of LVNL analysis into the feasibility of raising the target to 93% in 2013 and 2014 to meet KLM user requirements. Table 24. Entity share in the national targets Specific individual cost efficiency performance target per entity Each of the organizations involved in en route ATC-provision in the FIR Amsterdam is accountable for achieving its individual cost efficiency target. In case of an overall underperformance at national level and caused by all organisations concerned, each of the organizations involved in en route ATCprovision in FIR Amsterdam is accountable proportionally to this underperformance. An overview of the cost efficiency reference values and targets of the individual organizations in Euros is included in the table below: LVNL KNMI MUAC NSA/Eurocontrol Total Table 25. Cost efficiency reference values and targets per organization 3.2. Incentive mechanism to be applied to entity x to encourage targets to be met over the reference period. The table below gives an overview of the incentives, as described in section 2.4., applicable to each accountable entity. KPA Accountable entity Ex ante Incentive Ex post Safety LVNL Corrective action(s) depending on [37], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

38 KPA Accountable entity Ex ante Incentive Ex post MUAC the degree and causes of the underperformance Capacity LVNL Corrective actions depending on the MUAC degree and causes of underperformance Environment LVNL Financial penalties (bestuurlijke boete) Corrective action (s) depending on the degree and causes of underperformance Cost efficiency LVNL Traffic and cost risk sharing mechanism Art. 11 Charging Scheme Regulation MUAC Cost risk sharing mechanism KNMI Cost risk sharing mechanism NSA Cost risk sharing mechanism Table 26. Incentives applicable to each accountable entity. [38], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

39 4.CIVIL-MILITARY DIMENSION OF THE PLAN 4.1. Performance of the FUA concept Current situation A joint Civil Military ATM Policy Unit (MoI&E and MoD) is responsible for ASM Level 1 and is supported by the Netherlands Air Traffic Committee (LVC). This committee is established by agreement between MoI&E and MoD and acts as advisory body on airspace issues to the two ministers. It consists of representatives of both ministries (involving the MLA, DGLM and CAA-NL) and the service providers (LVNL, MUAC and Mill-ATCC, KNMI) while other ad-hoc stakeholders, such as airlines, also take part. Improvement of FUA measures planned At the end of 2011 the Dutch government will agree on a strategic airspace vision developed by the MoI&E and the MoD so as to provide political guidance at a national level to meet national requirements and the international framework of SES and FABEC. The main objective of this policy document is to provide guidance regarding future perspectives and the context of the way in which the Dutch airspace will be designed, managed and used. This document must be in line with the FABEC developments and the (inter)national initiatives regarding the use of airspace and the respective roles and tasks of the many stakeholders, both civil and military. Within the Netherlands, civil military cooperation is gaining momentum. The ongoing deployment and enhancement of the AFMU entity (as a centralised focal point in airspace management from a national perspective) and the corresponding processes and procedures are, together with the realisation of enhanced civil-military cooperation, on the political agenda. Following an agreement between the MoD and MoI&E, in April 2011, the civil-military cooperation programme will have to develop a plan for the realisation of military ACC tasks at the LVNL premises. This is expected to take place in the first reference period. FUA Level 1 The Dutch MoD and MoI&E aim at setting up a formalised national decision making process during 2011 in support of the national and FABEC ASM and Airspace Design work in which AFMU will play a vital role; The Dutch MoD plans to introduce PRISMIL (Pan European Repository of Information Supporting Civil Military Performance Measurement) and LARA (Local and Regional Airspace Management System) during the first reference period. These tools will provide the required data and analyses regarding performance data which are mainly focussed on MME and on complete transparency of airspace use data to EUROCONTROL (PRC, CFMU), FABEC Committees and relevant task forces. A similar transparency is requested from the civil ANSPs (MUAC and LVNL) to allow for informed, performance based decision-making. The introduction of LARA will support transparency, enhance the military booking processes and is envisaged to facilitate real-time CDM between all parties involved. The introduction of LARA is expected before the end of At present no data are available to perform any formal data analysis regarding airspace utilisation and booking performance. With the absence of any data, (K)PIs cannot be measured and targets cannot be set. The introduction of PRISMIL should change this situation; but reference data should be collected for at least one year after the introduction of PRISMIL. FUA Level 2 A joint civil military Airspace and Flow Management Unit (AFMU) has been established and operates from LVNL Schiphol. For the activation of two major exercise areas (TRA 10(A) and 12(A)) enhanced FUA application is proving to increase efficiency. The short notice activation option of the TRAs provides the required flexibility on the military side and offers an optional offload for the affected CDRs. All major exercises, requiring a non standard airspace volume with its associated impact on [39], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

40 civil capacity, are subject to a coordination process involving civil and military stakeholders and CDM. If no consensus can be reached, a formal decision will be requested from level 1. FUA Level 3 Additional CDR 2 utilisation is envisaged after the introduction of LARA. At present the introduction of new CDRs on the 10th of March 2011 involving the Temporary Restricted Area (TRA) 10(A) is expected to provide substantial benefits to civil ANSPs and users. Based on the feasibility study the estimated benefits for airspace users as a result of fuel savings (and CO2 reduction) and network optimisation, based on the optimal use of air space, range between 14 million and 21 million per year, consisting of possible cost savings and additional income. In addition, a possible cost saving of air traffic service for the benefit of both civil and military airspace users is expected, depending on the details of a possible merger or co-location of LVNL and the military air traffic control Additional KPI s No additional national civil-military KPA/KPIs are set for the first reference period. [40], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

41 5. ANALYSIS OF SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE PLAN 5.1.Sensitivity to external assumptions This section contains an analysis of the sensitivity of performance targets set against variations in the external assumptions and external factors used to define the targets. Assumptions Effect of a change Mitigation and control measures Delay targets are related to a static capacity model (Eurocontrol). Safety Capacity The model is a tool for modeling structural problems, but does not take into account dynamic issues such as delay caused by bunched traffic and weather. For LVNL and MUAC dynamic effects are the main reasons for restrictions. NL reports the delay cause and this should be taken into account by the EC when determining performance. Environment Flight efficiency is optimised at European level by the Network Manager. These flight efficiency solutions may cause a deterioration in the performance for the KPAs and KPIs at local ANSP level. Changes in route structure may decrease capacity in sectors or make approach and departure more complex at an airport Close cooperation between Network Manager and ANSP. Clear cause attribution in case network solutions decrease ANSP performance. Changes in major traffic flows Financial Difference between actual and forecasted traffic volume Difference between actual and forecasted inflation rate Difference between actual and forecasted interest rate Changes outside managerial control may cause changes in traffic flows across Europe, which may cause a higher than anticipated traffic demand causing a reduction in performance. Reasons for traffic flow changes are social unrest/industrial action, increased charges, market developments, etc. Traffic volume risk in line with Article 11a.1 of the amended Charging Implementing Rule: between max - 4,4% and max 4.4% of revenues annually Difference between the determined costs expressed in nominal terms prior to the reference period and the determined costs adjusted on the basis of the actual inflation (as recorded by the Commission (Eurostat)) for the year which shall be carried over no later than in the year n+2. Liquidity risk Increase in costs, which may be considered as uncontrollable costs as far as they are the result of a significant 7 change in interest rates on loans and thus are to be considered as Delay cause may be reported and EC should take this into account when determining performance. (see STATFOR for actual traffic growth) More stringent cost control Use of equalization reserve To be carried over within two years Sufficient availability of short term credit lines Sufficient availability of short term credit lines 7 The PRU has been requested to clarify the meaning of significant. The Commission has given no clear answer. [41], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

42 Assumptions Effect of a change Mitigation and control measures Difference between actual and budgeted salaries Difference between actual and budgeted social costs Pension fund obligations Higher depreciation costs than budgeted Oil price above $ 150 per barrel Currency rate Euro dollar below 1,20 Transition costs in case of discharges to decrease ATC costs uncontrollable; thus, the small differences are the ANSP s cost risk Liquidity risk. Increase in costs Increase in costs, which may be considered as uncontrollable costs as far as it concerns unforeseen changes in national taxation law; Liquidity risk Increase in costs, which may be considered as uncontrollable costs as far as it concerns unforeseen changes in national pension regulations and pension accounting regulations; Liquidity risk Postponement of necessary investments because of cost increase effects. This will result in a possible increase in safety risk and as an effect of the decrease in safety capacity also will decrease Decrease in traffic Increase in costs Decrease in traffic Increase in costs Increase in short term costs with cost reduction effects in the longer run Productivity increases Salary control Restriction of salary increases to inflation rate level To be carried over within two years Sufficient availability of short term credit lines Sufficient availability of short term credit lines Decrease of capacity; Suspension of investment; Suspension (later start) of depreciation period; Exemption of determined unit rate because of the necessity and/or justification of an investment on the basis of a sound cost benefit analysis: the advantages of a speedy implementation of an investment exceeds the increase in the determined costs in the reference period. Creation of more flexibility in the organisation of ANS provision Neither ANSPs, nor states able/willing to bear this risk; Unforeseen changes in costs or revenues stemming from international agreements Transition costs in case of restructuring/termination of ACCs Change of legal entity and cost structure of MUAC resulting from amended Maastricht Agreement and funding principles Eurocontrol staff regulations and salary adjustment mechanisms applicable to MUAC Increase in short term costs with cost reduction effects in the longer run Neither ANSPs, nor states able/willing to bear this risk; Additional costs of new forms of civilmilitary cooperation Military mission effectiveness Change in political circumstances Table 27 sensitivity parameters Increase in short term costs with cost reduction effects in the longer run Effect on MME KPIs (in case of foreign deployment there is a need for additional training) Neither ANSPs, nor states able/willing to bear this risk; 5.2.Comparison with previous Performance Plan There are no previous Performance Plans in a comparable form. [42], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

43 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERFORMANCE PLAN 6.1 Monitoring and reporting This section deals with the monitoring and reporting mechanisms as well as with the measures put in place to ensure that the targets are monitored and met. a) Content of the monitoring and reporting The monitoring and reporting will focus on the following: Achievement of the actions defined in the ANS part of the State Safety Programme(s) and of the ANS Business Plans; Performance of the accountable entity with regard to each of the KPAs; Actual realisation of external assumptions and external factors affecting performance; Evolution of uncontrollable costs; Reaching of the alert threshold beyond which the alert mechanism may be activated; In case the alert thresholds are likely to be reached, a description of the possible measures the relevant accountable entity plans to take to resolve the situation; Corrective measures, action plans (necessity, planning, implementation, costs and effects). The NSA will once a year report to the European Commission on the monitoring of the progress made under the Performance Plan. This annual monitoring report will be sent to the Commission in May of the following year. b) Monitoring and reporting cycle For the monitoring of the cost efficiency KPI and the additional mandatory national KPIs and PIs on safety, capacity and environment the following applies: LVNL Monitoring and reporting on the performance of the additional mandatory national KPIs and PIs on safety, capacity, environment and cost efficiency will be done on a quarterly basis. Because of its ZBO status, LVNL will also report on specific financial issues as is done in the present circumstances. LVNL will submit a report to the NSA on a quarterly basis. MUAC Monitoring and reporting on the safety, capacity, environment and cost efficiency will be on a quarterly basis as part of the Management Review process applied to MUAC. MUAC will submit a monitoring report to the Maastricht Coordination Group. KNMI Monitoring and reporting on the cost efficiency performance will be on an annual basis. KNMI will submit a monitoring report to the NSA each year in May. 6.2.Appropriate measures Accountable entity In case the performance targets are not met or are likely not to be met, the relevant accountable entity (ies) will be requested to submit a corrective action plan to the NSA within two months containing the following information: An analysis of the causes of the underperformance; A description of possible measure(s) to be taken to resolve the situation, taking due account of other developments planned at national and/or FABEC level to achieve the performance targets; A description of any (negative) effect of the (possible) corrective measures taken on other KPIs and targets; [43], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

44 An indication of the lead time for the corrective measures to have an effect; The costs associated with the measures to be taken; A planning of the development, deployment and implementation of the corrective measures. NSA On the basis of the corrective action plan, the NSA has to decide which measures are to be taken by the relevant accountable entity to rectify the underperformance and what frequency is applied for submitting progress reports to assess progress in the situation. Current consultation procedures will remain unchanged. 6.3 Adaptation of the Performance Plan In case it is decided to adapt the Performance plan, (e.g. in case the alert thresholds have been met), a new Performance plan will be drafted. [44], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

45 APPENDICES A Reporting tables B Overview of investments C Extracts from the State Safety Plan D Stakeholder consultation documents [45], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

46 Appendix A : Reporting Tables En route Table 1 - Total Costs Charging zone name Consolidation - all entities Netherlands Period of reference : Forecast Costs* Determined Costs Actual costs Cost details 2010F* 2011F* Detail by nature (in nominal terms) 1.1 Staff 108,8 105,4 106,4 109,6 113,5 106,1 1.2 Other operating costs 48,0 43,9 46,3 45,8 46,6 41,3 1.3 Depreciation 10,6 11,2 10,2 10,7 11,2 11,1 1.4 Cost of capital 3,5 3,2 2,9 2,3 2,3 3,2 1.5 Exceptional items -7,0-1,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 22,0 1.6 Total costs 164,0 161,8 165,8 168,4 173,6 183,7 Total % n/n-1-1,4% 2,5% 1,6% 3,1% Staff % n/n-1-3,2% 1,0% 3,0% 3,6% Other op. % n/n-1-8,4% 5,4% -1,2% 1,8% 2. Detail by service (in nominal terms) 2.1 Air Traffic Management 126,4 124,5 128,7 131,2 135,7 147,0 2.2 Communication 3,9 4,6 4,8 4,8 4,9 4,7 2.3 Navigation 3,9 4,0 3,4 3,5 3,6 3,4 2.4 Surveillance 2,6 3,0 2,1 2,1 2,2 2,1 2.5 Search and rescue 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2.6 Aeronautical Information 2,1 1,8 1,6 1,6 1,7 1,5 2.7 Meteorological services 8,0 7,9 7,7 7,5 7,5 8,2 2.8 Supervision costs 1,0 1,4 1,8 1,8 1,8 0,9 2.9 Other State costs 16,1 14,6 15,7 15,8 16,2 15, Total costs 164,0 161,8 165,8 168,4 173,6 183,7 Total % n/n-1-1,4% 2,5% 1,6% 3,1% ATM % n/n-1-1,6% 3,4% 2,0% 3,5% CNS % n/n-1 12,8% -11,9% 1,1% 2,8% 3. Complementary information on the cost of capital and on the cost of common projects (in nominal terms) Average asset base 3.1 Net book val. fixed assets 92,4 78,9 86,9 93,8 111,5 92,4 3.2 Adjustments total assets -16,6 8,0 6,8 17,8 25,2-13,5 3.3 Net current assets 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 3.4 Total asset base 75,8 86,9 93,7 111,6 136,6 78,9 Cost of capital % 3.5 Cost of capital pre tax rate 4,6% 3,6% 3,1% 2,1% 1,6% 4,1% 3.6 Return on equity 3.7 Average interest on debts 4,6% 3,6% 3,1% 2,1% 1,6% 4,1% Cost of common projects 3.8 Common Project 1 4. Complementary information on inflation and on total costs in real terms 4.1 Inflation % (1) 0,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 0,9% 4.2 Price index - Base 100 in ,9 102,9 105,0 107,1 109,2 100,9 4.3 Total costs real terms (2) 162,6 157,2 157,9 157,2 159,0 182,0 Total % n/n-1-3,3% 0,4% -0,4% 1,1% 5. Deduction of costs allocated to exempted VFR flights (in nominal terms) 5.1 Total costs 164,0 161,8 165,8 168,4 173,6 183,7 5.2 Costs for exempted VFR fligh 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 5.3 Total costs after deduction ( 163,6 161,4 165,4 167,9 173,2 183,3 Costs and asset base items in ' Euro - Service units in ' (1) Forecast inflation used for establishing the determined costs in nominal terms - actual inflation (2) Determined costs (performance plan) in real terms - actual costs in real terms - base 100 in 2009 (3) Determined costs (after deduction of VFR costs) reported at line Reporting Table 2 (in nominal terms) *Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F) [46], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

47 Table 1 - Total Costs Charging zone name ANSP Name Netherlands LVNL Period of reference : Forecast Costs* Determined Costs Actual costs Cost details 2010F* 2011F* Detail by nature (in nominal terms) 1.1 Staff 79,0 77,2 76,6 78,5 81,1 77,6 1.2 Other operating costs 24,3 21,9 22,2 21,9 22,3 19,1 1.3 Depreciation 7,8 8,5 7,4 7,8 8,3 7,6 1.4 Cost of capital 3,0 2,8 2,5 1,9 1,8 3,0 1.5 Exceptional items -7,0 0,6 22,0 1.6 Total costs 107,0 111,1 108,7 110,1 113,6 129,3 Total % n/n-1 3,8% -2,1% 1,3% 3,2% Staff % n/n-1-2,2% -0,8% 2,5% 3,3% Other op. % n/n-1-9,7% 1,3% -1,4% 2,0% 2. Detail by service (in nominal terms) 2.1 Air Traffic Management 93,6 98,7 98,0 99,2 102,3 117,8 2.2 Communication 3,9 3,5 3,7 3,7 3,9 3,6 2.3 Navigation 3,9 4,0 3,4 3,5 3,6 3,4 2.4 Surveillance 2,6 3,0 2,1 2,1 2,2 2,1 2.5 Search and rescue 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2.6 Aeronautical Information 2,1 1,8 1,5 1,6 1,6 1,5 2.7 Meteorological services 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2.8 Supervision costs 1,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,9 2.9 Other State costs 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0, Total costs 107,0 111,1 108,7 110,1 113,6 129,3 Total % n/n-1 3,8% -2,1% 1,3% 3,2% ATM % n/n-1 5,5% -0,8% 1,3% 3,2% CNS % n/n-1 1,6% -12,6% 1,2% 3,2% 3. Complementary information on the cost of capital and on the cost of common projects (in nominal terms) Average asset base 3.1 Net book val. fixed assets 78,9 62,3 68,2 73,5 89,2 78,9 3.2 Adjustments total assets -16,6 5,9 5,3 15,7 25,2-16,6 3.3 Net current assets 3.4 Total asset base 62,3 68,2 73,5 89,2 114,4 62,3 Cost of capital % 3.5 Cost of capital pre tax rate 4,8% 4,2% 3,4% 2,1% 1,6% 4,8% 3.6 Return on equity 3.7 Average interest on debts 4,8% 4,2% 3,4% 2,1% 1,6% 4,8% Cost of common projects 3.8 Common Project 1 4. Complementary information on inflation and on total costs in real terms 4.1 Inflation % (1) 0,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 0,9% 4.2 Price index - Base 100 in ,9 102,9 105,0 107,1 109,2 100,9 4.3 Total costs real terms (2) 106,1 107,9 103,6 102,8 104,0 128,1 Total % n/n-1 1,7% -4,0% -0,7% 1,2% 5. Deduction of costs allocated to exempted VFR flights (in nominal terms) 5.1 Total costs 107,0 111,1 108,7 110,1 113,6 129,3 5.2 Costs for exempted VFR fligh 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 5.3 Total costs after deduction ( 106,6 110,6 108,3 109,6 113,1 128,9 Costs and asset base items in ' Euro - Service units in ' (1) Forecast inflation used for establishing the determined costs in nominal terms - actual inflation (2) Determined costs (performance plan) in real terms - actual costs in real terms - base 100 in 2009 (3) Determined costs (after deduction of VFR costs) reported at line Reporting Table 2 (in nominal terms) *Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F) [47], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

48 Table 1 - Total Costs Charging zone name MET Service provider name Netherlands KNMI Period of reference : Forecast Costs* Determined Costs Actual costs Cost details 2010F* 2011F* Detail by nature (in nominal terms) 1.1 Staff 3,9 3,9 3,8 3,7 3,7 4,3 1.2 Other operating costs 4,0 3,9 3,8 3,7 3,7 3,8 1.3 Depreciation 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 1.4 Cost of capital 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1.5 Exceptional items 1.6 Total costs 8,0 7,9 7,7 7,5 7,5 8,2 Total % n/n-1-2,0% -2,1% -2,3% 0,2% Staff % n/n-1-1,1% -2,1% -2,2% 0,0% Other op. % n/n-1-3,0% -2,1% -2,5% 0,4% 2. Detail by service (in nominal terms) 2.1 Air Traffic Management 2.2 Communication 2.3 Navigation 2.4 Surveillance 2.5 Search and rescue 2.6 Aeronautical Information 2.7 Meteorological services 8,0 7,9 7,7 7,5 7,5 8,2 2.8 Supervision costs 2.9 Other State costs 2.10 Total costs 8,0 7,9 7,7 7,5 7,5 8,2 Total % n/n-1-2,0% -2,1% -2,1% 0,0% ATM % n/n-1 CNS % n/n-1 3. Complementary information on the cost of capital and on the cost of common projects (in nominal terms) Average asset base 3.1 Net book val. fixed assets 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 3.2 Adjustments total assets 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 3.3 Net current assets 3.4 Total asset base 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 Cost of capital % 2,9% 4,3% 4,1% 3,9% 3,9% 3,4% 3.5 Cost of capital pre tax rate 3.6 Return on equity 3.7 Average interest on debts Cost of common projects 3.8 Common Project 1 4. Complementary information on inflation and on total costs in real terms 4.1 Inflation % (1) 0,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 0,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 4.2 Price index - Base 100 in ,9 102,9 105,0 107,1 109,2 100,9 4.3 Total costs real terms (2) 8,0 7,6 7,3 7,0 6,9 8,1 Total % n/n-1-3,9% -4,0% -4,0% -2,0% 5. Deduction of costs allocated to exempted VFR flights (in nominal terms) 5.1 Total costs 8,0 7,9 7,7 7,5 7,5 8,2 5.2 Costs for exempted VFR fligh 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 5.3 Total costs after deduction ( 8,0 7,9 7,7 7,5 7,5 8,2 Costs and asset base items in ' Euro - Service units in ' (1) Forecast inflation used for establishing the determined costs in nominal terms - actual inflation (2) Determined costs (performance plan) in real terms - actual costs in real terms - base 100 in 2009 (3) Determined costs (after deduction of VFR costs) reported at line Reporting Table 2 (in nominal terms) *Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F) [48], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

49 Table 1 - Total Costs Charging zone name State - NSA Netherlands Period of reference : Forecast Costs* Determined Costs Actual costs Cost details 2010F* 2011F* Detail by nature (in nominal terms) 1.1 Staff 0,0 0,8 1,0 1,0 1,0 0,0 1.2 Other operating costs 16,1 15,2 16,6 16,7 17,0 15,9 1.3 Depreciation 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1.4 Cost of capital 1.5 Exceptional items 1.6 Total costs 16,1 16,0 17,6 17,7 18,0 15,9 Total % n/n-1 10,1% 0,5% 1,7% Staff % n/n-1 33,3% 0,0% -5,0% Other op. % n/n-1 8,9% 0,6% 2,1% 2. Detail by service (in nominal terms) 2.1 Air Traffic Management 2.2 Communication 2.3 Navigation 2.4 Surveillance 2.5 Search and rescue 2.6 Aeronautical Information 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 2.7 Meteorological services 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2.8 Supervision costs 0,0 1,4 1,8 1,8 1,8 2.9 Other State costs (inc.ectl) 16,1 14,6 15,7 15,8 16,2 15, Total costs 16,1 16,0 17,6 17,7 18,0 15,9 Total % n/n-1-0,7% 9,7% 0,5% 2,0% ATM % n/n-1 CNS % n/n-1 3. Complementary information on the cost of capital and on the cost of common projects (in nominal terms) Average asset base 3.1 Net book val. fixed assets 3.2 Adjustments total assets 3.3 Net current assets 3.4 Total asset base Cost of capital % 3.5 Cost of capital pre tax rate 3.6 Return on equity 3.7 Average interest on debts Cost of common projects 3.8 Common Project 1 4. Complementary information on inflation and on total costs in real terms 4.1 Inflation % (1) 0,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 0,9% 4.2 Price index - Base 100 in ,9 102,9 105,0 107,1 109,2 100,9 4.3 Total costs real terms (2) 16,0 15,6 16,7 16,5 16,5 15,8 Total % n/n-1-2,6% 7,6% -1,4% 0,0% 5. Deduction of costs allocated to exempted VFR flights (in nominal terms) 5.1 Total costs 16,1 16,0 17,6 17,7 18,0 15,9 5.2 Costs for exempted VFR fligh 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 5.3 Total costs after deduction ( 16,1 16,0 17,6 17,7 18,0 15,9 Costs and asset base items in ' Euro - Service units in ' (1) Forecast inflation used for establishing the determined costs in nominal terms - actual inflation (2) Determined costs (performance plan) in real terms - actual costs in real terms - base 100 in 2009 (3) Determined costs (after deduction of VFR costs) reported at line Reporting Table 2 (in nominal terms) *Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F) [49], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

50 Table 1 - Total Costs Charging zone name MUAC Netherlands Period of reference : Forecast Costs* Determined Costs Actual costs Cost details 2010F* 2011F* Detail by nature (in nominal terms) 1.1 Staff 26,0 23,6 25,0 26,4 27,7 24,1 1.2 Other operating costs 3,6 2,9 3,7 3,5 3,5 2,6 1.3 Depreciation 2,8 2,6 2,7 2,8 2,8 3,4 1.4 Cost of capital 0,5 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,2 1.5 Exceptional items 0,0-2,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1.6 Total costs 32,8 26,9 31,8 33,1 34,5 30,3 Total % n/n-1-18,2% 18,5% 3,8% 4,4% Staff % n/n-1-9,2% 6,2% 5,4% 5,2% Other op. % n/n-1-18,7% 27,6% -6,1% 0,7% 2. Detail by service (in nominal terms) 2.1 Air Traffic Management 32,8 25,7 30,7 32,0 33,4 29,2 2.2 Communication 1,2 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 2.3 Navigation 2.4 Surveillance 2.5 Search and rescue 2.6 Aeronautical Information 2.7 Meteorological services 2.8 Supervision costs 2.9 Other State costs (inc.ectl) 2.10 Total costs 32,8 26,9 31,8 33,1 34,5 30,3 Total % n/n-1-18,2% 18,3% 4,1% 4,2% ATM % n/n-1 CNS % n/n-1 3. Complementary information on the cost of capital and on the cost of common projects (in nominal terms) Average asset base 3.1 Net book val. fixed assets 13,1 16,2 18,3 19,8 21,9 13,1 3.2 Adjustments total assets 0,0 2,1 1,5 2,1 0,0 3,1 3.3 Net current assets 3.4 Total asset base 13,1 18,3 19,8 21,9 21,9 16,2 Cost of capital % 3.5 Cost of capital pre tax rate 3,9% 1,6% 1,8% 1,7% 1,9% 1,4% 3.6 Return on equity 3.7 Average interest on debts Cost of common projects 3.8 Common Project 1 4. Complementary information on inflation and on total costs in real terms 4.1 Inflation % (1) 0,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 0,9% 4.2 Price index - Base 100 in ,9 102,9 105,0 107,1 109,2 100,9 4.3 Total costs real terms (2) 32,5 26,1 30,3 30,9 31,6 30,0 Total % n/n-1-19,8% 16,0% 2,1% 2,2% 5. Deduction of costs allocated to exempted VFR flights (in nominal terms) 5.1 Total costs 32,8 26,9 31,8 33,1 34,5 30,3 5.2 Costs for exempted VFR fligh 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 5.3 Total costs after deduction ( 32,8 26,9 31,8 33,1 34,5 30,3 Costs and asset base items in ' Euro - Service units in ' (1) Forecast inflation used for establishing the determined costs in nominal terms - actual inflation (2) Determined costs (performance plan) in real terms - actual costs in real terms - base 100 in 2009 (3) Determined costs (after deduction of VFR costs) reported at line Reporting Table 2 (in nominal terms) *Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F) [50], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

51 Table 2 - Unit rate calculation Charging zone name : Netherlands Consolidation - all entities Period of reference : Unit rate calculation Determined costs in nominal terms and inflation adjustment 1.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. - Table 1 163,6 161,4 165,4 167,9 173,2 1.2 Actual inflation rate - Table 1 0,9% 1.3 Forecast inflation rate - Table 1 0,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 1.4 Inflation adjustment - Article : year n amount to be carried over 2. Forecast and actual total service units 2.1 Forecast total service units (performance plan) 2,5 2,6 2,7 2,7 2,8 2.2 Actual total service units 2,5 2.3 Actual / forecast total service units (in %) 3. Costs subject to traffic risk sharing (ANSP) 3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1) 106,6 110,6 108,3 109,6 113,1 3.2 Inflation adjustment - Article : amount carried over to year n 3.3 Traffic - Article : amounts carried over to year n 3.4 Traffic risk sharing - Article : add. revenue carried over to year n 3.5 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2: revenues losses carried over to year n 3.6 Uncontrollable costs - Article : amounts carried over to year n 3.7 Bonus or penalty for performance - Article Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 0,8 6,5 11,4 12,3 11,5 3.9 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 107,5 117,1 119,7 121,9 124, Traffic risk sharing - Article : add. rev. year n to be carried-over 3.11 Traffic risk sharing - Article : revenue loss year n to be carried-over Parameters for traffic risk sharing 3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article % 70% 70% 3.13 % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article % 70% 70% 4. Costs not subject to traffic risk sharing - Article 11a (2) 4.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (Table 1) 57,0 50,8 57,1 58,3 60,1 4.2 Inflation adjustment - Article : amount carried over to year n 4.3 Traffic - Article : amounts carried over to year n 4.4 Uncontrollable costs - Article : amounts carried over to year n 4.5 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 0,0 1,0 1,1 1,1 1,1 4.6 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 57,0 51,7 58,1 59,4 61,1 5. Other revenues - applied unit rate (in national currency) 5.1 Revenues from other sources - Article 1.3 1,5 1,1 2,0 2,0 1,5 5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate Year n unit rate (in national currency) 65,67 65,66 65,58 65,63 65, ANSP component of the unit rate 42,69 45,42 44,07 44,07 44, MET component of the unit rate 3,24 3,16 3,09 2,97 2, NSA-State component of the unit rate 6,50 6,27 6,78 6,69 6, MUAC component of the unit rate 13,24 10,81 11,82 12,07 12, Year n unit rate that would have applied without other revenues 66,29 66,09 66,33 66,35 66,48 Costs, revenues and other amounts in ' Euro - Service units in ' (1) O ver/under recoveries incurred up to the year of entry into force of the determined cost method [51], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

52 Table 2 - Unit rate calculation Charging zone name : Netherlands ANSP name : LVNL Period of reference : Unit rate calculation Determined costs in nominal terms and inflation adjustment 1.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. - Table 1 106,6 110,6 108,3 109,6 113,1 1.2 Actual inflation rate - Table 1 0,9% 1.3 Forecast inflation rate - Table 1 0,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 1.4 Inflation adjustment - Article : year n amount to be carried over 2. Forecast and actual total service units 2.1 Forecast total service units (performance plan) 2,5 2,6 2,7 2,7 2,8 2.2 Actual total service units 2,5 2.3 Actual / forecast total service units (in %) 3. Costs subject to traffic risk sharing (ANSP) 3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1) 106,6 110,6 108,3 109,6 113,1 3.2 Inflation adjustment - Article : amount carried over to year n 3.3 Traffic - Article : amounts carried over to year n 3.4 Traffic risk sharing - Article : add. revenue carried over to year n 3.5 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2: revenues losses carried over to year n 3.6 Uncontrollable costs - Article : amounts carried over to year n 3.7 Bonus or penalty for performance - Article Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 0,8 6,5 11,4 12,3 11,5 3.9 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 107,5 117,1 119,7 121,9 124, Traffic risk sharing - Article : add. rev. year n to be carried-over 3.11 Traffic risk sharing - Article : revenue loss year n to be carried-over Parameters for traffic risk sharing 3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article % 70% 70% 3.13 % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article % 70% 70% 4. Costs not subject to traffic risk sharing - Article 11a (2) 4.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (Table 1) 4.2 Inflation adjustment - Article : amount carried over to year n 4.3 Traffic - Article : amounts carried over to year n 4.4 Uncontrollable costs - Article : amounts carried over to year n 4.5 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 4.6 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 5. Other revenues - applied unit rate (in national currency) 5.1 Revenues from other sources - Article 1.3 1,5 1,1 1,5 1,5 1,5 5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate 105,9 116,0 118,2 120,4 123,1 5.3 Year n unit rate (in national currency) 42,69 45,42 44,07 44,07 44, ANSP component of the unit rate 5.5 MET component of the unit rate 5.6 NSA-State component of the unit rate 5.7 Year n unit rate that would have applied without other revenues 43,32 45,85 44,64 44,62 44,61 Costs, revenues and other amounts in ' Euro - Service units in ' (1) O ver/under recoveries incurred up to the year of entry into force of the determined cost method [52], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

53 Table 2 - Unit rate calculation Charging zone name : Netherlands MET Service provider name : KNMI Period of reference : Unit rate calculation Determined costs in nominal terms and inflation adjustment 1.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. - Table 1 8,0 7,9 7,7 7,5 7,5 1.2 Actual inflation rate - Table Forecast inflation rate - Table 1 0,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 1.4 Inflation adjustment - Article : year n amount to be carried over 2. Forecast and actual total service units 2.1 Forecast total service units (performance plan) 2,5 2,6 2,7 2,7 2,8 2.2 Actual total service units 2,5 2.3 Actual / forecast total service units (in %) 3. Costs subject to traffic risk sharing (ANSP) 3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1) 3.2 Inflation adjustment - Article : amount carried over to year n 3.3 Traffic - Article : amounts carried over to year n 3.4 Traffic risk sharing - Article : add. revenue carried over to year n 3.5 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2: revenues losses carried over to year n 3.6 Uncontrollable costs - Article : amounts carried over to year n 3.7 Bonus or penalty for performance - Article Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 3.9 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 3.10 Traffic risk sharing - Article : add. rev. year n to be carried-over 3.11 Traffic risk sharing - Article : revenue loss year n to be carried-over Parameters for traffic risk sharing 3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article Costs not subject to traffic risk sharing - Article 11a (2) 4.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (Table 1) 8,0 7,9 7,7 7,5 7,5 4.2 Inflation adjustment - Article : amount carried over to year n 4.3 Traffic - Article : amounts carried over to year n 4.4 Uncontrollable costs - Article : amounts carried over to year n 4.5 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 0,0 0,2 0,6 0,6 0,6 4.6 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 8,0 8,1 8,3 8,1 8,1 5. Other revenues - applied unit rate (in national currency) 5.1 Revenues from other sources - Article 1.3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate 8,0 8,1 8,3 8,1 8,1 5.3 Year n unit rate (in national currency) 3,24 3,16 3,09 2,97 2, ANSP component of the unit rate 5.5 MET component of the unit rate 5.6 NSA-State component of the unit rate 5.7 Year n unit rate that would have applied without other revenues 3,24 3,16 3,09 2,97 2,90 Costs, revenues and other amounts in ' Euro - Service units in ' (1) O ver/under recoveries incurred up to the year of entry into force of the determined cost method [53], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

54 Table 2 - Unit rate calculation Charging zone name : Netherlands State - NSA Period of reference : Unit rate calculation Determined costs in nominal terms and inflation adjustment 1.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. - Table 1 16,1 16,0 17,6 17,7 18,0 1.2 Actual inflation rate - Table Forecast inflation rate - Table 1 0,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 1.4 Inflation adjustment - Article : year n amount to be carried over 2. Forecast and actual total service units 2.1 Forecast total service units (performance plan) 2,5 2,6 2,7 2,7 2,8 2.2 Actual total service units 2,5 2.3 Actual / forecast total service units (in %) 3. Costs subject to traffic risk sharing (ANSP) 3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1) 3.2 Inflation adjustment - Article : amount carried over to year n 3.3 Traffic - Article : amounts carried over to year n 3.4 Traffic risk sharing - Article : add. revenue carried over to year n 3.5 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2: revenues losses carried over to year n 3.6 Uncontrollable costs - Article : amounts carried over to year n 3.7 Bonus or penalty for performance - Article Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 3.9 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 3.10 Traffic risk sharing - Article : add. rev. year n to be carried-over 3.11 Traffic risk sharing - Article : revenue loss year n to be carried-over Parameters for traffic risk sharing 3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article Costs not subject to traffic risk sharing - Article 11a (2) 4.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (Table 1) 16,1 16,0 17,6 17,7 18,0 4.2 Inflation adjustment - Article : amount carried over to year n 4.3 Traffic - Article : amounts carried over to year n 4.4 Uncontrollable costs - Article : amounts carried over to year n 4.5 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 0,0 0,0 0,6 0,6 0,6 4.6 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 16,1 16,0 18,2 18,3 18,6 5. Other revenues - applied unit rate (in national currency) 5.1 Revenues from other sources - Article 1.3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate 16,1 16,0 18,2 18,3 18,6 5.3 Year n unit rate (in national currency) 6,50 6,27 6,78 6,69 6, ANSP component of the unit rate 5.5 MET component of the unit rate 5.6 NSA-State component of the unit rate 5.7 Year n unit rate that would have applied without other revenues 6,50 6,27 6,78 6,69 6,67 Costs, revenues and other amounts in ' Euro - Service units in ' (1) O ver/under recoveries incurred up to the year of entry into force of the determined cost method [54], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

55 Table 2 - Unit rate calculation Charging zone name : Netherlands MUAC Period of reference : Unit rate calculation Determined costs in nominal terms and inflation adjustment 1.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. - Table 1 32,8 26,9 31,8 33,1 34,5 1.2 Actual inflation rate - Table Forecast inflation rate - Table 1 0,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 1.4 Inflation adjustment - Article : year n amount to be carried over 2. Forecast and actual total service units 2.1 Forecast total service units (performance plan) 2,5 2,6 2,7 2,7 2,8 2.2 Actual total service units 2,5 2.3 Actual / forecast total service units (in %) 3. Costs subject to traffic risk sharing (ANSP) 3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1) 3.2 Inflation adjustment - Article : amount carried over to year n 3.3 Traffic - Article : amounts carried over to year n 3.4 Traffic risk sharing - Article : add. revenue carried over to year n 3.5 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2: revenues losses carried over to year n 3.6 Uncontrollable costs - Article : amounts carried over to year n 3.7 Bonus or penalty for performance - Article Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 3.9 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0, Traffic risk sharing - Article : add. rev. year n to be carried-over 3.11 Traffic risk sharing - Article : revenue loss year n to be carried-over Parameters for traffic risk sharing 3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article Costs not subject to traffic risk sharing - Article 11a (2) 4.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (Table 1) 32,8 26,9 31,8 33,1 34,5 4.2 Inflation adjustment - Article : amount carried over to year n 4.3 Traffic - Article : amounts carried over to year n 4.4 Uncontrollable costs - Article : amounts carried over to year n 4.5 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 0,8-0,1-0,1-0,1 4.6 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 32,8 27,6 31,7 33,0 34,4 5. Other revenues - applied unit rate (in national currency) 5.1 Revenues from other sources - Article 1.3 0,0 0,5 0,5 0,0 5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate 32,8 27,6 31,2 32,5 34,4 5.3 Year n unit rate (in national currency) (MUAC) 13,24 10,81 11,64 11,90 12, ANSP component of the unit rate 5.5 MET component of the unit rate 5.6 NSA-State component of the unit rate 5.7 Year n unit rate that would have applied without other revenues 13,24 10,81 11,82 12,07 12,31 Costs, revenues and other amounts in ' Euro - Service units in ' (1) O ver/under recoveries incurred up to the year of entry into force of the determined cost method [55], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

56 Additional Information on the tables in Annexes II, III and VI of the EU Regulation on the Common Charging Scheme (1794/2006, amended by 1191/2010) State: Netherlands FIR Amsterdam en route Definitive data on targeted unit rate Preliminary data on the chargeable unit rate for the period General information Introduction Under the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services, particularly Chapter II (the cost of Air Navigation Service Provision), every year the reporting tables on cost bases, planned investments and expected traffic as well as the reporting table on charging mechanisms have to be filled in. A description/explanation is given below of the way in which these tables have been filled in. Charging zones This part describes the charging system in the Netherlands. In 2008, two charging zones were established in the Netherlands airspace. An en route charging zone has been introduced, covering the whole of the Flight Information Region (FIR) Amsterdam, which consists of the airspace beyond a radius of 20 km (= 12 nautical miles) around LVNL controlled airports above flight level (FL) 30 (~ 3000 feet). Service units are calculated in line with the annexes to Regulation 1794/2006. A single cost base and a single unit rate are applicable to this charging zone, except for helicopter flights in the North Sea Area Amsterdam. A separate charge is applicable to these flights. Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC) provides en route air navigation services (ANS) from FL 245. LVNL (Air Traffic Control the Netherlands) provides en route ANS in the air space beyond a radius of 20 km (= 12 nautical miles) around the airports above FL 30 up to FL 245. The approach services in this part of the airspace are part of the en route services. On the basis of operational requirements the ANS approach costs are allocated to the en route charging zone. KNMI has been designated as ANS Provider for meteorological services (MET) in the FIR Amsterdam There is no competition in the field of air navigation services in the Netherlands, Article 1.6 of Regulation 1794/2006 is not applicable. Since January 1 st 2008, both the en route service and the terminal service units are calculated in line with Regulation 1794/2006. The unit rates and their underlying national costs (cost bases) are calculated in line with Commission Regulation 1794/2006, while observing the Eurocontrol principles for establishing the cost base for en route facility charges and the calculation of the unit rates as well as the conditions of application of the route charges system and conditions of payment. Both LVNL and KNMI have introduced new cost allocation models as of January 1 st 2009 LVNL also applied this model on its Annual Report These models and the underlying allocation principles are in line with Regulation 1794/2006 and the other Regulations. The LVNL model has been simplified in This change had no effects on the allocation of costs to the various charging zones. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Under article 12 of the Service Provision Regulation (EC no 550/2004) the accounts of ANSPs have to comply with the IFRS to the maximum possible extent. LVNL As of 2008 the LVNL financial statements comply with IFRS with the exception of the provisions related to the early retirement arrangements of the operational LVNL-staff (FLNA; IAS 19 IFRS). The Netherlands has decided to exclude this specific item from the IFRS implementation. As a consequence of this decision neither the FLNA obligations nor a related provision is presented as liabilities in the LVNL balance sheet. As [56], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

57 in the past users will only be charged for the actual FLNA expenses. According to actuarial calculations of December 31 st 2010, the net present value of the defined benefit obligations is about M 250, including the standard tax penalty of 52%). To minimize the lack of transparency on this issue, LVNL presents these obligations as off-balance sheet rights and commitments. KNMI Under Article 12 of the Service Provision Regulation (EC no 550/2004) the accounts of KNMI have to comply with IFRS to the maximum possible extent. From 2011 onwards the financial statements of KNMI have been as much as possible drawn up in accordance to IFRS. A few issues remain which could not be dealt with according to IFRS due to the national legal rules and regulations. These issues are described in the financial statements of KNMI. Since January 2009 the under or over recovery of the charges due to the traffic volume changes and the costs are included in the KNMI balance, instead of the LVNL balance. Since the start of 2011 KNMI receives its part of the Dutch en route charge directly from CRCO. MUAC and Eurocontrol The financial impact of non-recurring effects of the introduction of IFRS in the 2011 cost base of MUAC is estimated at M 2,632 and will be reduced from the cost base. From 2012 onwards, these one-off effects will not influence the cost base any more. The cost base will resume to the previous levels. For the calculation of the 2011 baseline these non-recurring IFRS effects have not been taken into account in the calculation of the targeted determined unit rate. State costs The Eurocontrol, ICAO/SADIS and NSA costs are classified as State costs. All these costs are included in the NSA cost spreadsheet. The non-recurring effects of the introduction of IFRS in the 2011 cost base of Eurocontrol is M These non-recurring effects are allocated to the cost base From 2012 onwards these effects will not affect the cost base anymore. Thus, the cost base will return to the previous levels. In the calculation of the targeted unit rate these non-recurring IFRS effects have not been taken into account. The termination of MUAC/ASRO (Agency Safety Regulatory Oversight) and the transfer of ASRO activities to the Dutch NSA, the development of the EU-wide performance scheme (Performance Implementing Rule), the increase in FABEC-related activities, international NSA cooperation and coordination and NSA ATM EASA activities have led to a considerable increase in the oversight workload and thus to an increase in the oversight costs. Unit rates, costs and cost allocation model Determined costs are defined by the European Commission as the costs which are considered necessary to be made in each of the years of the performance plan reference period to provide the forecasted number of air navigation service units, given the level of the targets for capacity and environment while assuming the safety level will at least remain at the same level. In line with Article 7 of Regulation 1794/2006, the cost of all eligible services, facilities and activities as defined in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been allocated, in a transparent manner, to the charging zones, where they have been actually made. As of 1 st January 2009, both LVNL and KNMI have introduced a new and more sophisticated cost allocation model. The targeted unit rates and their underlying national costs are in line with the Commission Regulation 1794/2006, while observing the Eurocontrol principles for establishing the cost base for en route facility charges and the calculation of the unit rates as well as the conditions of application of the route charges system and conditions of payment. Enforced recovery Enforcement measures to secure payment of the charges by the users will enter into force in Possible enforcements will take place in close cooperation with Eurocontrol (CRCO). Consultation In line with the Commission Regulations 1794/2006 (amended by Regulation 1191/2010) and 691/2010 the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment organises Dutch Stakeholder Consultation Meetings. At this meetings under the chairmanship of the Ministry LVNL, MUAC and KNMI present their plans on the [57], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

58 Performance KPAs, as well as ways to improve their performance and the unit rates to be applied. The Netherlands contributed also to the FABEC consultation meeting on the provisional FABEC Performance Plan, albeit that the cost efficiency performance is dealt with at national level. At FABEC level both the consolidated FABEC performance and the national performance have been presented just for information purposes. Furthermore, the Eurocontrol Enlarged Committee organises Multilateral User Consultation Meetings on the en route charging schemes, while the European Commission organises meetings on the terminal charging schemes (costs, unit rates, etc.). Costs General information This part describes the developments in the costs to be allocated to the en route charging zone. Inflation In 2010 inflation in the Netherlands was 0,9% (Source: Eurostat, Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP). Based on the economic forecasts of both IMF WEO and CPB Economic Policy Analysis the inflation rate is set at an average rate of 2% per year. LVNL LVNL has taken a number of cost containment measures for the period 2010 up to and including Internal cost reduction measures have been taken, such as a cut in staff of 100 fte in 2010 and an additional reduction of 28 fte in the period , a salary freeze in 2010, an anticipation of the R&D activities within the SESAR project and a decrease in general operating costs (about M 10) and in capital costs. Regarding the latter LVNL agreed with the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment on a funding arrangement for the investment plan of the coming years. This funding through the State will reduce the cost of capital. Furthermore, the Dutch government has also taken some measures, inter alia the permission to establish an equalisation provision, government funding of past under recoveries due to the TNC service provision on the regional LVNL controlled airports, access to loan facilities (both operating and investments) and the earmarking of the net available amount of internal tax to the TNC cost base. NSA costs have been redistributed and (from 2011 onwards) included in under Other State costs. With these cost containment measures and the expected recovery of the traffic volume it is possible to decrease the LVNL component of the en route unit rate with 1% for 2012 to 44,07 and to freeze it on this level for the years 2013 and Equity capital LVNL It was decided to apply the volume risk as of the first reference period despite a lack of equity. During the first reference period (RP1) of the performance plan LVNL will build an equity capital to cope with the traffic volume risk. At the end of RP1 there will be an equity capital of at least M 22. Rationale At the moment LVNL is fully debt financed. It has no equity capital to absorb negative operating results. Due to the absence of any equity capital and the negative en route and terminal appropriation funds (together about M 35 at the end of 2010) LVNL is already nearing the limits of a sound financial situation. Continuation of the current situation could lead to possible non compliance with the Common Requirements on financial strength (and could thus possibly jeopardize LVNL s certification), even in a full cost recovery situation. Exposure to the newly introduced traffic volume risk and cost risk will worsen LVNL s financial risk profile. In the EU Regulation 1794/2010, laying down a common charging scheme, amended by EU Regulation 1191/2010, the necessity of equity capital is acknowledged. Article 11a.7 allows ANSPs with an equity capital below 5% of total liabilities to be temporarily exempted from the traffic volume risk. If the traffic risk is exempted the performance plan has to include a description of the measures to achieve a lower proportion of debt financing as well as the duration of these measures. [58], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

59 The Netherlands has opted for an arrangement under which LVNL is given the opportunity to build up equity capital during the first reference period, while at the same time being exposed to the traffic volume risk. The combination of a participation in the traffic volume risk and the establishment of the minimum required equity capital is in any case more advantageous for the users than the building up of an equalization provision without the application of the traffic volume risk, as the traffic volume risk scheme possibly brings them a part of the additional revenues (in case of a traffic volume increase above 2% of the forecast) or they will have to bear only a part of the ANSP s loss in revenues (in case of a traffic downturn greater than minus 2%). Method of building up equity capital During the economic crisis the users called for financial relief and favored a tariff agreement for a 5 year period. In 2009 LVNL and the State have come to an agreement on cost reduction and tariff stabilization. In line with this agreement LVNL has taken a number of measures (a staff cut of 100 fte, a decrease in the other operating expenses in combination with a yearly increase of 2% in the LVNL part of the Dutch en route unit rate and a flat LVNL part of the terminal unit rate). In 2009 LVNL and the State have taken a huge financial risk by stabilizing the unit rates for a period of 5 years ( ). The 2009 agreement was subject of user consultation and concluded for better and for worse, i.e. in case of a further decreasing in the traffic volumes LVNL would bear the brunt of the risk, while in case of an increase in the traffic and further cost reductions LVNL was allowed to keep the additional revenues to build up an equity capital. It was intended at that time (Nov 2009) to offset LVNL losses in 2008 and 2009 (due to the drastic decrease in the traffic) and the forecasted losses in 2010 and 2011 related to the tariff stabilization with the additional revenues resulting from the forecasted increase in traffic volume as from This indeed still stands. The currently forecasted traffic increase enables LVNL also to build up equity capital. Technically, the building up of equity capital is realized by adding an amount of M 22 to the actual costs in 2010 as an exceptional item. A study into the necessary financial coverage of the volume and cost risks at the start of RP2 has been carried out by a consultancy firm. Based upon this study and other considerations, it was concluded that at the end of the first reference period an equity capital of at least M 22 is necessary. Reduction in LVNL unit rate Based upon the positive effects of the LVNL cost reduction measures and taking into account the increasing traffic volumes LVNL and the State have also agreed on a reduction of the LVNL unit rates. As from 2011 to 2014 the en route unit rate will be reduced by 1% (instead of the earlier agreed upon annual increase of 2%), while the LVNL terminal rate will be reduced by 2% (instead of the earlier agreed upon flat rate for the period ). Summary The table below shows the combined effects of: the reduction of LVNL s currently negative appropriation fund the building up of equity capital. Specification of under and over recoveries x Total Total Per entity LVNL LVNL KNMI Eurocontrol Total [59], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

60 LVNL KNMI Eurocontrol MUAC Eurocontrol HQ/NSA Total LVNL KNMI Eurocontrol MUAC Eurocontrol HQ/NSA Total * Equity capital is calculated with the formula: M 42,906 (M 20, result) For the purpose of transparency, this table will be updated and included in the additional information on the en route cost data and unit rates in the coming years. Prerequisites As soon as the appropriation funds are completely phased out and the equity capital will be equal to M 22 the State and LVNL will decide upon the best possible allocation of additional revenues amongst the stakeholders, e.g. a reduction of the chargeable unit rate or an addition to the capital reserves. If the service volume will decrease below 95% of the level as indicated in the base scenario in the STATFOR Medium term forecast of February 2011 LVNL unit rates will be adapted. These two prerequisites will be assessed each year. Calculation of a return on equity will not be included in the cost base and the chargeable unit rate in the first reference period. Return on equity will not be considered as an uncontrollable cost in this period. KNMI KNMI has also introduced cost containment measures (staff cuts and the introduction of AUTO METAR at Groningen Airport Eelde, Maastricht Aachen Airport and Rotterdam The Hague Airport). This will result in cost reductions in the coming years. MUAC MUAC has implemented cost-effectiveness plans in the past and has responded to the economic crisis by reducing ATCO recruitment and support costs. It has also actively explored the option to generate new revenues and succeeded in leasing ATCOs to Austrocontrol over the period which will result in a total revenue to an amount of M 7, to be returned to the users. However, the costs for MUAC in the Amsterdam FIR are affected by the introduction of the agreed cost sharing key mechanism. The cost sharing key for the Netherlands decreased in 2011 and will increase again for the first reference period. The combined effect of lower costs and higher sharing keys will lead to higher costs for MUAC services in the FIR Amsterdam during RP1. Eurocontrol The Eurocontrol costs will be about the same as those for NSA The termination of MUAC/ASRO and the transfer of ASRO activities to the Dutch NSA, the development of the EU wide performance scheme (Performance Implementing Rule), the increase in FABEC related activities, international NSA cooperation and coordination and NSA ATM EASA activities have led to a considerable increase in the oversight workload and thus to an increase in the oversight costs. To limit the increase in NSA costs, it has been decided not to pass on all the NSA costs to the airspace users. From 2012 onwards NSA s chargeable costs are M 1,8. Furthermore, The Netherlands has so far refrained from considering membership contributions to international organisations such as ICAO and ECAC (together about M 1 per year) as other State costs to be added to the ATC cost bases and thus to be recovered from the ATC unit rates. [60], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

61 The 2014 targeted determined unit rate in the FIR Amsterdam will show a decrease of more than 9% compared with This is almost in line with the EU-wide cost efficiency target. The 2012 chargeable en route unit rate in the FIR Amsterdam will show an increase from 65,67 in 2011 to 65,80 in Taking into account the inflation rate in The Netherlands this is an actual decrease of the unit rate. Cost by nature LVNL Staff costs: The change is due to: In the period a reduction in staff with 28 FTE; In the period a salary compensation related to the increase in the cost of living will be between 1-1,5%; Increased pension premiums to bring the pension coverage ratio again at the minimum level; The, as a rule, individually agreed upon annual steps in salary grades (career progression); Intake of candidate controllers due to the current shortage (also in preparation of a future demand increase (prevention of future capacity problems). Other operating costs This cost category shows a slight increase due to an increase in energy and housekeeping costs after a decrease of over 20% in Depreciation costs An increase in the depreciation costs is due to new investments, e.g. Voice Communication System (2014). The investment program was subject to the user and stakeholder consultations in Capital costs The average operating capital is the sum of the average net book value of fixed assets used by the air navigation service provider in operation or under construction (average long term assets (complementary information) and of the average value of the net current assets. In both cases, assets are those required for the provision of en route services; The cost of capital before tax is the weighted average of the interest rate on debts. As LVNL does not have equity capital the cost of capital before tax is the weighted average of the interest rate on debts (in %). Part of the LVNL debt consists of commercial loans, the remaining part consists of government loans. It is LVNL s intent to decrease the portion of the commercial loans and fulfil all future funding needs through the funding arrangements with the State. As LVNL will in the future be exposed to the traffic volume risk and the cost risk, the building up of an equity capital is necessary to absorb fluctuations in its operating results. In the first reference period equity capital will be established to cover for the volume risk. Exceptional items There are no exceptional items Other income stems from the sale of Aeronautical publications, hardware maintenance services for third parties and space rental to third parties. KNMI The interest rate is the same as the one used by LVNL. Due to its status as Government Agency KNMI has only a very small equity capital. MUAC Due to its status as part of an intergovernmental organisation MUAC does not have any equity capital. For the first reference period, MUAC is exempted from traffic volume risk. From the start of the second reference period MUAC will be exposed to the traffic volume risk and the cost risk. Thus, MUAC also has to build up of an equity capital to absorb fluctuations in its operating results. The method of building up this equity capital is still object of study and consultation. [61], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

62 By service The more sophisticated cost allocation model (introduced as of 1 st January 2009) enables both LVNL and KNMI to fill in both reporting tables on costs by nature and on costs by service simultaneously. [62], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

63 Annex II, Transparency of the cost base 1. Description of the methodology used for allocating costs of facilities or services between different air navigation services based on the list of facilities and services listed in the relevant ICAO Regional Air Navigation Plan (Doc 7754) and a description of the methodology used for allocating those costs between different en route charging zones; Conformity of cost allocation model with regulations The cost allocation models used by both LVNL and by KNMI are in line with: The Convention on International Civil Aviation (ICAO-Treaty; Chicago Convention), Article 15 and the ICAO Rules en Standards: ICAO s policies on charges for airports and air navigation services (Doc 9082/7), viz. numbers 36, 38, 40, 41 en 44; ICAO Manual on Air Navigation Services Economics (Doc 9161); Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6 th December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services as amended by Commission regulation (EC) No 1191/2011 of 16 th December 2010; Eurocontrol International Convention relating to Co-operation for the safety of Air Navigation ( Eurocontrol, 1961), as amended by Protocol of 12 th February 1981; Protocol consolidating the Eurocontrol International Convention relating to Cooperation for the safety of Air Navigation, dated 27 th June 1997 (Revised Convention); Multilateral Agreement Relating to Route Charges; to be replaced by Annex IV of the Revised Convention; Agreement relating to the provision and operation of air traffic services and facilities by Eurocontrol at Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (dated 25 th November 1986); Principles for establishing the cost-base for en route charges and the calculation of the unit rates (latest version); Conditions of application of the route charges system and conditions of payment (latest version) The cost allocation model of KNMI is also in line with: Convention of the World Meteorological Organization, adopted by the Washington Conference on 11 th October 1947; Guide 904 of the World Meteorological Organization Guide on Aeronautical Services Cost Recovery Principles and Guidance; Annex 3 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation - Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation; Other relevant ICAO Documents (e.g. Docs 9377, 7604 and 4444); LVNL Article 7 of the amended Commission regulation (EC) 1794/2006 of 6 th December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services specifies that, where costs are incurred across different charging zones, they shall be allocated in a proportional way on the basis of a transparent methodology as required in Article 8 of the Regulation. Before the start of a performance plan reference period the criteria used to allocate costs between terminal and en route services for each airport have to be defined and reported to the Commission. Since January 1 st 2008, LVNL has reallocated the costs for air navigation services. The costs for the traffic services related to the approach phase up to flight level 30 (~ 3000 feet) within 20 kilometres (12 NM) from the LVNL controlled airports are allocated to the terminal charging zone on the basis of the operational requirements. The costs for air traffic services related to the approach phase outside this zone are allocated to the en route charging zone. In line with Article 7 of Regulation 1794/2006, the cost of all eligible services, facilities and activities as defined in Article 5 of said Regulation, have been allocated, in a transparent manner, to the charging zones, where they have actually incurred. Costs of ATCOs are directly [63], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

64 allocated to the relevant charging zones. Depending on the degree of application of the various production factors in a specific charging zone, sharing keys are used to allocate the other costs proportionally to these charging zones. About two thirds of the LVNL costs are related and allocated to the en route charging zone. KNMI The KNMI allocation model is also in line with Regulation 1794/ % of KNMI costs are allocated to the en route charging zone. NSA Since January 1 st 2011 the NSA costs are taken out of the LVNL cost base and transferred to the NSA en route cost spreadsheet. The same goes for the SADIS costs. They are mentioned under the heading Other state costs in the NSA spread sheet. MUAC costs The costs of the MUAC ATC-services allocated to the FIR Amsterdam above FL 245 are incorporated in the separate en route MUAC costs spreadsheet. The allocation of the MUAC costs to the FIR Amsterdam are based on a cost sharing key of 21,7107%. This cost sharing key is fixed during the whole first reference period. MUAC costs are 100% allocated to En-Route. Eurocontrol contribution The Eurocontrol costs, Parts I and IX, allocated to the Netherlands, are included in the consolidated table. 2. Description and explanation of the method adopted for the calculation of depreciation costs: historic costs or current costs. When current cost accounting is adopted, provision of comparable historic cost data; Historic capitalization costs are used for the calculation of the depreciation costs. 3. Justification for the cost of capital, including the components of the asset base, the possible adjustments to total assets and the return on equity; The average operating capital is the sum of the average net book value of fixed assets (on the basis of historic capitalization costs) used by the air navigation service provider in operation or under construction (average long term assets) and of the average value of the net current assets. In both cases, assets are those required for the provision of en route services; As LVNL does not have an equity capital at the start of the first reference period, the cost of capital before tax is the weighted average of the interest rate on debts (in %). Part of the LVNL debt consists of commercial loans, the remaining part consists of government loans. Due to its status as Government Agency KNMI has only a very small equity capital. It is financed by the State. Due to its status as part of an intergovernmental organisation MUAC does not have equity capital. Investment expenditure is financed through bank loans. Capital cost is the average [64], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

65 weighted cost of debt. 4. Description of the total determined costs for each airport submitted to the provision of this Regulation for each terminal charging zone; for airports with less than commercial air transport movements per year being calculated as the average over the previous three years, costs may be presented in an aggregated way; This question is not relevant in the context of additional information on en route costs as it is a terminal cost issue 5. Definition of the criteria used to allocate costs between terminal and en route services for each regulated airport As stated in reply to the first question, since January 1 st 2008, LVNL has reallocated the costs for air navigation services. The costs for the traffic services related to the approach phase up to flight level 30 (~ 3000 feet) within 20 kilometres (12 nm) from the LVNL controlled airports are allocated to the terminal charging zone on the basis of the operational requirements. The costs for air traffic services related to the approach phase beyond this zone are allocated to the en route charging zone. As all LVNL controlled airports are put into a One Group of Airports, the same 12 nm criterion is used for all these airports. 6. Breakdown of the meteorological costs between direct costs and MET core costs defined as the costs of supporting meteorological facilities and services that also serve meteorological requirements in general. These include general analysis and forecasting, weather radar and satellite observations, surface and upper-air observation networks, meteorological communication systems, data-processing centres and supporting core research, training and administration; Aviation Met Costs are based on: Direct costs, e.g. Airport observation network, Dedicated Aviation Met systems, ICAO / WMO(CAeM) contribution Dedicated Aviation Met Staff, Housing and Dedicated Aviation Met costs incurred by KNMI Technical and Research departments; Overhead, AviMet allocation key based on Dedicated AviMet Staff divided by Total Forecast Services Department Staff which is used to allocate costs of Management of KNMI Forecast Services Department, Training, Customer Relations Services and Office management, and; Core costs (fixed price for 5 years, except indexation): Radar-, satellite-, surface (SYNOP)-, lightning observations networks (including maintenance and development), Numerical Weather Prediction System infrastructure (including maintenance and development), KNMI overhead not directly allocated to aviation (staffing costs, several international contributions, administrative systems). 7. Description of the methodology used for allocating total MET costs and MET core costs to civil aviation and between en route charging zones; See also reply to question 1. The KNMI cost allocation model is in line with the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) No. 904 Guide to Aeronautical Meteorological Services Cost Recovery. 82% of KNMI costs [65], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

66 are allocated to the en route charging zone. 8. Description of the reported forecast costs and traffic volume (eighteen months before the start of the reference period) All organisations involved in the air navigation service provision in the FIR Amsterdam have updated their costs data as reported in October 2010 for each of the years of the first reference period. The following assumptions on possible changes of the costs have been made: LVNL MUAC KNMI Eurocontr ol Staff costs : 1-1,5% annually real wage increase due to increased costs of living Salary index: 2.5% nominal or 0.5% real Career progression: 1.1% 2012: zerogrowth of salaries (no compensation) Salary index: 2.5% nominal or 0.5% real Career progression: 1.1% Career progression Other operating expenses Depreciation Interests Exceptional items Annual inflation rate 2% Annual inflation rate 2% Expiration of ATCO lease to Vienna at the end of 2013 Annual inflation rate 2% Annual inflation rate 2% The en route traffic volume forecast for the FIR Amsterdam is the same as the one forecasted by STATFOR in its Medium term forecast, base scenario (February 2011). 9. Description of the reported actual costs and their difference against the determined costs (every year of the reference period) An answer to this question cannot be given because the reference period has not yet started. [66], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

67 Annex III. Additional information to the reporting table in Annex III, specific transparency requirements for the provision of air navigation services at airports falling within Article 1(6) The following reasons exist for not delivering this information: 1. In The Netherlands no airports are falling within Article 1(6). 2. The information is not relevant as in this document the additional information is related to en route cost and unit rate data. [67], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

68 Terminal Organisation: ANSP Year 2012 Charging zone: Netherlands TNC 4 Airports 2005 A 2006 A 2007 A 2008 A 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 P 2013 P 2014 P 2015 P 2016 P 2017 P Detail by nature (in '000 euro) Staff ,6% -15,3% -0,7% -1,0% 2,4% 3,2% 3,4% Other operating costs ,8% -5,9% 14,3% 1,4% -1,4% 2,0% -0,3% Depreciation ,7% -5,9% 15,6% -14,0% 5,2% 6,7% 8,6% Cost of capital ,9% 5,4% -2,3% -13,1% -24,5% -4,4% -20,7% Exceptional items Total costs ,7% -12,3% -3,8% 4,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4% Detail by services (in '000 euro) Air traffic management ,2% -12,8% -4,2% 5,1% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4% Communication ,0% 18,9% -24,1% 32,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4% Navigation ,8% 6,9% -15,6% 19,4% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4% Surveillance ,6% -26,2% 22,2% -17,6% 0,7% 3,0% 2,3% Search and rescue Aeronautical information Meteorological services 0,7% -16,7% 8,3% -7,0% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4% Supervision costs Other State costs Total costs ,7% -12,3% -3,8% 4,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4% Complementary information on inflation and on the cost of capital (in '000 euro) Inflation rate 1,8% 1,5% 2,0% 2,6% 0,8% 1,5% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% Average operating capital ,7% -3,9% 9,5% 7,8% 21,4% 28,2% 18,2% Of w hich, average long term assets ,7% -3,6% 9,2% 7,8% 21,4% 28,2% 18,2% Cost of capital before tax (%) Return on equity (%) Average interest on debts (%) 9,09% 8,34% 9,11% 8,15% 6,57% 4,09% 3,05% 2,05% [68], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

69 Organisation: MET Year 2012 Charging zone: Netherlands TNC 4 Airports 2005 A 2006 A 2007 A 2008 A 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 P 2013 P 2014 P 2015 P 2016 P Detail by nature (in '000 euro) Staff ,7% -6,2% -2,1% -2,1% 0,0% 0,0% Other operating costs ,3% -2,0% -2,1% -2,2% 0,0% 0,0% Depreciation ,0% 4,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% Cost of capital ,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% Exceptional items Total costs ,0% -4,1% -2,1% -2,1% 0,0% 0,0% Detail by services (in '000 euro) Air traffic management Communication Navigation Surveillance Search and rescue Aeronautical information Meteorological services Supervision costs 102,0% -4,1% -2,1% -2,1% 0,0% 0,0% Other State costs Total costs ,0% -4,1% -2,1% -2,1% 0,0% 0,0% Complementary information on inflation and on the cost of capital (in '000 euro) Inflation rate 1,8% 1,5% 2,0% 2,6% 0,8% 1,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% Average operating capital Of w hich, average long term assets Cost of capital before tax (%) Return on equity (%) Average interest on debts (%) 2,98% 2,98% 2,98% 2,98% 2,98% 2,98% [69], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

70 Organisation: NSA Year 2012 Charging zone: Netherlands TNC 4 Airports 2005 A 2006 A 2007 A 2008 A 2009 F 2010 P 2011 P 2012 P 2013 P 2014 P 2015 P 2016 P 2017 P 2018 P 2019 P Detail by nature (in '000 euro) Staff Other operating costs Depreciation Cost of capital Exceptional items Total costs Detail by services (in '000 euro) Air traffic management Communication Navigation Surveillance Search and rescue Aeronautical information Meteorological services Supervision costs Other State costs Total costs Complementary information on inflation and on the cost of capital (in '000 euro) Inflation rate 1,8% 1,5% 2,0% 2,6% 0,8% 1,5% 2,0% 2,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% Average operating capital Of which, average long term assets Cost of capital before tax (%) Return on equity (%) Average interest on debts (%) [70], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

71 Organisation: Consolidated Year 2012 Charging zone: Netherlands TNC 4 Airports 2005 A 2006 A 2007 A 2008 A 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 P 2013 P 2014 P 2015 P 2016 P 2017 P 2018 P 2019 P Detail by nature (in '000 euro) Staff ,7% -14,2% -0,8% -1,0% 2,3% 3,1% 3,4% Other operating costs ,6% -1,6% 12,9% 1,1% -1,5% 1,9% -0,3% Depreciation ,9% -5,6% 15,5% -13,9% 5,2% 6,6% 8,6% Cost of capital ,8% 5,4% -2,3% -13,1% -24,4% -4,4% -20,6% Exceptional items Total costs ,3% -10,7% -3,8% 4,5% 0,6% 2,9% 2,3% Detail by services (in '000 euro) Air traffic management ,2% -12,8% -4,2% 5,1% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4% Communication ,0% 18,9% -24,1% 32,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4% Navigation ,8% 6,9% -15,6% 19,4% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4% Surveillance ,6% -26,2% 22,2% -17,6% 0,7% 3,0% 2,3% Search and rescue Aeronautical information ,7% -16,7% 8,3% -7,0% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4% Meteorological services ,0% -4,1% -2,1% -2,1% 0,0% 0,0% Supervision costs Other State costs Total costs ,3% -10,7% -3,8% 4,5% 0,6% 2,9% 2,3% Complementary information on inflation and on the cost of capital (in '000 euro) Inflation rate 1,8% 1,5% 2,0% 2,6% 0,8% 1,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% Average operating capital ,7% -3,6% 9,5% 7,7% 21,3% 28,1% Of which, average long term assets ,7% -3,3% 9,2% 7,7% 21,3% 28,1% Cost of capital before tax (%) 9,09% 8,34% 9,12% 8,13% 6,56% 4,09% 3,05% Return on equity (%) Average interest on debts (%) 4,20% 4,20% 4,20% 4,20% 4,20% 4,20% 4,20% [71], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

72 Organisation: Consolidated Year 2012 Charging zone: Netherlands TNC 4 Airports 2005 A 2006 A 2007 A 2008 A 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 P 2013 P 2014 P 2015 P 2016 P 2017 P 2018 P 2019 P Unit rate (in '000 euro) and service units ('000) Total costs for the zone( 1 ) ,3% -10,7% -3,8% 4,5% 0,6% 2,9% 2,3% Cost of exempted VFR flights Costs of exempted IFR flights Costs of exempted flights Amounts carried over to year (i) Income from other sources ,0% 35,9% -54,1% 4,2% -7,0% 25,3% -66,1% Chargeable costs ,4% -31,1% 12,2% 3,8% 0,9% 1,3% 1,3% Total service units ,1% 1,3% 5,4% 3,3% 1,2% 1,4% 1,4% Chargeable service units ,1% 1,3% 5,4% 3,3% 1,2% 1,4% 1,4% Unit rate ( 2 ) 141,31 224,44 152,66 162,47 163,25 162,81 162,64 162,52 58,8% -32,0% 6,4% 0,5% -0,3% -0,1% -0,1% ( 1 ) As the sum of all total costs presented in Reporting Table 1 w hich are allocated to this charging zone (when certain air navigation services are outsourced, the cost to be taken into account shall be the cost of the annual expenditure). ( 2 ) Unit rate (in euro) = Chargeable costs/chargeable service units A 2006 A 2007 A 2008 F 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 P 2013 P 2014 P 2015 P 2016 P 2017 P 2018 P 2019 P Unit rate (in euro) Exchange rate (1 EUR =) 1, , , , , , , , , , , ,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% Unit rate 141,3 224,4 152,66 162,47 163,25 162,81 162,64 162,52 58,8% -32,0% 6,4% 0,5% -0,3% -0,1% -0,1% Organisation: Consolidated Year 2012 Charging zone: Netherlands TNC 4 Airports 2005 A 2006 A 2007 A 2008 A 2009 A 2010 A 2011 P 2012 P 2013 P 2014 P 2015 P 2016 P 2017 P 2018 P 2019 P Balance to be carried over (in '000 euro) Charges billed to users ,2% 3,1% 2,4% 3,8% 0,9% 1,3% 1,3% Total costs for the zone( 1 ) ,3% -10,7% -3,8% 4,5% 0,6% 2,9% 2,3% Income from other sources ,0% 35,9% -54,1% 4,2% -7,0% 25,3% -66,1% Cost of exempted VFR flights Cost of exempted IFR flights Costs of exempted flights Amounts carried over to year (i) Balance of year (i) [72], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

73 Organisation: Consolidated Year 2012 Charging zone: Netherlands - TNC / Schipol 2005 A 2006 A 2007 A 2008 A 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 P 2013 P 2014 P 2015 P 2016 P 2017 P 2018 P 2019 P Detail by nature (in '000 euro) Staff %i/i-1 19,0% -13,9% -0,9% -1,0% 2,3% 3,1% 3,3% Other operating costs %i/i-1-1,3% -0,5% 12,6% 1,1% -1,5% 1,9% -0,3% Depreciation %i/i-1 5,7% -5,5% 15,5% -13,9% 5,2% 6,6% 8,6% Cost of capital %i/i-1 54,4% 5,4% -2,3% -13,1% -24,4% -4,4% -20,6% Exceptional items %i/i-1 Total costs %i/i-1 15,2% -10,3% -3,8% 4,4% 0,6% 2,9% 2,3% Detail by services (in '000 euro) Air traffic management %i/i-1 14,3% -12,8% -4,2% 5,1% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4% Communication %i/i-1-15,9% 18,9% -24,1% 32,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4% Navigation %i/i-1-52,8% 6,9% -15,6% 19,4% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4% Surveillance %i/i-1 84,9% -26,2% 22,2% -17,6% 0,7% 3,0% 2,3% Search and rescue %i/i-1 Aeronautical information %i/i-1 0,5% -16,7% 8,3% -7,0% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4% Meteorological services %i/i-1 Supervision costs %i/i-1 Other State costs %i/i-1 Total costs %i/i-1 15,2% -10,3% -3,8% 4,4% 0,6% 2,9% 2,3% [73], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

74 Organisation: Consolidated Year 2012 Charging zone: Netherlands - TNC / Rotterdam 2005 A 2006 A 2007 A 2008 A 2009 P 2010 A 2011 F 2012 P 2013 P 2014 P 2015 P 2016 P 2017 P 2018 P 2019 P Detail by nature (in '000 euro) Staff %i/i-1 13,9% -15,3% -0,7% -1,0% 2,4% 3,2% 3,4% Other operating costs %i/i-1 8,6% -5,9% 14,3% 1,4% -1,4% 2,0% -0,3% Depreciation %i/i-1 45,8% -5,9% 15,6% -14,0% 5,2% 6,7% 8,6% Cost of capital %i/i-1 86,1% 5,4% -2,3% -13,1% -24,5% -4,4% -20,7% Exceptional items %i/i-1 Total costs %i/i-1 16,6% -12,3% -3,8% 4,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4% Detail by services (in '000 euro) Air traffic management %i/i-1 13,4% -12,8% -4,2% 5,1% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4% Communication %i/i-1 39,5% 18,9% -24,1% 32,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4% Navigation %i/i-1-21,4% 6,9% -15,6% 19,4% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4% Surveillance %i/i-1 207,0% -26,2% 22,2% -17,6% 0,7% 3,0% 2,3% Search and rescue %i/i-1 Aeronautical information %i/i-1-36,5% -16,7% 8,3% -7,0% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4% Meteorological services %i/i-1 Supervision costs %i/i-1 Other State costs %i/i-1 Total costs %i/i-1 16,6% -12,3% -3,8% 4,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4% [74], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

75 Organisation: Consolidated Year 2012 Charging zone: Netherlands - TNC / Eelde 2005 A 2006 A 2007 A 2008 A 2009 P 2010 A 2011 F 2012 P 2013 P 2014 P 2015 P 2016 P 2017 P 2018 P 2019 P Detail by nature (in '000 euro) Staff %i/i-1-10,8% -15,3% -0,7% -1,0% 2,4% 3,2% 3,4% Other operating costs %i/i-1 7,9% -5,9% 14,3% 1,4% -1,4% 2,0% -0,3% Depreciation %i/i-1 45,5% -5,9% 15,6% -14,0% 5,2% 6,7% 8,6% Cost of capital %i/i-1 70,0% 5,4% -2,3% -13,1% -24,5% -4,4% -20,7% Exceptional items %i/i-1 Total costs %i/i-1-3,7% -12,3% -3,8% 4,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4% Detail by services (in '000 euro) Air traffic management %i/i-1-9,2% -12,8% -4,1% 5,0% 0,7% 2,9% 2,3% Communication %i/i-1 55,7% 18,9% -24,1% 32,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4% Navigation %i/i-1-15,6% 6,9% -15,6% 19,4% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4% Surveillance %i/i-1 245,5% -26,2% 22,2% -17,6% 0,7% 3,0% 2,3% Search and rescue %i/i-1 Aeronautical information %i/i-1 Meteorological services %i/i-1 Supervision costs %i/i-1 Other State costs %i/i-1 Total costs %i/i-1-3,7% -12,2% -3,9% 4,8% 0,7% 2,9% 2,3% [75], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

76 Organisation: Consolidated Year 2012 Charging zone: Netherlands - TNC / Beek 2005 A 2006 A 2007 A 2008 A 2009 P 2010 A 2011 F 2012 P 2013 P 2014 P 2015 P 2016 P 2017 P 2018 P 2019 P Detail by nature (in '000 euro) Staff %i/i-1-20,3% -15,3% -0,7% -1,0% 2,4% 3,2% 3,4% Other operating costs %i/i-1 17,7% -5,9% 14,3% 1,4% -1,4% 2,0% -0,3% Depreciation %i/i-1 46,7% -5,9% 15,6% -14,0% 5,2% 6,7% 8,6% Cost of capital %i/i-1 64,7% 5,4% -2,3% -13,1% -24,5% -4,4% -20,7% Exceptional items %i/i-1 Total costs %i/i-1-11,1% -12,3% -3,8% 4,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4% Detail by services (in '000 euro) Air traffic management %i/i-1-16,8% -12,7% -4,1% 5,0% 0,7% 3,0% 2,3% Communication %i/i-1 68,3% 18,9% -24,1% 32,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4% Navigation %i/i-1-11,5% 6,9% -15,6% 19,4% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4% Surveillance %i/i-1 270,5% -26,2% 22,2% -17,6% 0,7% 3,0% 2,3% Search and rescue %i/i-1 Aeronautical information %i/i-1 Meteorological services %i/i-1 Supervision costs %i/i-1 Other State costs %i/i-1 Total costs %i/i-1-11,1% -12,2% -3,9% 4,8% 0,7% 3,0% 2,3% [76], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

77 Table 1 Total costs - Aerodromes Organisation: Consolidated Year 2012 Charging zone: Netherlands - Terminal / List 2005 A 2006 A 2007 A 2008 A 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 P 2013 P 2014 P 2015 P 2016 P 2017 P 2018 P 2019 P Total costs Aerodrome Schiphol Aerodrome Rotterdam Aerodrome Eelde Aerodrome Beek Total %i/i-1 [77], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

78 Additional Information on the tables in Annexes II, III and VI of the EU Regulation on the Common Charging Scheme (1794/2006, amended by 1191/2010) State: Netherlands FIR Amsterdam Terminal Preliminary data on the chargeable unit rate in the period General information Introduction Under the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services, particularly Chapter II (the cost of Air Navigation Service Provision), every year the reporting tables on cost bases, planned investments and expected traffic as well as the reporting table on charging mechanisms have to be filled in. A description/explanation is given below of the way in which these tables have been filled in. 1. Charging zones This part describes the charging system in the Netherlands. In 2008, two charging zones were established in the Netherlands airspace. An en route charging zone has been introduced, covering the whole of the Flight Information Region (FIR) Amsterdam, which consists of the airspace beyond a radius of 20 km (= 12 nautical miles) around LVNL controlled airports above flight level (FL) 30 (~ 3000 feet). Service units are calculated in line with the annexes to Regulation 1794/2006. A single cost base and a single unit rate are applicable to this charging zone, except for helicopter flights in the North Sea Area Amsterdam. A separate charge is applicable to these flights. Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC) provides en route air navigation services (ANS) from FL 245. LVNL (Air Traffic Control the Netherlands) provides en route ANS in the air space beyond a radius of 20 km (= 12 nautical miles) around the airports above FL 30 up to FL 245. The approach services in this part of the airspace are part of the en route services. On the basis of operational requirements the ANS approach costs are allocated to the en route charging zone. KNMI has been designated as ANS Provider for meteorological services (MET) in the FIR Amsterdam As of January 1 st 2008, the terminal charging zone is defined as the volume of airspace under FL 30 (~ 3000 feet) within a radius of 20 km (= 12 nautical miles) around each of the airports of landing and take-off. All airports controlled by LVNL (Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, Rotterdam the Hague Airport, Groningen Airport Eelde, Maastricht Aachen Airport) have been placed together into one single group of airports. A single cost base and a single unit rate are applicable to this terminal-charging zone. All airports belonging to this group have more than commercial air transport movements per year. Of the four airports belonging to this group Groningen Airport Eelde has less than commercial air transport movements per year. Twenthe Airport (formerly a military air base), Eindhoven Airport (military air base) and Lelystad Airport (not controlled) do not belong to the aforementioned One Group of Airports for the reasons stated. There is no competition in the field of air navigation services in the Netherlands, Article 1.6 of Regulation 1794/2006 is not applicable. Since January 1 st 2008, both the en route service and the terminal service units are calculated in line with Regulation 1794/2006. The unit rates and their underlying national costs (cost bases) are calculated in line with Commission Regulation 1794/2006. Both LVNL and KNMI have introduced new cost allocation models as of January 1 st 2009 LVNL also applied this model on its Annual Report These models and the underlying allocation principles are in line with Regulation 1794/2006 and the other Regulations. The LVNL model has been simplified in This change had no effects on the allocation of [78], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

79 costs to the various charging zones. As of 1 st January 2008, both the en route service and the terminal service units are calculated in line with Regulation 1794/2006. The weight factor in the calculation of the terminal service unit is fixed at 0,7. 2. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Under article 12 of the Service Provision Regulation (EC no 550/2004) the accounts of ANSPs have to comply with the IFRS to the maximum possible extent. LVNL As of 2008 the LVNL financial statements comply with IFRS with the exception of the provisions related to the early retirement arrangements of the operational LVNL-staff (FLNA; IAS 19 IFRS). The Netherlands has decided to exclude this specific item from the IFRS implementation. As a consequence of this decision neither the FLNA obligations nor a related provision is presented as liabilities in the LVNL balance sheet. As in the past users will only be charged for the actual FLNA expenses. According to actuarial calculations of December 31 st 2010, the net present value of the defined benefit obligations is about M 250, including the standard tax penalty of 52%). To minimize the lack of transparency on this issue, LVNL presents these obligations as off-balance sheet rights and commitments. KNMI Under Article 12 of the Service Provision Regulation (EC no 550/2004) the accounts of KNMI have to comply with IFRS to the maximum possible extent. From 2011 onwards the financial statements of KNMI have been as much as possible drawn up in accordance to IFRS. A few issues remain which could not be dealt with according to IFRS due to the national legal rules and regulations. These issues are described in the financial statements of KNMI. Since January 2009 the under or over recovery of the charges due to the traffic volume changes costs are included in the KNMI balance, instead of the LVNL balance. Since the start of 2011 KNMI receives its part of the Dutch en route charge directly from CRCO. 3. Unit rates, costs and cost allocation model In line with Article 2 of Regulation 1191/2010, amending Regulation 1794/2006, the concept of the determined costs, targeted unit rates and the traffic volume and cost risk will not be applied on the terminal ANS provision. The entry into force of the amendments of the Charging Implementing Rule will be deferred to January 1 st In line with Article 7 of Regulation 1794/2006, the cost of all eligible services, facilities and activities as defined in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been allocated, in a transparent manner, to the charging zones, where they are actually incurred. As of January 1 st 2009, both LVNL and KNMI have introduced a new and more sophisticated cost allocation model. The terminal unit rates and their underlying costs are in line with the Commission Regulation 1794/ Enforced recovery Enforcement measures to secure payment of the charges by the users will enter into force in Possible enforcements will take place in close cooperation with Eurocontrol (CRCO). 5. Consultation In line with the Commission Regulations 1794/2006 (amended by Regulation 1191/2010) and 691/2010 the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment organises Dutch Stakeholder Consultation Meetings. At these meetings under the chairmanship of the Ministry LVNL, MUAC and KNMI present their plans on the Performance KPAs, as well as ways to improve their performance and the unit rates to be applied. [79], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

80 Furthermore, the Eurocontrol Enlarged Committee organises Multilateral User Consultation Meetings on the en route charging schemes, while the European Commission organises meetings on the terminal charging schemes (costs, unit rates, etc.). 6. Costs 6.1. General information This part describes the developments in the costs to be allocated to the terminal charging zone. Inflation In 2010 inflation in the Netherlands was 0,9% (Source: Eurostat, Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP). Based on the economic forecasts of both IMF WEO and CPB Economic Policy Analysis the inflation rate is set at an average rate of 2% per year. LVNL LVNL has taken a number of cost containment measures for the period 2010 up to and including Internal cost reduction measures have been taken, such as a cut in staff of 100 fte in 2010 and an additional reduction of 28 fte in the period , a salary freeze in 2010, an anticipation of the R&D activities within the SESAR project and a decrease in general operating costs (about M 10) and in capital costs. Furthermore, the Dutch government has also taken some measures, inter alia the permission to establish an equalisation provision, government funding of past under recoveries due to the TNC service provision on the regional LVNL controlled airports, access to loan facilities (both operating and investments) and the earmarking of the net available amount of internal tax to the TNC cost base. With these cost containment measures and the expected recovery of the traffic volume it is possible to decrease the LVNL component of the terminal unit rate with 2% for 2012 from 161,15 to 157,93 and to freeze it on this level for the years 2013 and KNMI KNMI has also introduced cost containment measures (staff cuts and the introduction of AUTO METAR at Groningen Airport Eelde, Maastricht Aachen Airport and Rotterdam The Hague Airport). This will result in cost reductions in the coming years. Terminal unit rate Unit rate in LVNL 161,15 157,93 157,93 157,93 KNMI 5,33 5,32 4,88 4,71 Terminal unit rate 166,48 163,25 162,81 162, Cost by nature LVNL Staff costs: The change is due to: In the period a reduction in staff with 28 FTE; In the period a salary compensation related to the increase in the cost of living will be between 1-1,5%; Increased pension premiums to bring the pension coverage ratio again at the minimum level; The, as a rule, individually agreed upon annual steps in salary grades (career [80], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

81 progression); Intake of candidate controllers due to the current shortage (also in preparation of a future demand increase (prevention of future capacity problems). Other operating costs This cost category shows a slight increase due to an increase in energy and housekeeping costs after a decrease of over 20% in Depreciation costs An increase in the depreciation costs is due to new investments, e.g. Voice Communication System (2014). Capital costs The average operating capital is the sum of the average net book value of fixed assets used by the air navigation service provider in operation or under construction (average long term assets (complementary information) and of the average value of the net current assets. In both cases, assets are those required for the provision of en route services; The cost of capital before tax is the weighted average of the interest rate on debts. As LVNL does not have equity capital the cost of capital before tax is the weighted average of the interest rate on debts (in %). Part of the LVNL debt consists of commercial loans, the remaining part consists of government loans. It is LVNL s intent to decrease the portion of the commercial loans. As LVNL will in the future be exposed to the traffic volume risk and the cost risk, the building up of an equity capital is necessary to absorb fluctuations in its operating results. Exceptional items There are no exceptional items. Other income Other income stems from the sale of Aeronautical publications, hardware maintenance services for third parties and space rental to third parties. KNMI The interest rate is the same as the one used by LVNL. Due to its status as Government Agency KNMI has only a very small equity capital By service The more sophisticated cost allocation model (introduced as of 1 st January 2009) enables both LVNL and KNMI to fill in both reporting tables on costs by nature and on costs by service simultaneously. [81], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

82 Annex II, Transparency of the cost base 1. Description of the methodology used for allocating costs of facilities or services between different air navigation services based on the list of facilities and services listed in the relevant ICAO Regional Air Navigation Plan (Doc 7754) and a description of the methodology used for allocating those costs between the different charging zones; Conformity of cost allocation model with regulations The cost allocation models used by both LVNL and KNMI are in line with: The Convention on International Civil Aviation (ICAO-Treaty; Chicago Convention), Article 15 and the ICAO Rules en Standards: ICAO s policies on charges for airports and air navigation services (Doc 9082/7), viz. numbers 36, 38, 40, 41 en 44; ICAO Manual on Air Navigation Services Economics (Doc 9161); Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6 th December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services. As stated before the concept of the determined costs, targeted unit rates and the traffic volume and cost risk will not be applied on the terminal ANS provision. This is in line with Article 2 of Regulation 1191/2010, amending Regulation 1794/2006. The entry into force of the amendments of the Charging Implementing Rule will be deferred to January 1 st The cost allocation model of KNMI is also in line with: Convention of the World Meteorological Organization, adopted by the Washington Conference on 11th October 1947; Guide 904 of the World Meteorological Organization Guide on Aeronautical Services Cost Recovery Principles and Guidance; Annex 3 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation - Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation; Other relevant ICAO Documents (e.g. Docs 9377, 7604 and 4444). LVNL Article 7 of the amended Commission regulation (EC) 1794/2006 of December 6 th 2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services specifies that, where costs are incurred across different charging zones, they shall be allocated in a proportional way on the basis of a transparent methodology as required in Article 8 of the Regulation. Before the start of a performance plan reference period the criteria used to allocate costs between terminal and en route services for each airport have to be defined and reported to the Commission. Since January 1 st 2008, LVNL has reallocated the costs for air navigation services. The costs for the traffic services related to the approach phase up to flight level 30 (~ 3000 feet) within 20 kilometres (12 nm) from the LVNL controlled airports are allocated to the terminal charging zone on the basis of the operational requirements. The costs for air traffic services related to the approach phase outside this zone are allocated to the en route charging zone. In line with Article 7 of Regulation 1794/2006, the cost of all eligible services, facilities and activities as defined in Article 5 of said Regulation, have been allocated in a transparent manner, to the relevant charging zone, where they have actually incurred. Costs of ATCOs are directly allocated to the relevant charging zone. Depending on the degree of application of the various systems in a specific charging zone, sharing keys are used to allocate the other costs proportionally to these charging zones. About two-thirds of the LVNL-costs are related and allocated to the en route charging zone. KNMI The KNMI allocation model is also in line with Regulation 1794/ % of KNMI costs are allocated to the terminal charging zone. [82], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

83 MUAC, Eurocontrol and NSA costs The MUAC, Eurocontrol Parts I and IX and NSA/Other State costs are exclusively allocated to the en route charging zone. 2. Description and explanation of the method adopted for the calculation of depreciation costs: historic costs or current costs. When current cost accounting is adopted, provision of comparable historic cost data; Historic capitalization costs are used for the calculation of the depreciation costs. 3. Justification for the cost of capital, including the components of the asset base, the possible adjustments to total assets and the return on equity; The average operating capital is the sum of the average net book value of fixed assets (on the basis of historic capitalization costs) used by the air navigation service provider in operation or under construction (average long term assets) and of the average value of the net current assets. In both cases, assets are those required for the provision of en route services; As LVNL does not have an equity capital at the start of the first reference period, the cost of capital before tax is the weighted average of the interest rate on debts (in %). Part of the LVNL debt consists of commercial loans, the remaining part consists of government loans. Due to its status as Government Agency KNMI has only a very small equity capital. It is financed by the State. 4. Description of the total determined cost for each airport for each terminal charging zone: for aerodromes with less than commercial air transport movements per year being calculated as the average over the previous three years, costs may be presented in an aggregated way per aerodrome; As stated before the concept of the determined costs, targeted unit rates and the traffic volume and cost risk will not be applied on the terminal ANS provision in the period This is in line with Article 2 of Regulation 1191/2010, amending Regulation 1794/2006. The entry into force of the amendments of the Charging Implementing Rule will be deferred to January 1 st The costs of the terminal services in the One Group of Airports are pooled and financed by means of the terminal charges imposed on the users of air navigation services. In accordance with Community law other sources of cost recovery (e.g. cross subsidies between en route en terminal charging zone) are not available. The cost data for each one of the LVNL controlled airports are included in the reporting tables. 5. Definition of the criteria used to allocate costs between terminal and en route services for each regulated airport As stated in reply to the first question, since January 1 st 2008, LVNL has reallocated the costs for air navigation services. The costs for the traffic services related to the approach phase up to flight level 30 (~ 3000 feet) within 20 kilometres (12 nm) from the LVNL controlled airports are allocated to the terminal-charging zone on the basis of the operational requirements. The costs for air traffic services related to the approach phase beyond this zone are allocated to the en route charging zone. As all LVNL controlled airports are put into a One Group of Airports, the same 12 nm criterion is used for all these airports. [83], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

84 6. Breakdown of the meteorological costs between direct costs and MET core costs defined as the costs of supporting meteorological facilities and services that also serve meteorological requirements in general. These include general analysis and forecasting, weather radar and satellite observations, surface and upper-air observation networks, meteorological communication systems, data-processing centres and supporting core research, training and administration; Aviation Met Costs are based on: Direct costs, e.g. Airport observation network, Dedicated Aviation Met systems, ICAO / WMO(CAeM) contribution Dedicated Aviation Met Staff, Housing and Dedicated Aviation Met costs incurred by KNMI Technical and Research departments; Overhead, AviMet allocation key based on Dedicated AviMet Staff divided by Total Forecast Services Department Staff which is used to allocate costs of Management of KNMI Forecast Services Department, Training, Customer Relations Services and Office management and; Core costs (fixed price for 5 years, except indexation): Radar-, satellite-, surface (SYNOP)-, lightning observations networks (including maintenance and development), Numerical Weather Prediction System infrastructure (including maintenance and development), KNMI overhead not directly allocated to aviation (staffing costs, several international contributions, administrative systems). 7. Description of the methodology used for allocating total MET costs and MET core costs to civil aviation and between charging zones; See also answer to question 1. The KNMI cost allocation model is in line with the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) No. 904 Guide to Aeronautical Meteorological Services Cost Recovery. 18% of KNMI costs are allocated to the en route charging zone. 8. Description of the reported forecast costs and traffic volume (eighteen months before the start of the reference period) All organisations involved in the air navigation service provision in the FIR Amsterdam have updated their costs data. The following assumptions on the possible changes of the costs have been made: All organisations involved in the air navigation service provision in the FIR Amsterdam have updated their costs data as reported in October 2010 for each of the years of the first reference period. The following assumptions on possible changes of the costs have been made: LVNL KNMI Staff costs : 1-1,5% annually real wage increase due to increased costs of living 2012: zero-growth of salaries (no compensation) Career progression Other operating expenses Annual inflation rate 2% Annual inflation rate 2% Depreciation Interests Exceptional items [84], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

85 The terminal volume forecast for the FIR Amsterdam is based upon the LOW Scenario of Statfor regarding the O/D traffic. 9. Description of the reported actual costs and their difference against the determined costs (every year of the reference period) As stated before the concept of the determined costs, targeted unit rates and the traffic volume and cost risk will not be applied on the terminal ANS provision. This is in line with Article 2 of Regulation 1191/2010, amending Regulation 1794/2006. The entry into force of the amendments of the Charging Implementing Rule will be deferred to January 1 st [85], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

86 Annex III. Additional information to the reporting table in Annex III, specific transparency requirements for the provision of air navigation services at airports falling within Article 1(6) In The Netherlands no airports are falling within Article 1(6). [86], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

87 Additional information to the reporting table in Annex IV, Charging mechanism 1. Description and rationale for the establishment of the different charging zones, in particular with regard to terminal charging zones and potential cross-subsidies between airports; In 2008 two charging zones have been established in FIR Amsterdam. Since January 1 st 2008, the terminal charging zone has been defined as the volume of airspace within a radius of 20 kilometres (= 12 nautical miles) around the LVNL controlled airports of landing and take-off and up to flight level 30 (~ 3000 feet). Since January 1 st 2008, all airports controlled by LVNL (Air Traffic Control the Netherlands) (Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, Rotterdam the Hague Airport, Groningen Airport Eelde, Maastricht Aachen Airport) have been put into a single One Group of Airports. The terminal charging zone comprises the airports in this group. One single cost base and one single unit rate are also applicable to this terminal charging zone. All airports belonging to this One Group of Airports, Amsterdam Airport Schiphol excepted, have less than commercial air transport movements per year. Twenthe Airport (formerly a military air base), Eindhoven Airport (military air base) and Lelystad Airport (not controlled) do not belong to the aforementioned One Group of Airports for the reasons stated. As competition in the field of air navigation services is not relevant in the Netherlands, none of the Dutch airports is exempted from Article 1.6 of Regulation 1794/2006. KNMI is the designated meteorological service provider for the FIR Amsterdam. 2. Description and explanation on the calculation of the forecast chargeable service units; The number of service units is based on estimates by LVNL of the latest traffic developments, taken into account the CATM forecasts of Amsterdam airport Schiphol. The calculation of a service unit in the terminal charging zone is in line with the Annex V to Regulation 1794/ Description of the policy on exemptions and a description of the financing means to cover the related costs; Since January 1 st 2010 the following traffic categories are exempted from the terminal navigation charges: Flights performed exclusively for the transport of the reigning monarch and his immediate family, etc.; Search and rescue flights; Training flights, with the exception of the first touch and go and every successively fourth touch and go; Humanitarian flights. In line with Article 9, LVNL receives a financial compensation for the services provided to the exempted flights in the Amsterdam FIR. Funding comes out of the State receipts from the Internal Tax. [87], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

88 4. Description of the carry overs of over or under recoveries incurred by member states up to the year 2011 for en route charges; Article 10 of Regulation 1794/2006 specifies the recovery of the balance resulting from the over and under recoveries of the previous years in general terms. The Netherlands intends to eliminate the under recoveries in the period up until and including 2011 in the first reference period. This will, however, also depend on the traffic volume tendencies. The Dutch government at the same time intends to keep the total chargeable unit rate at the 2011 level. Since January 1 st 2011 the N+2 system of under and over recoveries has been replaced for all the components of the Dutch cost basis by a N+5 system and thus will be distributed over the years in the period 2011 up until and including Although Article of the Principles for establishing the cost-base for en route charges and the calculation of the unit rates, stating that under- or over-recoveries shall be carried over and included in the cost base of year N+1 or to a period of up to six years (for years N up to N+5 ), is formally not applicable to the terminal charging zone, the en route charging zone carrying over system is applied on the terminal charging zone: in the Dutch terminal cost base in the period will be distributed over the years in the period 2010 up until and including Description of the under recoveries carried over in accordance with Article 11a (4) second subparagraph; As stated before, the concept of the determined costs, targeted unit rates and the traffic volume and cost risk will not be applied on the terminal ANS provision in the next years. This is in line with Article 2 of Regulation 1191/2010, amending Regulation 1794/2006. The entry into force of the amendments of the Charging Implementing Rule will be deferred to January 1 st Thus, there are no financial traffic volume risk effects on the moment 6 Description by factors of the amounts carried over from the previous reference period in accordance with Article 11a (8) (c); As stated before the concept of the determined costs, targeted unit rates and the traffic volume and cost risk will not be applied on the terminal ANS provision. This is in line with Article 2 of Regulation 1191/2010, amending Regulation 1794/2006. The entry into force of the amendments of the Charging Implementing Rule will be deferred to January 1 st Thus, there are no uncontrollable cost effects on the moment. 7. Description of the other revenues when they exist; Other income relates to the sale of Aeronautical publications, hardware maintenance services for third parties and space rental to third parties. [88], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

89 8. Description of the formula used for calculating terminal charges; Service units in the terminal charging zone are calculated in line with the formula in Annex V to Regulation 1794/2006. The weight factor is set at 0,7. 9. Description and explanation of incentives applied on users of terminal services; On the moment no ANS incentive schemes on users are applied. Incentives on users are incorporated in the airport charges, for instance based on the noise production and MTOW. [89], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

90 Appendix B Overview of investments In the tables below details of the investments of LVNL, MUAC and KNMI are given for the main investments which will have an effect during RP1 (in monetary terms). Most of the investments of LVNL and MUAC are replacements of systems having reached the end of their life span. The investments of KNMI mainly concern substitution for current systems and meteorological observation equipment. ANSP Investments 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 F 2013 F 2014 F 015 F 2016 F Total LVNL Systems etc 0 3,1 12,3 21,4 30,2 43,9 38,7 37,4 187 Others 6,6 6,5 11,2 6,9 6 6,2 4,5 5,8 53,7 Total LVNL 6,6 9,6 23,5 28,3 36,2 50,1 43,2 43,2 240,7 MUAC Systems etc 12,9 11,5 14,3 18,6 11,6 6,3 75,0 Others 5,9 5,8 7,2 5,0 6,7 6,0 36,5 Total MUAC 18,7 17,3 21,4 23,6 18,2 12,2 111,6 KNMI Systems etc 0, ,5 Others 0,2 0,13 0,145 0,875 0,6 0 1,95 Total KNMI 0,7 0,13 0,145 0,875 0,6 0 2,45 Total Systems etc 0 3,1 25,7 32,9 44,5 62,5 50,3 43,7 262,5 Others 6,6 6,5 17,3 12,8 13,3 12,1 11,8 11,8 92,2 General 6,6 9,6 42,9 45,7 57,8 74,6 62,0 55,4 354,7 Table 1 Annual investments (capex) in nominal terms In the table below the LVNL investments are mentioned. Budget period Mustang (COM) Contingency Replacement TAR-4 (SUR) Replacement VCS (COM) Fallback air-ground ground-ground voice Assessed impact on performance target Cost efficiency: realisation of cost savings Capacity target: service provision is restored at agreed time and capacity n/a: necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures n/a: necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures. Capacity: enables future growth n/a: necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures. Capacity: increased capacity during degradation mode Planned total CAPEX 0,6 2,0 2,6 3,6 2,9 6,5 8,0 8,0 3,1 4,4 3,6 5,9 6,6 23,6 1,5 3,7 2,0 7,2 [90], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

91 Budget period Replacement AAA (FDP) Replacement IT office automation Reservation possible acquisition TWR Schiphol Primary radar coverage Polderbaan (18R/36L) Digital strips TWR Schiphol Adjustment facilities Assessed impact on performance target n/a: necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures. Enabler SESAR concept. n/a: necessary replacement. Cost efficiency: realisation of cost savings Safety: maintain level of safety Capacity: increased availability of Schiphol main runway 18R/36L Safety: improves with better unambiguous data distribution Capacity: information sharing supports CDM and improves planning Guarantees service provision during transition AAA, host new functionalities and organisational changes Planned total CAPEX 3,2 2,9 21,3 31,5 11,7 4,4 75,0 0,5 1,7 2,2 6,8 6,8 1,5 1,5 3,0 2,1 2,1 25,0 25,0 50,0 Other investments Office automation, company fleet, etc. 6,6 6,5 11,2 6,9 6,0 6,2 4,5 5,8 53,7 Total 6,6 9,6 23,5 28,3 36,2 50,1 43,2 43,2 240,7 Table 2 LVNL Investments Breakdown of MUAC s investments The table below includes the total investments of MUAC (21.7% of MUAC's cost base is allocated to FIR Amsterdam). MUAC EATM Communication Gateway 1, F 2012 F 2013 F 2014 F 2015 F 2016 and beyond F Voice systems 2,5 3,3 3,6 1,4 0,7 1,8 13,3 New generation CWP 0,3 2,6 11,0 7,7 0,8 22,3 ATFCM/ASM Tools 1,8 1,7 1,7 1,2 0,9 0,9 8,1 SESAR Compliant ATM 1,37 0,6 1,175 2,2 2,35 2,85 10,5 Infrastructure 6,1 5,6 5,2 2,8 19,6 Total ATC systems 12,9 11,5 14,3 18,6 11,6 6,3 75,0 Other investments 5,9 5,8 7,2 5,0 6,7 6,0 36,5 Total Total 18,7 17,3 21,4 23,6 18,2 12,2 111,6 Table 3 MUAC Investments Specification of LVNL Investments Budget period Domain Allocation to enroute charging zone Assessed impact on performance target Planned start date Planned end date European ATM Master plan OIs IR/CS reference Mustang (COM) 54,5% Cost efficiency: realisation of cost savings Enabler for future growth and implementation of SESAR concept [91], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

92 Budget period Contingency Replacement TAR-4 (SUR) Replacement VCS (COM) Fallback air-ground ground-ground voice Replacement AAA (FDP) Replacement IT office automation Reservation possible acquisition TWR Schiphol Primary radar coverage Polderbaan (18R/36L) Digital strips TWR Schiphol Domain Allocation to enroute charging zone Assessed impact on performance target 100,0% Capacity target: service provision is restored at agreed time and capacity 100,0% n/a: necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures 54,5% n/a: necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures. Capacity: enables future growth 54,5% n/a: necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures. Capacity: increased capacity during degradation mode 100,0% n/a: necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures. Enabler SESAR concept. 90,0% n/a: necessary replacement. 0,0% Cost efficiency: realisation of cost savings 0,0% Safety: maintain level of safety Capacity: increased availability of Schiphol main runway 18R/36L 0,0% Safety: improves with better unambiguous data distribution Capacity: information sharing supports CDM and improves planning Adjustment facilities 90,0% Guarantees service provision during transition AAA, host new functionalities and organisational changes Table 4 Specification of LVNL investments Specification of MUAC investments Planned start date Planned end date European ATM Master plan OIs Complies with SES and SESAR and is realised in bilateral FABEC cooperation System requirements were developed in bilateral FABEC cooperation Enabler for implementation SESAR concept. Facilitates multiple operational improvements: e.g. 4D contract and improved operability IR/CS reference CAPEX project ID Domain Allocation to. charging zone Assessed impact on performance targets Planned start date YY Planned end dateyy Planned total CAPEX in M Voice 100% En Na : European ATM Master plan OIs IR/CS reference [92], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

93 CAPEX project ID Domain Allocation to. charging zone Assessed impact on performance targets Planned start date YY Planned end dateyy Planned total CAPEX in M Systems Route replacement New generation CWP 100 % En Route Productivity ATFCM / ASM Tools SESAR Compliant ATM 100% En Route 100% En Route Capacity Capacity and Safety Table 5 Specification of MUAC investments European ATM Master plan OIs IR/CS reference [93], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

94 Appendix C Extracts from State Safety Programme Excerpt Dutch State Safety Program / Policy agenda Aviation Safety State Safety Programme ICAO standards set out the requirements for States to establish a State Safety Programme (SPP) in order to achieve an acceptable level of safety (AloS) in the operation and maintenance of aircraft, the provision of air traffic services and the operation of aerodromes. The ALoS is a means to verify the performance of the SSP and the separate safety management systems of the various service providers in the aviation chain. The AloS allows a more performance based approach, which complements the more classic compliance based approach. ICAO defines an SPP as a integrated set of rules and activities aiming at improving aviation safety. However, the Netherlands has decided to make a distinction between the State Safety Programme, which describes the current safety situation in the Netherlands and a policy document (Beleidsagenda Luchtvaartveiligheid )) which describes the manner in which the Netherlands intends to improve aviation safety. Policy document Aviation Safety The policy document on aviation safety focuses on those issues that need to be improved in the next 5 years in order to be able to improve the civil aviation safety level. The issues have been chosen on the basis of the underlying risks, the division of responsibility and the possibilities to influence the results. Focusing on issue that cannot be influenced should be avoided as this does not contribute to a higher level of safety. The issues have been selected on the basis of current knowledge of the aviation safety system. This knowledge is based on expert judgment, research and information on incidents and accidents. Furthermore, the issues have been checked by the aviation sector. As part of the process, an international benchmark of a number of other civil aviation authorities and international organizations has been carried out. It has become clear that the Dutch approach to SSP and SMS does not differ much from those organizations. The issue of strengthening safety management systems is also addressed by that of ICAO, the United States, the United Kingdom and France. Despite the fact that more and more information is available from incident reporting, it is not yet possible to underpin all the issues in the Aviation Safety Policy Document with evidence. The aim of this policy document is therefore to make issues more measurable as the basis for future policy development issues. [94], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

95 Agenda item 4.1. Introduction and Oversight of Safety Management Systems (SMS) Introduction The compliance with rules and regulations by companies and individual persons is currently enforced by granting licenses and carrying out oversight. Oversight consists of both inspections and audits at a system level as well as at product level. It is considered necessary/essential that all stakeholders in the aviation chain are permanently aware of safety and the need to further improve safety. It is important to deal with the aviation chain as a whole rather than with the individual components. This is the only way to maintain and improve the high safety standard. The current status Currently, safety management systems have been implemented (completely or at least partly) in the Dutch aviation sector. A number of companies is preparing the implementation of SMS. In certain parts of the sector SMS is not implemented yet. The degree of the implementation of safety management is dependent the degree of legislation. Ambition Support the development of ICAO (Annex 19) on safety management; Align Dutch SMS approach with European developments; Stimulate/promote the increase of the number of companies with SMS; Improve safety awareness in General Aviation (GA) by introduction and elaboration of SMS; Finalise the introduction of SMS certification and developing SMS maturity model to be able to measure SMS performance. Actions Implement an SMS for all those companies in the aviation sector which are legally obliged comply; Stimulate the implementation of SMS in other parts of the aviation sector (esp. General Aviation). Certify Competent Authority (CAA-NL and Military Aviation Authority); Adapt oversight focus towards SMS system and establishing an optimal balance between system and product oversight; Select indicators to measure effectiveness of SMS; Promote a sector wide SMS system Indicators % of companies with an approved SMS; % companies with minimum level of system oversight Concrete goals SMS fully implemented in European and national legislation; In % of the companies have a certified SMS; ISO certification for Competent Authority [95], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

96 Agenda item 4.2. Development of objective and measurable safety targets Introduction The dashboard contains the various elements of the government safety management process. Leading indicators are used to describe the quality of safety management and while lagging indicators are used to describe the performance in the various safety areas. The dashboard gives an overview of the balance between efforts and performance, both at system level and for the various parts. By clearly defining the goals to be achieved the industry will be enabled to decide which measures they will have to take to meet these goals. The goals should be defined in such a manner as to make the interdependencies within the aviation chain visible. Current status The safety goals have already been described at the highest strategic level. Within the context of EU, EASA and ICAO performance indicators and corresponding targets are being developed. By participating in a number of working groups the Netherlands contributes to the international development of these targets. Ambition Development of international and harmonized safety indicators Concrete actions Define the issues that are of paramount importance to achieve safety; Development of concrete and measurable safety indicators for each part of the aviation system; Set Acceptable and Target Safety Levels in coordination with the relevant stakeholders; Set up an objective monitoring system. Indicators Number of objective and measurable indicators Timeliness: the degree to which compliance with implementation dates of international performance indicators and targets. Tangible goals In 2013: development and implementation of a maturity model as indicator of the development phase of Safety Management Systems of both government and major players in the commercial aviation; In 5 years: a well functioning system for measuring safety performance of the commercial aviation based (safety ) indicators and targets will be in place. The system meets all international requirements/agreements and will enable international benchmarking. [96], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

97 Agenda item 4.3. Improvement of data collection and analysis Introduction In case of incidents, these are being investigated by the aviation companies within the context of their safety management system. These incidents are also reported to the Analysis Bureau Aviation Incidents (Analyse Bureau Luchtvaartvoorvallen, ABL). On the basis of this information ABL identifies and analyses incidents. It may make recommendations on the basis of these analyses. Feedback is an essential element of safety management systems. By sharing information it is possible to learn from other incidents. Sharing information makes it possible to identify at an early stage possible problems between interfaces. Furthermore, it is possible to use the audit and inspection results for trend analysis. By investigating possible shortcomings proactively it is possible to prevent incidents and accidents. Current situation/status In line with ICAO and European legislation/agreements The Netherlands has incorporated the incident reporting duty in national legislation. A substantial number of incidents have been reported, however, incident analysis can be improved further. The ABL is responsible for collecting the incident reports as well as for analyzing the incidents. Following the evaluation of the mandatory reporting requirement in 2009, the quality of ABL has been improved. The Netherlands shares this information at a European level via the Eccairs (European Co-ordination Centre for Aviation Incident Reporting Systems). Ambition Improve quality of incident statistics; Improve European analysis to be able to identify trends or specific problems at an early stage. Concrete actions Improve the quality and logging of the data; Carry out frequent and clear trend analyses and warning reports for increasing the benefits of incident reporting; Subdivide incident reports into quality categories (e.g. usefulness, completeness and relevance); Provide feedback on incident reporting; Improve European analysis to be able to identify trends or specific problems at an early stage; Incident reporting should enable setting new policy priorities on an annual basis. Indicators Number of incident analyses carried out by ABL; Quality of the data. Tangible goals Semi-annual ABL reports should be available within 2 months; At least 4 signal reports and recommendations (preferably at international level) on the basis of trend analysis; As of 2015 annual European trend analysis. [97], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

98 Agenda item 4.4. Set prerequisites for just culture Introduction Having a safety management system in place will not be sufficient to continuously improve aviation safety. Another prerequisite is information. This information will only be available if there is no naming and shaming. Providing or sharing information should be based on trust. In a just culture people will report incidents, which as part of the safety management system will help improve safety. People should not be punished for making mistakes, however repetition/reoccurrence should be prevented. In case of intent or blame, this should be reprimanded/penalized. A mature safety culture depends on trust, transparency and effort as well as on a just culture or a safety culture. A culture of blaming will be detrimental to safety performance. Current situation/status The State Law on the Establishment of a Council for Safety (Rijkswet OVV) stipulates that incident and accident analysis is carried out for the benefit of aviation safety; To increase incident reporting is has also been laid down in law that OVV- testimonies shall not be used in a criminal investigation; On the basis of an evaluation (Commission van Delden) it has been concluded that none of the indents reported to ABL have been forwarded to the Public Prosecutor; There is an open dialogue between relevant stakeholders (the aviation sector, ministry of Transport and Justice) on their respective responsibilities and duties. Ambition In 2015 there is a safety culture that allows/stimulates an open and transparent sharing of information and investigation of incidents to improve aviation safety; Sanctions will not be applicable to those who report incidents/provide certain information; Measures will be taken to improve trust between the sector and the Public Prosecutor Stimulate voluntary reporting (in addition to obligatory reporting). Concrete actions Develop a tool to measure the maturity of the safety culture; Carry out a bi-annual survey to measure the degree to which one is prepared to report incidents and accidents and get insight into the main issues one comes across when reporting incidents and accidents; Draw up clear and concise protocols on the responsibility of the various actors. Establish a strategic meeting to discuss a number of relevant cases and share this information at a strategic level; Stimulate companies to establish a good code of practice for whistle blowers (people that report information); Strengthening of just culture by spreading the message that an effective and proactive safety culture is based on continuously learning; Implement ICAO recommendations; Implement the latest European legislation on incident analysis and incident reporting. Indicators % of employees willing to report both internally and externally; The maturity of the safety culture of aviation companies; Number of incident reports Tangible goals A minimum of 80% of the participants is willing to report; The safety development develops positively; [98], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

99 90% of all the incidents reported that should be reported by several parties are indeed reported. Agenda item 6.5. Optimization of Air Navigation Services Introduction In the coming years a large number of national and international activities with regard to the use of the Dutch airspace will be carried out, e.g. : New arrival routes (a a result of the agreement on noise abatement measures); New agreements/arrangements with regard to the civil military use of controlled airspace; Developing and implementing the new Dutch Airspace Vision; Implementation of Single European Sky; Establishment of Functional Airspace Block Europe Central; The transfer of the aviation safety, including Air Navigation Services to the Commission. The amount of changes require an evaluation of the possible needs to adjust the current the safety concepts/design to maintain a robust safety system. With higher complexity the risk of mistakes and consequences increases. Current situation/status The Netherlands is actively involved in European initiatives (EASA, SES and FABEC). Air traffic control the Netherlands, local residents and airports and aircraft operators are involved in the Round Table on Schiphol-issues. Ambition Implementation a new air traffic management system to cater for the increase in traffic while at the same time decreasing the complexity; In case of emergency landings aircraft should preferably make use of the preferential runways in order to avoid densely populated areas; To increase aviation safety unnecessary flight profiles should be limited as much as possible; New spatial developments that might negatively influence navigation and safety related ground equipment are avoided; Changes in equipment and systems are only implemented if they contribute to increasing safety and strengthen the interrelationship between the parties involved/concerned; Arrival and departure routes are designed so as to limit safety risks; The use of the airport is such as to limit safety risks. Concrete actions Strengthen safety management systems by introducing change management initiatives involving various actors (introduce pilots in cooperation with the aviation sector) and European legislation. Decrease the complexity of the operation and increase the overall picture of the operation as well a decentralizing tactical decision making of the operation. LVNL will carry out an impact analysis to assess the impact of the changes proposed on the complexity of the operation; Air Traffic Control The Netherlands (LVNL) and the Ministry of Transport will jointly set up projects to decrease operational complexity and optimize the role of the pilot in air traffic management as well as technological aids for the support of air traffic management; Establish the changes needed in ANS to increase safety and efficiency when traffic increases as well as to decrease the environmental impact of air traffic; Implement new measures to decrease the number of COMLOSS substantially; LVNL reports on the way emergency landings are handled as well as on unusual flight profiles; Establish which ANS changes are necessary to increase safety and to integrate in the policy agenda; Fit in UAVs in non segregated air space. Indicators [99], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

100 To monitor progress: establish a list of necessary ANS changes for improving safety as well as a schedule for implementation. Tangible goals Introduction of Management of Change; Development of a method in order to be able to present internal safety in an uncomplicated manner; Decisions on changes are only taken if and when the different aspects contribute to a less complex operation and a reduction in risks. Overall the operation should be less complicated even when capacity increases. [100], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

101 Annex D: Stakeholder Consultation Documentation These documents are provided in a separate document. [101], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

102 > Retouradres Postbus EX Den Haag Directoraat-Generaal Luchtvaart en Maritieme Zaken Luchthavens Luchtverkeer Plesmanweg 1-6 Den Haag Postbus EX Den Haag Ons kenmerk IenM/BSK-2011/47289 Datum 23 maart 2011 Betreft Stakeholder Consultation Meeting on April 12 th 2011 Dear Madam, Sir, The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (IandE) is pleased to invite you to the first SES Stakeholder Consultation Meeting (SCM) on issues related to the Performance plan for air navigation services in the reference period , in particular cost efficiency. The SCM will be held on Tuesday, April 12 th 2011 at LVNL s head office at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. In line with Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 2010 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions the meeting will take place under the chairmanship of the Ministry. As it has already been decided that there will be no Single Unit Rate in the FABEC area during the first reference period of the SES performance scheme, each of the FABEC Member States is obliged to elaborate a national performance plan on the cost efficiency Key Performance Area (KPA). The FABEC performance plan will be related to the KPAs on capacity, environment and military mission effectiveness. The main focus of the SCM will be on the preliminary ideas on the en route cost efficiency in relation to the intended strategic investments. Other important performance issues will be the sustainability (reliability) of the declared capacity during the first inbound peak and the noise abatement. We would like to discuss the preliminary ideas and hear your views on the assumptions used. Furthermore, the proposed Dutch contribution to the FABEC targets for Capacity and Environment will be dealt with. The draft agenda for the SCM is enclosed. Documents for the meeting will be sent to the invitees in advance. Presentations on the various issues from the separate perspectives will be held by Air Traffic Control the Netherlands (LVNL), the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC/Eurocontrol) and the Dutch NSA. The Ministry of IandE will present the integral Dutch perspective concerning the various topics. Pagina 1 van 4

103 We kindly request your company or organisation to adequately mandate you as its representative(s) to formally advise the Ministry on these matters. The timetable is as follows: from CET onwards: welcome in the LVNL facilities; CET: start of the SCM; CET: users will be given an opportunity for mutual consultation and a lunch; From CET onwards: consultation and discussion; CET: end of the meeting. Directoraat-Generaal Luchtvaart en Maritieme Zaken Luchthavens Luchtverkeer Datum 23 maart 2011 Please confirm your attendance before Friday, April 1 st 2011 and provide us with the name(s) of the attendant(s) of your organisation and their arrival time. Regarding the expansive list of invitees it is important for us to receive your confirmation timely to enable us to make reservation for the required meeting accommodation. For confirmation and further information or queries, please contact Mr. A. van der Westen via ad.vander.westen@minvenw.nl (telephone 0031(0) or 0031(0) ) and/or Mr J. van Kooperen via kooperenj@lvnl.nl (telephone 0031(0) ). Be advised that for security reasons attendants of the meeting need an identification document (e.g. a passport) to obtain entry passes for the LVNL head office. The LVNL address is Stationsplein Zuid-West 1001, 1117 CV Schiphol-Oost, The Netherlands. A route description is enclosed. Yours sincerely, Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, Directorate-General for Civil Aviation and Maritime Affairs Ms. Jacqueline Prins Deputy Director ATM and Airspace Policy, LLM MA Encl - Route description - Agenda Pagina 2 van 4

104 List of invitees Airline KLM KLM Cityhopper Transavia Martinair Holland CityJet EasyJet Lufthansa German Airlines Representative Edwin Kleiboer Bert van der Weyden Ard Rombout Rene de Vogel Vincent van Valkenburg Bert van Gent Jan Ordelman Peter Spruit Han Schutte Ben Gooijer Bas van Itallie Matthew Wood William Vet Michael Dietz Wolfgang Scheel Air France Represented by KLM Delta Airlines (DAL) Lorne Cass Northwest Airlines Frank Alexander Mike Belanger British Airways Tony Buss Paul Wiggens Simon Cox Aer Lingus Niall Walsh TomMcRann SAS Scandinavian Airlines Jens Justesen Jens Albek BMI Jane Irving Jim Snee Arke Fly Koen Kouwenberg Carl Zwanenburg Swiss International Airlines Malev Hungarian Airlines Alitalia Iberia TAP Portugal Austrian Ms Nicole Ammann Urs Roth Baradziej Károlyné Fabio Cittadini Davide Bardelli Jose Gonzalez Marcos Rafael Arostegui Parra Fernando Ramos Ferreira Stefan Hafenscher Andreas Trost Directoraat-Generaal Luchtvaart en Maritieme Zaken Luchthavens Luchtverkeer Datum 23 maart 2011 Pagina 3 van 4

105 Airspace user organisations IATA Laurie O'Toole Ton van der Veldt SAOC Roel Oudeboon AOPA Ary Stigter Directoraat-Generaal Luchtvaart en Maritieme Zaken Luchthavens Luchtverkeer I-AOPA BARIN ELFAA IACA KNvVL AEA ERAA EBAA Observer Schiphol Airport KNMI representatives KNMI LVNL representatives LVNL MUAC representatives MUAC Ministry of Defence NSA representatives NSA Ministry of Transport DGLM Ms Peggy v. Ootmarsum Mr. P. Phillippou Han Schutte Guy Battistella Michaëel Tefsen Vincent De Vroey Nick Mower Pedro Vincente Azua Daniel dos Reis Miranda Martijn van der Meer Remco den Besten Jan Sondij Jasper Daams René van Schoubroeck Bert Rolvink Jeroen van Kooperen Jeroen Vermeij Frederik Eriksson Raymond Deleu Karl-Heinz Kloos Onno Reitsma Frans van Gysegem LtKol J.A.M. Laarhoven LtKol J. van Bommel Jos Wilbrink Jos Nollet Ms Jacqueline Prins Ad van der Westen Ms Saskia Brouwer Datum 23 maart 2011 Pagina 4 van 4

106 SES Performance Scheme ANS 1 st Stakeholder Consultation Meeting concerning Preliminary data on performance for Amsterdam FIR

107 Agenda Welcome Purpose and format Approval of draft minutes of UCM September 21 st 2010 (Chair) Informative briefing on status of the FABEC and NL-contribution to the FABEC performance plan: (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment) Performance plan general items (Ministry of IandE) KPIs and targets: presentations by LVNL, KNMI, MUAC and NSA General overview, including interrelationships between KPAs/KPIs (Ministry IandE) Recap (Chair) Users mutual consultation during lunch break Consultation and discussion End of meeting 2

108 Purpose and format 1 st SCM Purpose Preliminary advice of stakeholders to the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment on: SES Performance targets for Amsterdam FIR Additional national performance targets In first performance reference period Context NL contribution to the FABEC performance plan (capacity) National performance plan on cost efficiency Next steps Elaborating the national performance plan on cost effiency and the additional national performance targets in FIR Amsterdam 2nd SCM: May 19th, 2011 (Belgocontrol, Steenokkerzeel) Format SCM will be chaired by Ministry of IandE. Presentations on capacity and cost efficieny by LVNL, MUAC, KNMI and NSA representatives Focus on the preliminary cost efficiency target and capacity target 3

109 Minutes and action list Minutes: final approval of draft report of meeting September 21st, 2010 suggestions and remarks received have been included Action list: all actions completed and closed 4

110 SES Performance Scheme Reference period 1 ( ) States or FABs need to eleborate Performance Plan. FABEC SSB has decided to submit a provisional FABEC Performance Plan for the first reference period dealing with : Safety; Environment; Capacity; Militairy Mission Effectivenes; Aggregated national Cost efficiency targets at FABEC level (global figure demonstrating the cost efficiency effort at FABEC level) Cost efficiency at national level due to absence of a FABEC single unit rate. The individual national plans on cost efficiency and additional national KPIs will be included in an annex to FABEC PP. 5

111 Purpose: NL macro-economic context in RP1 Explanation of the assumptions on the economic conditions and circumstances under which the performance plan will be implemented. Relevant global economic developments in general qualitative terms: Although profiting from economic developments in other regions economic perspectives for NW-Europe considerably less positive/optimistic than for those other regions Oil price considerable increase: in STATFOR forecast between $ 100 and $ 150 per barrel. Euro/dollar parity will stay at the same level: 1 = $ 1,35 1,40. NL: GDP: between +1,5% and +2% per year Private consumptions: + 1,25% per year State s consumption: no change Inflation: between 1,5% and 3,5% per year Increase in wages: 2,5% per year Unemployment rate: staying at about 4,5% 6

112 7 LVNL (separate presentation and roadmap enclosed)

113 8 MUAC (separate presentation and roadmap enclosed)

114 9 KNMI (separate presentation and roadmap enclosed)

115 10 NSA (separate presentation and roadmap enclosed)

116 11 Consolidation MINISTRY I AND E

117 Overview national performance targets Cost efficiency Capacity Environment Safety 12

118 Cost efficiency assumptions Issue LVNL MUAC KNMI Traffic volume Medium term forecast base scenario FIR Amsterdam En route cost efficiency target Applicability of traffic volume risk Equity capital to be build up during first reference period -3.5% annual decrease in determined unit rate; Yes No during RP1 Not at all Yes Yes (change of MUAC Agreement necessary) Financial incentives Not applicable Terminal charging zone Neither traffic volume risk, nor cost risk applicable until No 13

119 Cost efficiency: general overview (data updated, where possible) Determined costs (x 1.000) LVNL KNMI MUAC NSA (incl. Eurocontrol HQ) Total costs (x 1.000) # (x 1.000) total service units (base scenario) NL Determined unit rate (in ) Tendency NL EU-target 61,75 58,92 57,66 56,49 95,4% 93,4% 91,5% 96.5% 93.1% 89.9% 14

120 Capacity Additional national kpi and targets for Schiphol KPI Average ATFM delay Schiphol (en route and terminal) Sustainability of declared capacity in first inbound peak. Target 1 minute average ATFM delay per flight 85% of declared capacity of 68 movements (inbounds) 15

121 Environment KPI: average en-route horizontal flight efficiency EU-wide target: improvement of -0.75% average horizontal flight efficiency in 2014 vs 2009 (5%) for Network Manager. FABEC: - Difference between length of route of the en route part of the actual trajectory and the Great Circle Distance. National: Noise abatement rules related to route and runway use on the basis of Luchtverkeersbesluit (LVB). 16

122 Safety No EU wide targets for safety in the first reference period. FABEC: - No targets National: No targets but reporting on ATC related incidents and accidents (type, number and severity). 17

123 Monitoring & reporting Purpose: check on performance compliance; in case of non compliance, triggering of suitable action. FABEC Performance Plan: monitoring and reporting once or twice a year (depending on the KPA/KPI) MUAC: Capacity: to be included in FABEC procedure; Cost-efficiency: continuation of current Eurocontrol practice LVNL : Capacity to be included in FABEC procedure; Cost-efficiency and additional kpis: monitoring and reporting on a quarterly base (continuation of current national procedure) MET: Cost efficiency: regularly (continuation of current national procedure) 18

124 Next steps 19th May second and final NL SCM at Belgocontrol premises on cost efficiency and additional national kpis on capacity and environment and safety; Mid-June approval by Secretary of State; End of May final reporting tables on cost and unit rate data to Eurocontrol; End of June final performance plan to European Commission for approval. 19

125 2 nd SCM MAY 19th, at Belgocontrol Purpose Final advice of stakeholders to the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment on: Cost data and targeted unit rate. Additional national performance targets 20

126 21 Questions

127 KPA FABEC National KPI PI KPI Safety Effectiveness of safety management ATC related accidents and incidents (type, number and severity) Application of severity classification of RAT tool Reporting of just culture Direct route extension intra FABEC Indicators 1st reference flights (flight plan vs. period GDC) Environment Difference between length of route of the en route part of the actual trajectory and the Great Circle Distance. Share of FABEC airports offering procedures supporting CDOs Noise abatement rules related to route and runway use on the basis of Dutch legislation. CDA conformity ás a share of arrivals using CDA procedures Capacity Minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight % of controlled flights with en roiute delay of > 15 minutes Avarage ATFM delay (terminal and en route) Total ATFM delays Sustainability of declared capacity in first inbound peak. Additional time in taxi out phase Additional time for ASMA Cost efficiency Determined en route costs/ revenues Determined unit rate for en route ANS Total en route cost per flight hour Total economic cost per flight hour Determined terminal air navigation service unit rate Militairy Mission Effectiveness Optimum SUA dimension vs published SUA structue Percentage of SUA capacity requested Percentage of SUA capacity allocated Percentage of SUA capacity used Total training time against total airborne time SUA time allocated vs time requested 22 Average transit time

128 Stakeholder Consultation Meeting LVNL presentation April 12 th, 2011

129 Content Strategic orientation LVNL ATM system development Performance plan Safety Capacity Environment Cost efficiency Meeting the targets

130 Strategic orientation LVNL Strategic reorientation LVNL Focus on core business (Schiphol hub function) Increased (inter)national cooperation Cost management Changes in airspace and routes Adoption of new technological developments Apply traffic volume and cost risk mechanism (EU performance scheme) t

131 Strategic reorientation LVNL Reduction of 15% support staff (realised by the end of 2014) No cut backs on ATCO training Quality level of air navigation service provision (SEE) must not decline Efficiency improvements Increased (international) cooperation Postponing investments if possible Additional cost containment measures

132 Effect of strategic orientation LVNL At the end of 2009 facing a deficit of 42,4 million Fundamental idea to support the airlines during the crisis in optimal way LVNL share in unit rates stabilised Effect of cost containment programs clearly visible Large deficit while facing the implementation of the performance scheme Appropriation fund

133 But what will happen if.. Appropriation fund?

134 Changes in airspace and routes [1 2] CBA Land 2014 DVR ARKON-RKN 2015 LUX CBA SWAP , AMRUFRA

135 Changes in airspace and routes [2 2] Sustainability and hourly capacity Support growth to movements at Schiphol Next step towards SESAR concept

136 ATM system development ATM system development (Separate presentation)

137 Implementation EU performance scheme [1/3] Traffic volume risk and cost risk applicable for the en-route charging zone Traffic volume risk and cost risk not applicable for terminal charging zone Full cost recovery mechanism remains in place. EU performance scheme not applicable for NSAA charging zone.

138 Implementation EU performance scheme [2/3] Traffic risk mechanism 30% risk ANSP [+/2% ; +/- 10%] forecast Threshold level alerting mechanism Activate threshold mechanism [- 2% ; + 2%] 100% risk ANSP

139 Implementation EU performance scheme [3/3] Implementation effect Traffic volume risk sharing: need for risk mitigating equity capital Cost risk sharing: need for risk mitigating equity capital Additional risk mitigating measures at the start of first reference period Equity capital to be acquired during first reference period

140 Performance plan KPA FABEC National Target Safety Effectiveness of safety management ATC related accidents and incidents (type, number and severity) No target Application of severity classification of RAT tool Reporting of just culture Capacity Average en-route ATFM delay Total average ATFM delay (terminal and en route) 1 minute per flight Sustainability of declared capacity in first inbound peak. 85% Environment Horizontal flight efficiency Noise abatement rules related to Within legal limits route and runway use on the basis of (Dutch law) Dutch legislation. Cost efficiency Determined unit rate for en route -3,5% ANS

141 Safety National KPA: Total number of reported ATC related accidents and incidents (type, number and severity) Number of reported accidents and incidents is not a good basis for target setting Statistics are gathered to analyse trends and manage safety effectively Monitoring mechanism is being developed for total number of serious and major incidents

142 Capacity Total ATFM delay Average per month and cumulative average over the year 2,50 2,00 1,50 National target for average total ATFM delay per year 1,00 0,50 0,00 Jan Feb Mrt Apr Mei Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dec Time (month) 0,94 0,30 Delay (min/flight) AVG 2009 AVG 2010 Cumulative 2009 Cumulative 2010

143 December November Capacity 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Sustainability 1 st inbound peak May June July August September October 2010 Mothly Cumulative April March February January

144 Environment Rules for runway and route usage Limit Realisation Forecast Vertical deviations of corridor from approaching aircraft outside the TMA during daytime Vertical deviations of corridor from approaching aircraft within the TMA during daytime 5% 0,80% 15% 3,75% Horizontal deviations of corridor from approaching aircraft during night time 0,05% 0,00% Vertical deviations of corridor from approaching aircraft outside the TMA during night time Vertical deviations of corridor from approaching aircraft within the TMA during night time 0,05% 0,05% 0,05% 0,05% Horizontal deviations of corridor from departing aircraft during daytime 3% 0,12% 7 Horizontal deviations of corridor from departing aircraft during night time 0,05% 0,00% 8 Vertical deviations of corridor from departing aircraft within the TMA 0,05% 0,00% 9 Vertical deviations of corridor from departing aircraft outside the TMA 10% 0,01% 10 Deviations of runway usage by departures Deviations of runway usage by arrival 0 0

145 Cost efficiency Methodology LVNL determined cost (budget ) Preview: preliminary LVNL budget LVNL investment plan Staff development Review: LVNL indicative financial results 2010

146 Cost efficiency, methodology [1/2] Determined costs Chargeable costs Definition determined costs are deemed necessary to be made in any of the years in the reference period to deliver the forecasted number of service units, given the level of the targets for capacity and environment assuming the safety level will remain unchanged. Definition costs to be recovered from the user for delivering air navigation service provision: total determined costs (including exceptional items), costs of exempted flights amounts carried over and income from other sources Purpose performance purposes only Purpose charging purposes Scope first reference period charging zone en-route only Scope all charging zones involved Character fixed for each year in the reference period Character LVNL share in national unit rate is stabilised for the period LVNL Budget Performance Plan The Netherlands LVNL Budget EU reporting tables

147 Cost efficiency, methodology [2/2] Determined costs (nominal terms) Budgeted cost base LVNL Determined costs (real terms) Budgeted cost base LVNL Determined unit rate Budgeted cost base LVNL LVNL Budget Inflation rate (price level 2009) Traffic scenario (base) In nominal terms In real terms Staff costs Other operating costs Depreciation Interest Exceptional items Total costs in nominal terms Weighted average inflation rate Total costs in real terms (prices 2009)

148 LVNL determined cost en-route (budgeted cost base , issued November 2010) 2011 forecast 2012 forecast 2013 forecast 2014 forecast Staff costs Other operating costs Depreciation Cost of capital Exceptional items Total costs LVNL Cost of exempted flights Income from other sources Determined costs in nominal terms Weighted average inflation rate 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% Determined costs in real terms (prices 2009) Total K# service units (base scenario, Feb. 2011) Budgeted determined en-route unit rate 41,49 38,29 37,34 36,46 (Based upon budgeted cost base issued November Figures are subject of recalibration. Updated figures will be presented during the SCM of May 2011)

149 Investment plan Budget period Total Mustang (COM) 0,5 2,9 0,2 3,6 Contingency 0,3 3,2 2,9 6,4 Replacement LAR Herwijnen (SUR) 3,3 6,7 10,0 Replacement TAR-4 (SUR) 8,0 8,0 Replacement VCS (COM) 3,5 4,5 4,0 6,3 6,8 25,1 Fallback air-ground ground-ground voice 1,6 3,6 5,2 Replacement AAA 1,5 1,5 72,0 75,0 Replacement IT office automation 2,3 2,3 Other investments 13,6 12,4 8,6 6,0 8,8 7,7 57,1 Total 19,7 27,0 26,6 15,9 15,8 7,7 80,0 192,7 Budget period Total Mustang (COM) 0,6 3,0 3,6 Contingency 3,6 2,9 6,5 Replacement TAR-4 (SUR) 8,0 8,0 Replacement VCS (COM) 3,0 4,4 3,6 5,9 6,6 23,5 Fallback air-ground ground-ground voice 1,5 3,7 2,0 7,2 Replacement AAA (FDP) 2,4 0,6 pm pm pm 72,0 75,0 Replacement IT office automation 0,5 1,7 2,2 Reservation possible acquisition TWR Schiphol 6,8 6,8 Primairy radar coverage Polderbaan (18R/36L) 1,5 1,5 3,0 Digital strips TWR Schiphol 2,1 2,1 Other investments 6,6 11,1 6,9 6,0 6,2 4,5 5,9 47,2 Total 9,6 22,6 27,0 14,9 18,6 6,5 85,9 185,1 Difference budget 2011 vs ,1-4,4 0,4-1,0 2,8-1,2 5,9-7,6

150 Developments investment plan Contingency Civil and military integration Replacement of AAA (FDP)

151 Depreciation costs Depreciation costs Actuals 2009 Actuals 2010 Actuals 2011 Forecast 2012 Forecast 2013 Forecast 2014 Forecast 2015 Forecast 2016 Forecast 2017 Forecast Budget Budget Actuals

152 Staff developments Development LVNL work force Actuals 2010 Actuals 2011 Forecast 2012 Forecast 2013 Forecast 2014 Forecast 2015 Forecast 2016 Forecast Early retirement (Schiphol) 39,6 35,8 33,0 31,0 39,8 48,6 52,2 53,8 Early retirement (Regional Unit) 29,5 23,4 18,4 19,0 20,8 21,6 15,6 12,6 Training pool 50,0 43,0 53,0 53,0 53,0 53,0 53,0 53,0 Restructuring pool 4,5 11,6 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Active staff (operational staff) 324,0 329,3 330,3 338,7 338,9 339,3 341,3 340,7 Active staff (support staff) 575,2 519,7 514,0 512,0 501,2 489,3 487,7 487,7 : Total Fte 1.022,8 962,8 948,7 953,7 953,7 951,8 949,8 947,8

153 Review: LVNL indicative financial results 2010 Key figures Actuals 2010 Budget 2010 Actuals 2009 Operating income Operating expenses Provision redundancy payments Net finance cost Result before settlement

154 Meeting the targets safety, capacity and environment KPA FABEC National Target 2012 forecast 2013 forecast 2014 forecast Safety No No No No target target target target Effectiveness of safety management ATC related accidents and incidents (type, number and severity) Application of severity classification of RAT tool Reporting of just culture Capacity Average enroute ATFM delay Environment Horizontal flight efficiency Total average ATFM delay (terminal and en route) Sustainability of declared capacity in first inbound peak. Noise abatement rules related to route and runway use on the basis of Dutch legislation. 1 minute per flight 85% Within legal limits (Dutch law)

155 Meeting the targets cost efficiency 2011 forecast 2012 forecast 2013 forecast 2014 forecast Staff costs Other operating costs Depreciation Cost of capital Exceptional items Total costs LVNL Cost of exempted flights Income from other sources Determined costs in nominal terms Weighted average inflation rate 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% Determined costs in real terms (prices 2009) Total K# service units (base scenario, Feb. 2011) Targeted determined en-route unit rate (-3,5%) - 40,04 38,64 37,29 Budgeted determined en-route unit rate 41,49 38,29 37,34 36,46 (Based upon budgeted cost base issued November Figures are subject of recalibration. Updated figures will be presented during the SCM of May 2011)

156 Questions End of presentation

157 ATM System Strategy LVNL Stakeholder Consultation Meeting April 12 th, 2011

158 Strategic development areas Safety Capacity Environment Cost Efficiency Safety first SSE score Sustainable growth SPL capacity, Sustainability CDA conformity. Noise total, Noise night, Runway & Route usage Economic Cost /Flight h Pursuing the plan ATFM delay, Delay, Taxi out time, ASMA time Horizontal flight efficiency Economic Cost /Flight h, Flighy h /ATCO h Airspace restructuring SPL capacity, Sector capacity Use Civ.-Mil. Airspace, Less fuel burn due to distance FABEC unit rate En - route, En-route Cost / Flight h FABEC centre FABEC unit rate En - route, Terminal charge Continuity and cost efficiency SMS score, Just Culture Terminal charge, FABEC unit rate charge, Flight h /ATCO h, Flight h /Support h

159 Safety first Surveillance coverage ATAS North Sea Runway Safety Development Design taxiway Tango (S6½) Planning AAS Implementation taxiway Tango (S6½) Exit S4½ No crossings of active runways Primary Radar Surveillance Rwy 18R/36L Enhanced Mode-S icas STCA APP Ground based Safety Nets: -APM Level-2 -MSAW Level-2 -APW Level 2 OVV report Turkish Recommendations Lessons learned Airspace Safety Ground Runway Safety North Sea

160 Sustainable growth RNAV ARTIP-36R Mandate P-RNAV Mandate A-RNP1 24 HR SIDs RNAV 06, (18R) (24 HR) GAC: RNAV 06, (18R) +36R Noise Abat. Proc. 22:00 06:00 off-peak, 24HR SIDs Safety Assessm. parallel CDO s RNAV 18R+18C RNAV 06/36R, 18R/18C (Peak) improved delivery (experience, tools, 2nd rwy, ASAS) CDO s 24hr Parallel take-off on diverging SIDs SARA Concept 2 Speeds/Routes Enviroment cluster Flow exclusion for x-wind Safety case rwy use 27/18R RWY combination 27/36R good visibility RNAV en CDO s (ALDERS)

161 Sustainable growth Cat 4 conversion D-pier Cat 4 conversion D-pier A380 GA Terminal Fleet changes

162 Pursuing the plan OLDI: REV, MAC, AMA SARA Delta T AAA*-TP SARA Delta T SARA Speed SARA Concept 2 Speeds/Routes SARA CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT 4D TRAJECTORIES AMAN Platform purchase+hmi development AMAN v1.0 AMAN v2.0 AMAN PLATFORM DEVELOPMENT AIRE Trial Basic CDM (TOBT,TSAT, CPDSP) Enhanced CDM Digital Strips TWR icas AAA-replacement planning AFMU strategic AFMU tactical ASM/ATFCM trial FABEC integrated ASM/ATFCM ASM/ATFCM CDM AMAN

163 Airspace restructuring Airspace Structure Inc. Lelystad 4th IAF Study + Simulation FABEC CBA Land/Central West Design Central West Simulations Central West + CBA land Implementation Transition Altitude 18,000 ft? Optimise Airspace use

164 FABEC centre Cooperation CIV\MIL icas Civ-mil icas Specification Phoenix Last Resort icas Implementation Integration icas Centre OPS transition icas Centre transition fall back facility icas Bremen Contingency ACC/APP RKP, Phoenix VCS Phoenix ++ Fall-Back Fall-back icas Bremen Contingency Fall back

165 Continuity and cost efficiency HARDWARE MAINTENANCE icas Specification icas Implementation Integration icas Centre OPS transition icas Centre Flight Plan Format update CCIS replacement Replacement RDS RD Reduce overload ACC display MUSTANG VCS Backup Air-Ground/Ground- Ground Voice Communications Datalink Replacement Voice Logging System Development VHF-Com Stations RD 8,33 khz channel spacing TAR 4 Replacement ADS-B Sur Communication ATS System

166 Continuity and cost efficiency APV/baro-VNAV proc SPL study impl PBN terminal & enroute study impl GBAS study PBN approach landing DME replacements (transmitters) ILS 18C ILS 06 Vulcanic Ash Procedures All round ATCO Assistents New GA Terminal EAD PRO Camera Surveillance Rwy 18R/36L Other items Navigation

167 End

168 1 MUAC

169 Investments MUAC (x 1.000) Investments MUAC Total ATC Systems EATM Communication Gateway Voice systems New generation CWP ATFCM/ASM Tools ATM SESAR Compliant Total ATC systems Infrastructure Other investments Total

170 Cost efficiency: MUAC part in NL costs and unit rate Costs x Staff Other operating costs Depreciation Interest Income from other sources (excl. incidental income from other sources) Inflation rate 2% 2% 2% 2% Determined costs # service units * Determined unit rate MUAC part 11,18 11,35 11,35 11,38 3

171 4 Cost efficiency: MUAC part in NL Real cost ( 1.000) MUAC Total Service units (# 1.000) Germany and Benelux Real unit rate 8,28 7,75 7,71 7,68 MUAC costs in FIR Amsterdam Real cost ( 1.000) Service units (# 1.000) Real unit rate 11,18 11,35 11,35 11,38

172 5 MUAC Cost Development: MUAC MUAC Total (excl. incidental income from other sources) Cost (nominal) -1.3% 4.1% 4.6% Cost in Euros 2009 # Service units (Germany and Benelux) Unit Rate Real -3.1% 2,2% 2,7% 3,5% 2,8% 3,1% -6.4% -0.6% -0.4% MUAC costs in FIR Amsterdam Cost (nominal) 8,4% 3,8% 4,4% Cost in Euros ,5% 1,9% 2,5% # service units 4,9% 1,9% 2,2% Unit Rate Real 1,5% 0% 0,2%

173 6 Capacity MUAC target in FABEC 2012 Intermediate value 2013 Intermediate Value 2014 Target Alert threshold MUAC tbd

174 Stakeholder Consultation Meeting April 12th

175 Investments KNMI 2009A 2010 A 2011 F 2012F 2013F 2014F Total Systems and hardware 0, ,5 Other 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,9 0,6 0,3 2.3 Investmentsconcern mainlysubstitutionof currentsystemsand meteorological observationequipment. 2 Stakeholder Consultation Meeting April 12th 2

176 3 KNMI Cost development Overall MET ANSP cost(terminal and En Route) in Euro forthe period Realisationof 2010: Thisexceedsthe budget of withk 212. Thisis mainlydueto the data communicationtransitionto VPN (app. k 100) and additionalstaffcost(app. k 100) relatedto the delayedintroductionof AUTO METAR at Rotterdam The HagueAirport. Stakeholder Consultation Meeting April 12th 3

177 4 KNMI Cost development Overall MET ANSP cost and En Route allocationin Euro forthe period Year Total MET Costs Allocation En Route % En Route Costs Numbersin green are basedonrealisation, numbersfrom2011 and onwardsare basedonforecast. Stakeholder Consultation Meeting April 12th 4

178 5 KNMI Staff development AviationStaffdevelopmentof MET ANSP in fteforthe period Year Staff 81,1 78,5 74,3 66,9 60,6 55,4 55,4 55,9 Expected Staff reductions ,5 6,3 5,8 4,8 Total Staff 81,1 78,5 74,3 66,9 67,1 61,7 61,2 60,7 Stakeholder Consultation Meeting April 12th 5

179 6 KNMI FABEC Synergy MET Alliance HarmonisedTAF verificationscheme FABEC services: Roadmapin place 2 physical redundant servers (Offenbach and Toulouse) in 2012 Wind aloftdata Radar data Training workshops Coordinationof regulationpolicy Objective: International operationalcollaboration Increaseefficiency Rationalisation Harmonisation Act as ifwe wereone withinfabec initiative Stakeholder Consultation Meeting April 12th 6

180 7 KNMI Future developments AUTO METAR implementedat Rotterdam as of 15th March2011. Further optimisationof AUTO METAR concept willcontinue. Sharebest practicewithin Europevia ICAO InformationPaper. Improveharmonisationand efficiency of FABEC MeteorologicalServices via MET Alliance. InsertDutch meteorologicalbest practicesin SESAR WP11.2: Centralizedweatherroom Weatherdependentdeploymentof MeteorologicalAdvisorSchiphol(MAS) AUTO METAR Probability forecasting RunwayVisual Range (RVR) forecasting Derivationof Wind and TemperaturefromModeSdata Contributionin MainportSchipholCDM Stakeholder Consultation Meeting April 12th 7

181 1 NSA (incl. Eurocontrol HQ)

182 Cost developments NSA Fixed price for 2011: 1,4 M for NSA-NL activities. For the amount will be 1,8 M each year for NSA-NL activities. ATCO licensing and SERA activities by the NSA-NL are not included in this price; At the moment not possible to make a reliable forecast of the necessary number of hours and the costs. 2

183 Cost developments NSA 1. NSA personnel continue to use the All Solutions system for registration of hours spent per activity. Also there is a registration of costs for international NSA trips and training. 2. This information is used to verify the assumptions used and will be used for RP2. 3. After each 3 months a check is performed, to see whether the assumptions used are still valid. So far, the early indication is they are. 3

184 Cost developments Eurocontrol Eurocontrol Agency Business Planning has to be accelerated Final figures will be delivered around April, 15th October 2010 Eurocontrol figures included in the calculations Nominal costs Costs in Euros Eurocontrol part of unit rate 5,53 5,77 5,55 5,32 4

185 !,,#A!"#$%&'() *"+,%-.) ( /0 &10%)0/2 #"#"3" 45 -## 8# & 67&665, ""0 &"+%+&) &"#$8#%+&)9 &"':(%;!(!)9 &"' %;!'!)9 &"6%!'!)9 &"4%;!7!9 &"#4%+.&;)9 &"6#8%+.&;)9 &"%-.)9 &" %-.)9 &"6 <%-.)9 &"=<%-.)9 &"+,%-.)9 &"-8%-.)9 &"$<%.6!)9 &"+%&>!7)9 &"-?@%&>!7)9 &"#&%6,)9 &"%&(975)9 &"#$%&() &"4 %&() /

186 !"#$%&'() *"+,%-.) ( /0 &10%)0/2 #"#"3" 45 -## 8# & 67&665, ""0 &"+%+&) &"#$8#%+&)9 &"':(%;!(!)9 &"' %;!'!)9 &"6%!'!)9 &"4%;!7!9 &"#4%+.&;)9 &"6#8%+.&;)9 &"%-.)9 &" %-.)9 &"6 <%-.)9 &"=<%-.)9 &"+,%-.)9 &"-8%-.)9 &"$<%.6!)9 &"+%&>!7)9 &"-?@%&>!7)9 &"#&%6,)9 &"%&(975)9 &"#$%&() &"4 %&() (9&"9,"!&#67&,,"(5 6<#7 &66,5,";5&>!7,"(55 #"(<-.5",!#" &$<# 5>7&56, 9.6!#.6!5A#,#"( /

187 @9.6!<5A#,#"!59.6!#5A#,#"!"#$# &-#$,566A# 5 C# B!4755@# "9555@ B!47 ##," &+#<5 5B!47 #, 555@B!47"(B!47&6 #"&-#$,55,#@,5##&6@ " $#A9 <5$,, 55,"'#,5, %#D!,)"!,#,55"&-#$8#< #,55B!47&69,<,"(5,##5,###"%%&')" (!&)* &"5,#55-.9,#"(5# 5,,5597B',,#59,,#, 5 ##"(5 <#!(7'"( ##59 5 9, #< 5,89B!47%74!#)#%55!#!) -.E!(&@#, F@,,5 8"(, &4#A,5@# 5,55,@%G,2# 5 5#5!7,)"(, #5 #,,,,5#55@#,#,5 " 0 0/

188 &'E(<&4" #;,9#,,5 9 &,,,, 5#"; #5#A,#5 # " ;-.5@# 5,#"(,55#," &4#&5#," -.5,#59# 55@"4@55,, 5-." &,5,5"( # #55<";## 5!.69 <";5<A#H <"4H#H@0H5<@!.6" 5,8 #@5,"!.6 # <,,@" &+ #@,,"&, #@-."&-6 ##@ ".A&A,##<,E#55@9,@9"&#$@#@ 5!(B&#@% #) #, 55-.";,5"#,555 52H" 4 # 9#@55, @ #" ".A###"&# # 67& 5#5!7,)"-. 5A,!.6B!47"7##9 /

189 (!+)$, G,"(+.&;#,955 "G" 5!>(' " -!./, #5 B 6"7##B 6%4 #@#B $<?,#&7#?,)" <, 5%)# ## 5,"&>!7 <,A#,.!"(@ # B6%+ )#.#6"&>!7E,5 59+&9=@!94!@#4!"&' #@&"' " # 6.!##B!47,5"( #@"'#@I. 7$<%7$)J9I!(B7&F!6&I# I66!=7,!(&J"(5,8,@, 89@,,#,566!= #" 655@55,# "6,,55@"!5 55@95,#" ;# 5"0H5 #,#0" &4#,,#&>!7E,5"(5,# #5,5,@#55@"! /

190 #<#,6" =9&>!7 <@## B #< &>!7#55#85,"(, 5&>!7," 0!)1, &"$<,.6!";, &$<5#.6!<5A#,#"(,#%.6!"&)"(.6!5,# K92&, 9 #!(7'#6=! "(@#@" &"#$A,5# L "(#5 L## #!, " 2 # 5 55@"(65# #5!#B;="(55<@,,-.55,#"4&>!7#-. 5,##5 5 5 #55#<"B,,"> C"'5 5 9,##5 # 67&9# M0"H, 9A,5" &4#5 #,,# 5< "&-#$#-. #@< #,,# #, " &-#$A,##, &#$@##5&-#$ #A,5 "&-#$A,55A,9,@ 9-.#&@5;&#,@ <" 3./4 '55,5 #&"'E( <&@9!.6#.6!5 #5,##" 9 55# 5#," ;#,,,#. /

191 5 " (5 5,5 5#55 " &5G #"!6# #,### (8 55 #,5G #<5 #555< 55" &4#5#,,#"!, #5 #,5"!#,5,9 5# @ ";,# #,5 # 55!.6" #G 5,5,"( 5A67&" ; ##+.&;#@ ## # 67&&@ " / //

192

193

194

195 ! " # $

196 % &"'( ) * ) +, -. % &'( ) / % 0&( ) 121(+ # % 0& '( ) 3(+ # % 0&0( ) 4( # % 0&0'( ) 5 (67( # % 0&"( ) # /# # % 0&'( ) 35 % "&( ) + % "&"'( )

197 % +# + ( ) + ) ) ) 8# 0

198 % +, & %! 9:/+ &&&& "

199 / % ( ) / ) ;# # ; " 121 & & & < 3 &0 &" & % ( ) ;;#-. ) /# 4 = = ;# -#. -#. /# <'> $&'> '

200 !? ( %? : :/ & % +/ + 8+ ( ) + +@! /#+= & ) 31(;;*,/A+ ) */(;;*/:B B '/& ) =#:# +( CDB,0'),"& % 1( (9 # #! "#$%!!&'!!( ) #%!% % " ) *+ E

201 F 121+

202 < # * # 121! /# < -D '>. A! (>, A! G/#& 4! (! "&'A! *# 3! : 2: GA! 3

203 $ 121# G -H4C. G +$ ;4I+ -;;*,/, /#. >=! >=! &"EF <&FE &F 0&'E<!,E>,0> 0,> E& & < &"'0 &<'$!0,<>!,E>,"> &''' &E< &F00 &F$" G ","$ 0<,' 0F, 0E,< >=!!<,0>!,">!,<> + $,F> <$,'> <<,F> 3: "," 0<,E" 0F,$

204 "& & & <& E& "& & & $<& $E& 0 " G <&$' E&F'$ <& 0F &EE' G +$ E& & < &"'0 &<'$ G 121 ","$ 0<,' 0F, 0E,< 3!: "," 0<,E" 0F,$ ", ", ", 0$, 0<, 0F, 0E, 0', 0",

205 3+

206 3# G -H4C. $&0EE 0 &0FF 0&'$0 0"&'' >=! E,<> 0,$> ',$> G + $ <&'E< $&$E" 0&''' 0 &FE ;4I+ -;;*,/, /#. >=! ",$>,> 0,$> &''' &E< &F00 &F$" G, <, <, <,0F >=!,>,>,F> +,>,>,F> 3:,F$," &'

207 MUAC costs and unit rate , ,00 NL Part of MUAC costs ,50 Determined costs in real terms Price level Determined MUAC NL rate 10, EU-wide target , NL Part of MUAC costs Determined costs in real terms Price level Determined MUAC NL rate 11,18 11,18 11,18 11,37 EU-wide target 10,79 10,41 10,05 9,00

208 " 4# G -H4C. >=! G +$ F&<F F&F< F&'"" F&'""!, >!, >,> >=! ;4I+ -;;*,/, /#. F&E" F&00" F&0F E&<$<!",>!", >!,> &''' &E< &F00 &F$" G,$$,F",'F,"F >=! $,'> $", > $',$> + 3: $,'> <E, > <,E>,<$,F<,E$

209 Cost K <& F&< F&E F&" F& F& E&< E&E E&" Total cost KNMI nominal Determined costs in real terms Price level Determined unit rate KNMI 2,99 2,74 2,57 2,47 EU wide target 2,89 2,78 2,69 3,5 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0

210 E -,G67. G -H4C. >=! G +$ ;4I+ -;;*,/, /#. >=! F&'"' <& F <& F <& F 0,0>,>,> F& F&0' E&<$ E&''0,0>!,>!,> ''' E< F00 F$" G E,EE E,"0 E, < ',$ >=!!0,'>!0,$>!", > + 3: $E,'> $,<> <<,$> E,"0 E, ',$$

211 <&' E,< <& E,E F&' E," E, F& E, E&' ',< E& ',E '&' '," 0 " G J F&'"' <& F <& F <& F J F& F&0' E&<$ E&''0 G J E,EE E,"0 E, < ',$ 3!: E,"0 E, ',$$

212 < # # G -H4C. E0&F< E0&$F EE&" F &<" >=!, E>,"<> 0,F> G - +$. '$&0< 'E&'"$ ''&$0 '<&E >=!!,F>!,">,"> ;4I+ -;;*,/, /#. &''' &E< &F00 &F$" G E,0 '<,0$ 'F,' 'E,'F >=!!E,0>!,0>!,<> + $0,F> $,'> $,<> 3: E, " 'E,0' '',E

213 Determined costs nominal Determined costs in real terms Price level Determined unit rate FIR Amsterdam 62,32 58,39 57,05 56,57 EU-wide target 60,14 58,04 56,01 63,00 62,00 61,00 60,00 59,00 58,00 57,00 56,00 55,00 54,00 53,00 52,00

214 8# (!#. % #/-3-3 $F=.(#8#. % 9( ) 121 ) /121 % G/:#K121#,( ), ) 8 8# ) 8#

215 % + ) 1,/ % #( ) 3:/#3):#, / "A ) 135#-.+ 1/ ) G1215$ + ) 3!:!" 121!,0> 4! F&"> 3 L &F> % 8#( ) # ) G/ 5! & > ;!$&> 3!:! & >

216 Stakeholder Consultation Meeting LVNL presentation May 19 th, 2011

217 Content Follow up consultation April 12 th, 2011 Investment plan Performance Effect on safety, efficiency and environment performance Cost efficiency LVNL budget Determined costs en-route Presentation of April 12th, 2011

218 Follow up consultation April 12 th, 2011 Update of financial figures is required Clarify performance effect of investment plan ATFM delay and sustainability targets not ambitious enough (KLM) Remark ACE report 2010: investments are very high considering the fact that no problems are foreseen for capacity ATCO cost increased 44% between , yet productivity has only increased by 8%

219 Remark ACE report Movements vs TWR/APP ATCOs Movements TWR/APP # ATCOs TWR/APP Movements vs ACC ATCOs Movements ACC # ATCOs ACC

220 Investment plan [1 2] Budget period Total Mustang (COM) 0,5 2,9 0,2 3,6 Contingency 0,3 3,2 2,9 6,4 Replacement TAR-4 (SUR) 8,0 8,0 Replacement VCS (COM) 3,5 4,5 4,0 6,3 6,8 25,1 Fallback air-ground ground-ground voice 1,6 3,6 5,2 Replacement AAA 1,5 1,5 72,0 75,0 Replacement IT office automation 2,3 2,3 Replacement LAR Herwijnen (SUR) 3,3 6,7 10,0 Other investments 13,6 12,4 8,6 6,0 8,8 7,7 57,1 Total 19,7 27,0 26,6 15,9 15,8 7,7 80,0 192,7 Budget period Total Mustang (COM) 0,6 2,0 2,6 Contingency 3,6 2,9 6,5 Replacement TAR-4 (SUR) 8,0 8,0 Replacement VCS (COM) 3,1 4,4 3,6 5,9 6,6 23,6 Fallback air-ground ground-ground voice 1,5 3,7 2,0 7,2 Replacement AAA (FDP) 3,2 2,9 21,3 31,5 11,7 4,4 75,0 Replacement IT office automation 0,5 1,7 2,2 Reservation possible acquisition TWR Schiphol 6,8 6,8 Primary radar coverage Polderbaan (18R/36L) 1,5 1,5 3,0 Digital strips TWR Schiphol 2,1 2,1 Adjustment facilities 25,0 25,0 50,0 Other investments 6,5 11,2 6,9 6,0 6,2 4,5 5,8 47,1 Total 9,6 23,5 28,3 36,2 50,1 43,2 43,2 234,1 Difference budget 2011 vs ,1-3,5 1,7 20,3 34,3 35,5-36,8 41,4

221 Investment plan [2 2] Factsheets investments Mustang (COM) Contingency (fall back facility APP and ACC) Replacement terminal approach radar (SUR) Replacement voice communication system (COM) Fallback air-ground ground-ground voice Replacement AAA (FDP) Replacement IT office automation Reservation possible acquisition TWR Schiphol Primary radar coverage Polderbaan (18R/36L) Digital strips TWR Schiphol Adjustment facilities

222 Mustang (COM) Description High band signal network hardware and application Requirement The demand for transport capacity of high-band signals is increasing. To accommodate these highband signals, specific hardware needs to be incorporated in the existing network. This project is a pre-requisite for the implementation of the new voice communication system (VCS). Performance targets Cost efficiency: realisation of cost (rent of communication lines) savings Capacity: enabler for future growth and implementation of SESAR concept ATM Master plan operational improvements n/a Planned operational in use date June 2012 Financial data Capex: Status: partly contracted Allocation to en-route charging zone: 54,5% Useful life: 15 years

223 Contingency (fall back facility APP and ACC) Description Medium term fall back approach and area control at Riekerpolder location (existing LVNL location) Requirement Realise fall back facility for approach and area control Performance targets Capacity target: within 48 hours level of service provision is restored at 70%-100% of current peak hour capacity Planned operational in use date 2012 Financial data Capex: Status: not contracted Allocation to en-route charging zone: 100% Useful life: 15 years ATM Master plan operational improvements Contingency facility complies with SES, SESAR and is realised in bilateral FABEC cooperation.

224 Replacement terminal approach radar (SUR) Description Replacement of terminal approach radar Schiphol (TAR-4) Planned operational in use date 2016 Requirement Maintain the necessary level of situational awareness in the terminal manoeuvring area Schiphol. One of the terminal approach radars Schiphol is end of life and needs to be replaced. Financial data Capex: Status: not contracted Allocation to en-route charging zone: 90% Useful life: 15 years Eurocontrol guidelines (Radar Surveillance in En- Route Airspace and major terminal areas) commission primary radar coverage in high density TMAs Performance targets N/a. Necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures. ATM Master plan operational improvements n/a

225 Replacement voice communication system (COM) Description Replacement of voice communication system (VCS) including transmitters, receivers, monitoring and control systems, etc. Requirement Safeguard communication link with pilot and other ATCOs. Current VCS is end of life and is not able to accommodate future growth (more frequencies) Planned operational in use date 2014 Financial data Capex: Status: contract Allocation to en-route charging zone: 54,5% Useful life: 15 years Performance targets Necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures. Capacity: accommodates future growth ATM Master plan operational improvements Necessary replacement date is too early for FABEC coordination

226 Fallback air-ground ground-ground VCS Description Replacement of fall back new voice communication system (VCS) Requirement Safeguard fall back option of communication link with pilot and other ATCOs. Current fall back option of VCS is end of life Planned operational in use date 2014 Financial data Capex: Status: not contracted Allocation to en-route charging zone: 54,5% Useful life: 15 years Performance targets Necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures. Capacity: increased capacity during degradation mode ATM Master plan operational improvements System requirements were developed in bilateral FABEC cooperation (DFS)

227 Replacement AAA (FDP) Description Replacement of AAA (flight data processing system) with itec Centre Automation System (icas) Requirement Hardware AAA end of life by Accommodate the implementation of SESAR concept Establish interoperability of systems within FABEC to achieve FABEC performance targets Prevent costly adaptations and rehosting Performance targets Necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures and increased maintenance costs. Enabler for implementing SESAR concept (e.g. 4D trajectory based operations, improved interoperability) and meeting the FABEC performance targets. ATM Master plan operational improvements Facilitates multiple operational improvements Planned operational in use date 2017 Financial data Capex: Status: joined icas consortium Allocation to en-route charging zone: 100% Useful life: 15 years

228 Replacement IT office automation Description Replacement of ICT infrastructure, desktops, laptops, software licences, etc. Planned operational in use date 2012 Requirement ICT equipment is end of life and failure rate exceeds 10%. Professionalise ICT support function Financial data Capex: Status: preparing European tendering Allocation to en-route charging zone: 90% Useful life: 3 years Performance targets N/a. Necessary replacement. ATM Master plan operational improvements N/a.

229 Reservation possible acquisition TWR Schiphol Description Contractually agreed decision whether to rent or buy the control tower Schiphol. Planned operational in use date August 2011 (decision date) Requirement LVNL has a lease contract for the control tower at Schiphol. This contract includes a decision whether to rent or buy the control tower. A cost benefit analysis is required to support this decision. Financial data Capex: Status: option in existing contract Allocation to en-route charging zone: 0% Useful life: years Performance targets Cost efficiency: realisation of cost savings ATM Master plan operational improvements N/a.

230 Primary radar coverage Polderbaan (18R/36L) Description Implement a surface movement radar at runway 18R/36L Planned operational in use date 2013 Requirement Improved primary radar coverage runway 18R/36L Performance targets Safety: maintain level of safety Capacity: increased availability of Schiphol main runway 18R/36L Financial data Capex: Status: not contracted Allocation to en-route charging zone: 0% Useful life: 15 years ATM Master plan operational improvements N/a.

231 Digital strips TWR Schiphol Description Implement a system with digital strips at all towers at Schiphol airport Planned operational in use date 2014 Requirement Digitising of flight plan information supports collaborative planning and decision making and enables a more efficient workflow Financial data Capex: Status: not contracted Allocation to en-route charging zone: 0% Useful life: 10 years Performance targets Safety: improves with better unambiguous data distribution Capacity: information sharing supports collaborative decision making and improves planning ATM Master plan operational improvements N/a.

232 Adjustment facilities Description Study the necessary adjustment to facilities Requirement Facilities must be able to accommodate: - the transition of AAA to icas - fall back option (contingency approach and area control) - possible consequences of civil military integration Performance targets Guarantees service provision during transition phases, hosts new functionalities and organisational changes. ATM Master plan operational improvements N/a. Planned operational in use date 2017 Financial data Capex: (early estimate) Status: not contracted Allocation to en-route charging zone: 90% Useful life: 30 years

233 Performance safety, capacity and environment KPA FABEC National Target 2012 forecast 2013 forecast 2014 forecast Safety No target No No No target target target Effectiveness of safety management ATC related accidents and incidents (type, number and severity) Application of severity classification of RAT tool Reporting of just culture Capacity Average enroute ATFM delay Environment Horizontal flight efficiency Total average ATFM delay (terminal and en route) Total average ATFM delay en-route Sustainability of declared capacity in first inbound peak Noise abatement rules related to route and runway use on the basis of Dutch legislation 1 minute per flight 0,7 0,5 minute per flight 92,5% Within legal limits (Dutch law)

234 Cost efficiency: total costs LVNL budget Som van Amount Budget Budget Actuals Restructuring costs 21,2 mio

235 Cost efficiency: Staff costs LVNL budget Starting in 2013 inflation correction of Increased need for ATCOs (traffic Som van Amount Staff costs effect of FTE reduction agreement no increase in wages Increase in pension premiums 1,5% per year outlook) Budget Budget Actuals Restructuring costs 21,2 mio

236 Cost efficiency: depreciation costs LVNL budget Som van Amount Depreciation costs Reduction due to postponing investments Reduction resulting from increased cost control (standardisation) After 2016 increase in depreciation costs due to large investments (replacement AAA) Budget Budget Actuals

237 Cost efficiency: operating costs LVNL budget Som van Amount Operating costs 2009 and 2010 were subject of major cost reductions In 2011 more activities will be initiated but costs are budgeted still below 2008 levels ( 43,5 million) New activities not directly related to operations will, if possible, be funded externally Budget Budget Actuals

238 Cost efficiency Determined costs en-route LVNL determined costs en-route charging zone Staff costs Restructuring costs Other operating costs Depreciation costs Cost of capital Total costs LVNL Cost of exempted VFR flights Income from other sources Determined costs in nominal terms Inflation rate 0,0% 1,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% Weighted average inflation rate 0,00% 0,90% 1,79% 1,81% 1,82% 1,82% Accumulated inflation correction factor based on the weighted inflation rate 100,00% 99,10% 98,21% 98,19% 98,18% 98,18% Determined costs in real terms (prices 2009) Total service units (base scenario: Feb. 2011) Budgeted determined en-route unit rate 41,49 38,05 37,12 36,81 Targeted determined en-route unit rate - 40,04 38,64 37,29 Development determined en-route unit rate 50,06 42,35 41,49 38,05 37,12 36,81 % change -18,2% -2,1% -9,0% -2,5% -0,8%

239 Determined costs in real terms (prices 2009) Determined costs in real terms (prices 2009) Determined costs in real terms (prices 2009) Restructuring costs 14,4 mio

240 Determined en-route unit rate Development determined en-route unit rate 80,00 70,00 60,00 50,00 40,00 30,00 20,00 10, Development determined en-route unit rate 50,06 42,35 41,49 38,05 37,12 36,81

241 Questions End of presentation

242 Stakeholder Consultation Steenokkerzeel - May 19, 2011 Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation

243 Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre MUAC and FABEC MUAC delegated airspace covers 260,000 km2 (above DFL 245) extending over Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and North-West Germany In 2010, 1,447,872 IFR flights controlled equating to 537,907 flight-hours and 5,822,523 service units Annual costs (2010): 139 Mio. Route charges generated (2010): 402 Mio.

244 MUAC performance MUAC and SES II PERFORMANCE SCHEME Safety, Capacity and Environment are part of FABEC Performance Plan Cost effectiveness is part of individual Four States National Plans MUAC identifies additional internal indicators and targets MUAC Business Plan and Annual Plan Consolidate MUAC objectives and improvement plans Compliant with SES II Common Requirements MUAC is committed to safeguarding its outstanding operational performance ensuring transparency in Four States National Plans Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre

245 STAFF DEVELOPMENT Including 11 ATCO s which are leased to Austro Control until 2013 Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre

246 STAFF DEVELOPMENT Intake planning Number of AI 2 0 AI 53 AI 54 AI 55 AI 56 AI 57 AI 58 AI 59 AI 60 AI 61 AI 62 AI 63 AI 64 AI 65 AI 66 AI Planned intake Reduction Sept Reduction March 2010 Reduction Nov Decisions to reduce intakes of Ab Initio students were taken dynamically since November This evaluation process will be continued during RP1. Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre

247 INVESTMENT PROGRAMME Investments MUAC Total ATC Systems EATM Communication Gateway Voice systems New generation CWP ATFCM/ASM Tools SESAR Compliant ATM Total ATC systems Infrastructure Other investments Total Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre

248 ATC Systems Impact assessment on RP Main driver Implementation Impact RP1 Voice Systems New Voice Communication System Replacement 2014 Low VoIP Radios Replacement 2014 Low New Tower Contingency 2015 None New generation CWP Productivity 2015 None ATFCM / ASM Tools Capacity Low SESAR Compliant ATM Upgrade Flight Data processing 2014 Low Capacity & DL-FEP (Data link Front End Processor) 2016 None Safety IOP (Interoperability Ground-Ground) 2016 None i4d (interoperability Air-Ground) 2016 None * All projects 100% allocated to En Route * Detailed justifications available Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre

249 COST EFFICIENCY MEASURES DURING RP1 Cost category Measures Staff costs Optimisation of ATCO deployment Roster optimisation Central Supervisory Suite Cross training ATCO s Review recruitment programme Ab Initio s Outsourced Ab Initio training (to FABEC partners) ATCO lease to Austrocontrol ( ) Reduce support cost ratio Operating costs Depreciation / investments Renegotiation of running contracts (permanent) Common procurement of a FABEC compliant New Voice Communication System with DSNA Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre

250 Costs x 1000 (in nominal value) 2011 Baseline COST EFFICIENCY SUMMARY Staff Other operating costs Depreciation Interest Exceptional items (incl. incidental income from other sources) Total MUAC % + 3.9% +5.9% Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre

251 COST EFFICIENCY SUMMARY MUAC Costs RP1 Vs. Nov (nominal value) A 2011 B 2012 P 2013 P 2014 P Grand Total RP Plan Nov Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre

252 COST EFFICIENCY SUMMARY Costs x Baseline MUAC Total Nominal Costs Determined Cost (Real terms EUR 2009) Service units (# 1.000) (in MUAC Area of Responsibility) Determined MUAC Unit Rate (EUR 2009) % % 0.9 % Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre

253 MUAC CONTRIBUTION TO NL Costs x MUAC Cost Share for FIR AMS % % % % Determined Cost MUAC NL (Real terms EUR 2009) Service units (# 1.000) (In total Dutch airspace) Determined MUAC NL rate 11,18 11,18 11,18 11,37 Delta 0.0 % 0.0 % 1.7 % The contribution of MUAC s performance to the Dutch Airspace is negatively influenced by an increased cost-sharing key for the Netherlands and by STATFOR traffic forecast which is lower than MUAC average. Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre

254 END Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation

255 - 1 - MAASTRICHT UAC - INVESTMENT PLAN Following document is providing with a description and a performance assessment of the major investment projects as contained in the Financial Plan Table 1 In 000 EUR P P P P P Infrastructure ATC Systems Voice Systems New Generation CWP ATFCM / ASM Tools Sesar Compliant ATM Total ATC Systems Other investments Total DESCRIPTIONS 1.1. VOICE SYSTEMS Voice systems include the procurement of a new VCS system, of VoIP compatible radios and the construction of a new tower at MUAC premises N-VCS The current primary Voice Communication System (VCS) came into operation at Maastricht UAC (MUAC) in 1996, almost 15 years ago. The standards and communication protocols in the area of voice communications have undergone significant changes over the last years and will continue to evolve. The current VCS will not be able to support these new protocols and standards. The VCS hardware in service at MUAC is also obsolete and the costs of maintenance are expected to increase in the coming years. This project consists of the development and commissioning of a new Voice Communication System at MUAC, compliant with the FABEC CONOPS. MUAC and DSNA decided to launch a common procurement procedure in August MCG authorisation has been received. Contract signature is planned mid-april 2011 and commissioning expected in January Economic lifetime is 15 years.

256 - 2 - Performance assessment: cost-savings through partnership in procurement and maintenance; ensure continuation of service, at least at current capacity levels (Primary VCS failure leads to 50% Capacity reduction); safety will increase because of the improved reliability of the VCS system; cost efficiency will be improved by enhanced functionalities VoIP compatible radios The current air-to-ground radios were procured and installed from 1995 to For reasons of obsolescence their replacement is planned after about 15 years of service. The evolutions in communication standards and protocols in the area of voice communications are equally applicable to the air-to-ground radio. Performance assessment: The advanced functions offered by N-VCS will only be fully capitalised upon when all elements in the voice architecture chain will have been harmonised Antenna tower The building of an additional transmitter antenna tower is planned in In 2016, the existing antenna and transmitter infrastructure on the roof of the main building will be renewed. Performance assessment: solve the vulnerability issue currently existing in the Brussels sector Group (the main VCS radio transmitters of all Brussels sector frequencies are in one single location); enhance flexibility by allowing maintenance activities on the transmitter antennas without the mandatory switching to Backup VCS operations during the maintenance activity; implement a local contingency NEW GENERATION CWP The New Generation Controller Working Position (CWP) is required to increase flexibility and capacity in the present OPS Room and Training and Testing Room (TTR) at MUAC, as well as to reduce the maintenance costs. The New Generation CWP project includes development of a modern software environment for the HMI, design of a new small-size console and the deployment in the OPS Room and in the Training and Test Rooms (TTR). Commissioning is planned in ; economic lifetime is 15 years for the furniture, the cooling and the electrical distribution, and 12 years for the development environment (software).

257 - 3 - Performance assessment: The New Generation console: facilitates an extension of the number of controller working positions in the OPS Room; reduces the costs linked to physical re-deployments in the OPS room; allows to re-group equipment in dedicated areas (equipment rooms) and results in optimal cooling (reduction of costs and positive impact on the environment); provides an efficient and ergonomic working environment, conducive of increased safety and productivity. The new development environment: solves the limitations of the current development tools; allows the development of new operational functionalities taking advantage of state of the art graphical features; reduces the maintenance costs; increases the reliability and the safety of the HMI. The deployment in the OPS room: allows a more ergonomic data-management at the controller working position, which in turn will enable introduction of new tools and concepts for the controller conducive of increased safety and productivity; includes noise reduction measures and a better spreading of light than today, both conducive of increased safety and productivity; allows a more efficient overall OPS room lay-out, conducive of increased safety and productivity ATFCM / ASM TOOLS Introduction of ATFCM (Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management)/ASM (Airspace Management) tools. The objectives are to: improve the effectiveness of the TCM (Tactical Capacity Management) process with on-line decision making support tools capable of predicting sector workloads, simulating effects on workload distribution in scenarios of expected traffic demand within the context of ATC constraints, airspace, weather and staffing conditions, and capable of determining optimum sectorisation configurations, using an efficient and ergonomic HMI; support the further developments of the TCM process, by establishing best practices and identifying the most beneficial improvements in terms of data, tool, support and procedures, including interactions with the ATC, Strategic and Pretactical ATFCM, CRM (Customer Relationship Management), ASM (Airspace Management) and HRM (Human Resource Management) processes. Commissioning is planned in and the expected economic lifetime is 12 years (software).

258 - 4 - Performance assessment: the ASM Tool will further foster application of FUA Levels 1, 2 and 3, tool-support being a pre-requisite for the Military Partners; improved flight safety due to system support for sharing data between all involved partners (e.g. Activation Status of Military Areas); improvements in efficiency and capacity through better planning of the resources needed to cope with the evolution of the traffic demand over the day of operation; an integrated set of tools, making full use of the N-FDPS functionalities and Network Manager s (NM) inputs SESAR COMPLIANT ATM The N-FDPS and its Advanced HMI were put into service in MUAC on 12 December The system is compliant with the efdp specifications of April 2000 which also served as inputs to systems being currently developed, like itec and Co-flight. It was the first efdp compliant Trajectory-based system fielded in the Core area of Europe. Like the other ANSPs operating in the FABEC area, MUAC needs to evolve its ATM systems (MADAP) in order to deploy the operational concepts and technology being validated during the SESAR Development Phase, and enforced in the Deployment Phase by the emerging SES II requirements (European ATM Master Plan and related Operational Improvements). To facilitate the transition and reduce overall costs MUAC is participating to the pre-operational validations conducted as part of the SESAR development phase in 4 areas which were carefully selected because of the added value to the MUAC Operations Room and globally to the European network: i4d to full 4D (interoperability air-ground): exchange of trajectories with the aircraft FMS (Flight Management System) will increase safety levels within the MUAC OPS Room, while enabling capacity growth at Network Level; IOP (interoperability ground-ground): exchange of trajectories with neighbouring Centres and the Network Manager will create both capacity and increase safety levels in MUAC at the extremities of the MUAC AoR, while enabling global capacity growth at Network Level; Complexity Management: Meta Sector Planner and Traffic Management System will increase efficiency of the MUAC OPS Room by better matching of ATCOs to the traffic patterns. Network related activities: AFUA, Enhanced Demand/Capacity Balancing and dynamic DCB processes, and User Preferred Routings have a direct impact on the operating costs of the Aircraft Operators. MUAC has budgeted to field the Operational Improvement in the start of the Deployment Phase window identified in the ATM Master Plan (IOC, Initial Operational Capability). This will start already in 2012 (AFUA) and extend in the following years in accordance with the European ATM MP.

259 - 5 - Performance assessment: The performance objectives were documented in the deliverables of the SESAR Definition Phase.

260 ! "#$%&'( )#*&'( ' +, -,&(,+. $#$#/# *0 2$$3$ $ )1) )0,#,# #4#"&)"( #5#*&6"1"7 #)#*&'( #'#*&*"8( #9#*&*"( #:# &24(7 #2#$28&" "( #:#9;&0( :#:&)")( #)#<=0&0( # #<&<( #<#<&>"1(7 #)#&'$>>"1( ##8&6"'"(7 #:#&'710(7 #?#@&>"1(7 #*#@A&24(7 ##?B'&6"'"(7 #*#$%3$&<(7 #9#58&>"1(7 #"#$%&'(

261 ! "#$%&'( )#*&'( ' +, -,&(,+. $#$#/# *0 2$$3$ $ )1) )0,#,# #4#"&)"( #5#*&6"1"7 #)#*&'( #'#*&*"8( #9#*&*"( #:# &24(7 #2#$28&" "( #:#9;&0( :#:&)")( #)#<=0&0( # #<&<( #<#<&>"1(7 #)#&'$>>"1( ##8&6"'"(7 #:#&'710(7 #?#@&>"1(7 #*#@A&24(7 ##?B'&6"'"(7 #*#$%3$&<(7 #9#58&>"1(7 #"#$%&'( '7#7C,#,$)1 CC0*$5# '$ )A$1) )C0 C00087$D8C$ C#'A*0# C"$#

Screening Chapter 14 Transport. Single European Sky (SES) 18 December Transport

Screening Chapter 14 Transport. Single European Sky (SES) 18 December Transport Screening Chapter 14 Single European Sky (SES) 18 December 2014 SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY OBJECTIVES: INCREASE SAFETY, EFFICIENCY, CAPACITY & PERFORMANCE Reduce fragmentation and complexity of ATM in Europe

More information

ANNEX ANNEX. to the. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU).../...

ANNEX ANNEX. to the. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU).../... Ref. Ares(2018)5478153-25/10/2018 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, XXX [ ](2018) XXX draft ANNEX ANNEX to the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU).../... laying down a performance and charging scheme in

More information

ATM in Europe It s all about Performance

ATM in Europe It s all about Performance ATM in Europe It s all about Performance Facts and analysis from Performance Review World ATM Congress 2014, Madrid Xavier FRON Performance coordinator 5 March 2014 Topics ANS in aviation context European

More information

ROMANIA NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN. Ministry of Transports and Infrastructure. for Air Navigation Services

ROMANIA NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN. Ministry of Transports and Infrastructure. for Air Navigation Services ROMANIA NATIONAL Ministry of Transports and Infrastructure PERFORMANCE PLAN for Air Navigation Services 2012 2014 Approved by Order of the Ministry of Transports and Infrastructure No. 559 of 22 July 2011

More information

- Establish criteria and procedures providing for the creation and use of adjustable lateral and vertical limits of the airspace

- Establish criteria and procedures providing for the creation and use of adjustable lateral and vertical limits of the airspace - Establish criteria and procedures providing for the creation and use of adjustable lateral and vertical limits of the airspace ot yet, however planned. Criteria and procedures for the creation and use

More information

(Non-legislative acts) REGULATIONS

(Non-legislative acts) REGULATIONS 9.5.2013 Official Journal of the European Union L 128/1 II (Non-legislative acts) REGULATIONS COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 390/2013 of 3 May 2013 laying down a performance scheme for air

More information

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU)

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 18.10.2011 Official Journal of the European Union L 271/15 COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1034/2011 of 17 October 2011 on safety oversight in air traffic management and air navigation services

More information

European Performance Scheme

European Performance Scheme European Performance Scheme Global Challenges to Improve Air Navigation Performance Asilomar Conference Grounds, Pacific Grove, CA 12 February 2015 Rolf TUCHHARDT European Commission, DG MOVE The SES policy

More information

PERFORMANCE REPORT CAPACITY

PERFORMANCE REPORT CAPACITY PERFORMANCE REPORT 2015-2019 CAPACITY December 2018 Contents Description & Analysis 3 FABEC TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT (en-route) 4 FABEC TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT (arrival) 5 KPI #1: En-route ATFM delay per controlled

More information

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT DIRECTORATE E - Air Transport E.2 - Single sky & modernisation of air traffic control Brussels, 6 April 2011 MOVE E2/EMM D(2011) 1. TITLE

More information

PERFORMANCE REPORT CAPACITY

PERFORMANCE REPORT CAPACITY PERFORMANCE REPORT 2015-2019 CAPACITY January 2019 Contents Description & Analysis 3 FABEC TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT (en-route) 4 FABEC TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT (arrival) 5 KPI #1: En-route ATFM delay per controlled

More information

Civil Aviation Agency of Latvia

Civil Aviation Agency of Latvia Civil Aviation Agency of Latvia Reference period One: 2012-2014 Document approval The Republic of Latvia is submitting this performance plan for air navigation services prepared by the Latvia s State Agency

More information

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Draft. COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No /2010

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Draft. COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No /2010 COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, XXX Draft COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No /2010 of [ ] on safety oversight in air traffic management and air navigation services (Text with EEA relevance)

More information

PERFORMANCE REPORT CAPACITY

PERFORMANCE REPORT CAPACITY PERFORMANCE REPORT 2015-2019 CAPACITY June 2018 Contents Description & Analysis 3 FABEC TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT (en-route) 4 FABEC TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT (arrival) 5 KPI #1: En-route ATFM delay per controlled

More information

(Non-legislative acts) REGULATIONS

(Non-legislative acts) REGULATIONS 3.8.2010 Official Journal of the European Union L 201/1 II (Non-legislative acts) REGULATIONS COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 2010 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation

More information

Year 2011 Level 1 EUROCONTROL

Year 2011 Level 1 EUROCONTROL Local Single Sky ImPlementation (LSSIP) NETHERLANDS ear 2011 Level 1 EUROCONTROL DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION SHEET Local Single Sky ImPlementation document for THE NETHERLANDS Infocentre Reference: 12/01/20-29

More information

SES Performance Scheme

SES Performance Scheme SES Performance Scheme 12 th Florence Rail Forum 2 May 2016 Rolf TUCHHARDT European Commission, DG MOVE The Single European Sky policy initiative to improve the overall performance of air traffic management

More information

SIMULATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AIRSPACE

SIMULATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AIRSPACE SIMULATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AIRSPACE SECTORIZATION AND ITS INFLUENCE ON FAB CE Valentina Barta, student Department of Aeronautics, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Sciences, University of Zagreb,

More information

HELLENIC AIR NAVIGATION SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN GREECE RP

HELLENIC AIR NAVIGATION SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN GREECE RP HELLENIC AIR NAVIGATION SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN GREECE RP1 2012-2014 Edition : 0.7 Edition Date : 17-6-2011 Status : FINAL i DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD The following table records

More information

EUROCONTROL General Presentation

EUROCONTROL General Presentation EUROCONTROL General Presentation Luc Tytgat, Director DSS EUROCONTROL The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation One day s traffic General Presentation 2 ATM Today Air Transport Air Navigation

More information

The situation before the FUA

The situation before the FUA DIRECTORATE CIVIL-MILITARY ATM COORDINATION FLEXIBLE USE of AIRSPACE in EUROPE «The military perspective» Olivier Mrowicki CHISINAU 4th August 2009 1 The situation before the FUA AIRPORT 1 AREA 4 AREA

More information

Follow up to the implementation of safety and air navigation regional priorities XMAN: A CONCEPT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ATFCM CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGES

Follow up to the implementation of safety and air navigation regional priorities XMAN: A CONCEPT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ATFCM CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGES RAAC/15-WP/28 International Civil Aviation Organization 04/12/17 ICAO South American Regional Office Fifteenth Meeting of the Civil Aviation Authorities of the SAM Region (RAAC/15) (Asuncion, Paraguay,

More information

Civil and military integration in the same workspace

Civil and military integration in the same workspace Civil and military integration in the same workspace Presented by PLC 1 introduction Civilian and Military ATCOs work alongside each other in various countries and are employed in a number of different

More information

REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTORATE GENERAL CIVIL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTORATE GENERAL CIVIL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTORATE GENERAL CIVIL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN 2012-2014 Edition 1.0 Sofia 2011 DOCUMENT

More information

Cyprus National Performancee Plan

Cyprus National Performancee Plan Ministry of Communications and Works Department of Civil Aviation National Supervisory Authority Cyprus National Performancee Plan for Air Navigation Services Edition Number : Edition Date : Status : Intended

More information

L 342/20 Official Journal of the European Union

L 342/20 Official Journal of the European Union L 342/20 Official Journal of the European Union 24.12.2005 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2150/2005 of 23 December 2005 laying down common rules for the flexible use of airspace (Text with EEA relevance)

More information

RMT.0464 ATS Requirements The NPA

RMT.0464 ATS Requirements The NPA RMT.0464 ATS Requirements The NPA Fabio GRASSO EASA ATM/ANS Regulations Officer IFISA - FISO Seminar #7 08.09.2016 TE.GEN.00409-001 ATM/ANS CRs Regulation 2016/1377 Main objectives are to: implement Essential

More information

State Aviation Administration of Ukraine

State Aviation Administration of Ukraine State Aviation Administration of Ukraine Views of neighboring country to the EU: needs, expectations, perspectives, achievements Presented by Dmytro Babeichuk Director ATM/ANS & ER Implementation of the

More information

PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING RP2 IN RESPECT OF THE UK Workshop

PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING RP2 IN RESPECT OF THE UK Workshop PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING RP2 IN RESPECT OF THE UK Workshop 15 October 2012 Richard Moriarty Mike Goodliffe Matt Claydon Slide 1 OBJECTIVE To discuss the CAA s consultation document and the responses to it;

More information

Agenda. Institutional Arrangements Structures Procedures Example of TSA200 FUA at Regional Level

Agenda. Institutional Arrangements Structures Procedures Example of TSA200 FUA at Regional Level Agenda Institutional Arrangements Structures Procedures Example of TSA200 FUA at Regional Level Civ-Mil Relationship In France, GAT and OAT are handled by distinct ANSPs : DSNA is a directorate of the

More information

NATIONAL SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OF PORTUGAL NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN FOR AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES FIRST REFERENCE PERIOD

NATIONAL SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OF PORTUGAL NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN FOR AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES FIRST REFERENCE PERIOD NATIONAL SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OF PORTUGAL NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN FOR AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES FIRST REFERENCE PERIOD 2012 2014 Version: Draft 3.0 Issue date: 2011-05-11 1 DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION SHEET

More information

Forty years of vision. The EUROCONTROL Maastricht UAC story. years of vision EUROCONTROL MAASTRICHT UAC EUROCONTROL

Forty years of vision. The EUROCONTROL Maastricht UAC story. years of vision EUROCONTROL MAASTRICHT UAC EUROCONTROL 1972-2012 Forty years of vision The EUROCONTROL Maastricht UAC story years of vision EUROCONTROL MAASTRICHT UAC EUROCONTROL years of vision EUROCONTROL MAASTRICHT UAC Since the dawn of time, man has dreamed

More information

Performance Indicator Horizontal Flight Efficiency

Performance Indicator Horizontal Flight Efficiency Performance Indicator Horizontal Flight Efficiency Level 1 and 2 documentation of the Horizontal Flight Efficiency key performance indicators Overview This document is a template for a Level 1 & Level

More information

Performance Review Body 18

Performance Review Body 18 Performance Review Body 18 Performance Review Body 19 Performance Review Body 20 Conclusions Performance is the bottom line Major change under SES II Enforceable performance targets, incentives Significant

More information

LSSIP Year 2011 Cyprus Part III - Chapter 15-1 Released Issue

LSSIP Year 2011 Cyprus Part III - Chapter 15-1 Released Issue LSSIP ear 2011 Cyprus Part III - Chapter 15-1 Released Issue Chapter 15 - Annual Report on the application of FUA 15.1 ational organisation and responsibilities at the 3 levels of FUA 15.1.1 At Strategic

More information

NEFAB Project Feasibility Study Report Operational Concept

NEFAB Project Feasibility Study Report Operational Concept NEFAB Project Feasibility Study Report Operational Concept Page 1 of 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 4 2. AIRSPACE DESIGN... 6 2.1 ATS Routes and Free Routes 6 2.2 Sectorisation 6 2.3 Airspace

More information

RMT.0464 ATS Requirements

RMT.0464 ATS Requirements RMT.0464 ATS Requirements Fabio GRASSO EASA ATM/ANS Regulations Officer 8th FISO Seminar 06.09.2017 TE.GEN.00409-001 ATS provision in EU legislation - Today EU Member States obligations towards the Chicago

More information

- Define temporary airspace structures and procedures to offer multiple airspace

- Define temporary airspace structures and procedures to offer multiple airspace ASP SE Oro navigacija by director general order o. V-195 signed on 15 May 2007 approved Rules on reservation of airspace in Republic of Lithuania. - Define temporary airspace structures and procedures

More information

Network Manager Adding value to the Network 29 September 2011

Network Manager Adding value to the Network 29 September 2011 Network Manager Adding value to the Network 29 September 2011 Alain FOURNIE Head of Operational Monitoring & Reporting Directorate Network Management EUROCONTROL The European Organisation for the Safety

More information

EUROCONTROL SPECIFICATIONS SYNOPSIS

EUROCONTROL SPECIFICATIONS SYNOPSIS EUROCONTROL EUROCONTROL SPECIFICATIONS SYNOPSIS n EUROCONTROL Specification of Interoperability and Performance Requirements for the Flight Message Transfer Protocol (FMTP) n EUROCONTROL Specification

More information

AIR TRAFFIC FLOW MANAGEMENT INDIA S PERSPECTIVE. Vineet Gulati GM(ATM-IPG), AAI

AIR TRAFFIC FLOW MANAGEMENT INDIA S PERSPECTIVE. Vineet Gulati GM(ATM-IPG), AAI AIR TRAFFIC FLOW MANAGEMENT INDIA S PERSPECTIVE Vineet Gulati GM(ATM-IPG), AAI AIR TRAFFIC FLOW MANAGEMENT ATFM is a service provided with the objective to enhance the efficiency of the ATM system by,

More information

EUROCONTROL and the Airport Package

EUROCONTROL and the Airport Package European Economic and Social Committee Public Hearing Brussels, 20 February 2012 EUROCONTROL and the Airport Package François HUET EUROCONTROL Directorate Single Sky, Performance Review Unit The European

More information

DANUBE FAB real-time simulation 7 November - 2 December 2011

DANUBE FAB real-time simulation 7 November - 2 December 2011 EUROCONTROL DANUBE FAB real-time simulation 7 November - 2 December 2011 Visitor Information DANUBE FAB in context The framework for the creation and operation of a Functional Airspace Block (FAB) is laid

More information

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 255/2010 of 25 March 2010 laying down common rules on air traffic flow management

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 255/2010 of 25 March 2010 laying down common rules on air traffic flow management L 80/10 Official Journal of the European Union 26.3.2010 COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 255/2010 of 25 March 2010 laying down common rules on air traffic flow management (Text with EEA relevance) THE EUROPEAN

More information

Civil-Military ATM Coordination. Edgar REUBER EUROCONTROL/DECMA/CMC/ARD September, 12th 2018

Civil-Military ATM Coordination. Edgar REUBER EUROCONTROL/DECMA/CMC/ARD September, 12th 2018 Civil-Military ATM Coordination Edgar REUBER EUROCONTROL/DECMA/CMC/ARD September, 12th 2018 Civil-Military ATM Coordination Who is the Military Who is the Military Roles and Responsibilities in European

More information

Recommendations on Consultation and Transparency

Recommendations on Consultation and Transparency Recommendations on Consultation and Transparency Background The goal of the Aviation Strategy is to strengthen the competitiveness and sustainability of the entire EU air transport value network. Tackling

More information

International Civil Aviation Organization WORLDWIDE AIR TRANSPORT CONFERENCE (ATCONF) SIXTH MEETING. Montréal, 18 to 22 March 2013

International Civil Aviation Organization WORLDWIDE AIR TRANSPORT CONFERENCE (ATCONF) SIXTH MEETING. Montréal, 18 to 22 March 2013 International Civil Aviation Organization ATConf/6-WP/52 15/2/13 WORKING PAPER WORLDWIDE AIR TRANSPORT CONFERENCE (ATCONF) SIXTH MEETING Montréal, 18 to 22 March 2013 Agenda Item 2: Examination of key

More information

Civil-Military Cooperation in Germany. Roland Mallwitz German Air Navigation Services Head of Surveillance Services

Civil-Military Cooperation in Germany. Roland Mallwitz German Air Navigation Services Head of Surveillance Services Civil-Military Cooperation in Germany Roland Mallwitz German Air Navigation Services Head of Surveillance Services Agenda 50 Years of Development in ATM Evolution of Cooperation in Surveillance and Identification

More information

NNF Work-shop on Navigation, Safety and Technology. Dato: 2. February Gunn Marit Hernes Luftfartstilsynet

NNF Work-shop on Navigation, Safety and Technology. Dato: 2. February Gunn Marit Hernes Luftfartstilsynet NNF Work-shop on Navigation, Safety and Technology Dato: 2. February 2016 Gunn Marit Hernes Luftfartstilsynet Scope Present an overview of the main regulatory activities currently undertaken by EASA in

More information

Network Management, building on our experience of flow management and network planning.

Network Management, building on our experience of flow management and network planning. Network Management, building on our experience of flow management and network planning. Giovanni Lenti Head of Network Operation Services The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation Air

More information

IRISH AVIATION AUTHORITY DUBLIN POINT MERGE. Presented by James O Sullivan PANS-OPS & AIRSPACE INSPECTOR Irish Aviation Authority

IRISH AVIATION AUTHORITY DUBLIN POINT MERGE. Presented by James O Sullivan PANS-OPS & AIRSPACE INSPECTOR Irish Aviation Authority IRISH AVIATION AUTHORITY DUBLIN POINT MERGE Presented by James O Sullivan PANS-OPS & AIRSPACE INSPECTOR Irish Aviation Authority 2012 Holding Holding Before Point Merge No Pilot anticipation of distance

More information

Civil-Military ATM Performance Framework

Civil-Military ATM Performance Framework EUROCONTROL Civil-Military ATM Performance Framework Civil-Military Interface Standing Committee 1 Bundesheer/Markus Zinner CIVIL-MILITARY INTERFACE STANDING COMMITTEE Civil Military ATM Performance Framework

More information

ICAO EUR Region Performance Framework

ICAO EUR Region Performance Framework ICAO EUR Region Performance Framework Regional Performance Framework Workshop Baku, Azerbaijan, 10-11 April 2014 ICAO European and North Atlantic Office 9 April 2014 Page 1 OUTLINES Why a Regional Performance

More information

PRINCIPLES FOR DETERMINING THE COSTS OF AERONAUTICAL METEOROLOGICAL SERVICE FOR EN-ROUTE AND TERMINAL AIR NAVIGATION, UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

PRINCIPLES FOR DETERMINING THE COSTS OF AERONAUTICAL METEOROLOGICAL SERVICE FOR EN-ROUTE AND TERMINAL AIR NAVIGATION, UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA PRINCIPLES FOR DETERMINING THE COSTS OF AERONAUTICAL METEOROLOGICAL SERVICE FOR EN-ROUTE AND TERMINAL AIR NAVIGATION, UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA 1. Background Information Tanzania Meteorological Agency

More information

SUSTAIN: A Framework for Sustainable Aviation

SUSTAIN: A Framework for Sustainable Aviation SUSTAIN: A Framework for Sustainable Aviation Ted Elliff Research Area Manager, Society, Environment & Economy 1 SEMANTICS (1) The Oxford English Dictionary defines sustainable as follows: sustainable

More information

NEFAB Annual Report 2016

NEFAB Annual Report 2016 NEFAB Council #11/WP2 NEFAB Annual Report 2016 Version 1.0 Revision history Version Date Description/Change Author Approved 1.0 08.05.2017 LV 2 Main developments in 2016 NEFAB Strategy Implementation Plan

More information

NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN SWITZERLAND for SES RP

NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN SWITZERLAND for SES RP Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications DETEC Federal Office of Civil Aviation FOCA Directorate Federal Department of Defence Civil Protection and Sport DDPS Swiss Air

More information

The SES Performance Scheme. ICAO Regional Performance Framework Workshop Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan May 2013

The SES Performance Scheme. ICAO Regional Performance Framework Workshop Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan May 2013 The SES Performance Scheme ICAO Regional Performance Framework Workshop Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan 21-23 May 2013 1 EU s Single Aviation Market Before 1992: fragmented national markets based on restrictive bilateral

More information

PPR REGULATIONS FOR BUSINESS AND GENERAL AVIATION AT EINDHOVEN AIRPORT

PPR REGULATIONS FOR BUSINESS AND GENERAL AVIATION AT EINDHOVEN AIRPORT PPR REGULATIONS FOR BUSINESS AND GENERAL AVIATION AT EINDHOVEN AIRPORT Eindhoven, September 2017 Contents Scope of application p. 3 Definitions p. 3 Capacity p. 3 Distribution of PPRs p. 4 PPR applications

More information

TWENTY-SECOND MEETING OF THE ASIA/PACIFIC AIR NAVIGATION PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION REGIONAL GROUP (APANPIRG/22)

TWENTY-SECOND MEETING OF THE ASIA/PACIFIC AIR NAVIGATION PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION REGIONAL GROUP (APANPIRG/22) INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION TWENTY-SECOND MEETING OF THE ASIA/PACIFIC AIR NAVIGATION PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION REGIONAL GROUP (APANPIRG/22) Bangkok, Thailand, 5-9 September 2011 Agenda

More information

SESAR Active ECAC ATC16 Implement ACAS II compliant with TCAS II change 7.1 REG ASP MIL APO USE INT IND NM

SESAR Active ECAC ATC16 Implement ACAS II compliant with TCAS II change 7.1 REG ASP MIL APO USE INT IND NM SESAR Active ECAC ATC16 Implement ACAS II compliant with TCAS II change 7.1 REG ASP MIL APO USE INT IND NM Subject matter and scope * The extension of the applicability area to non-eu ECAC States that

More information

EUROCONTROL EUROCONTROL SPECIFICATION. EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure

EUROCONTROL EUROCONTROL SPECIFICATION. EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure EUROCONTROL SPECIFICATION EUROCONTROL Edition 2.6 Edition date: 31.12.2008 Reference nr: EUROCONTROL-SPEC-0117 EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure EUROPEAN ORGANISATION THE SAFETY

More information

SESAR Active ECAC INF07 REG ASP MIL APO USE INT IND NM

SESAR Active ECAC INF07 REG ASP MIL APO USE INT IND NM SESAR Active ECAC INF07 REG ASP MIL APO USE INT IND NM Subject matter and scope * The extension of the applicability area to non-eu ECAC States that have not signed an aviation agreement with EU, as well

More information

Creating the Functional Airspace Block Europe Central

Creating the Functional Airspace Block Europe Central Creating the Functional Airspace Block Europe Central Feasibility Study Report Version: 2.0 FAB EUROPE CENTRAL 1 Document summary Objective FABEC Feasibility Study Report (FSR) Author PMO and FPSG Audience

More information

EASA ATM/ANS regulatory update

EASA ATM/ANS regulatory update EASA ATM/ANS regulatory update Fabio GRASSO EASA ATM/ANS Expert 05.09.2018 TE.GEN.00409-001 New EASA Basic Regulation New Regulation 2018/1139 published on 22 August 2018 More detailed regulatory framework

More information

AN-Conf/12-WP/162 TWELFTH THE CONFERENCE. The attached report

AN-Conf/12-WP/162 TWELFTH THE CONFERENCE. The attached report 29/11/12 TWELFTH AIR NAVIGATION CONFERENCE Montréal, 19 to 30 November 2012 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE CONFERENCE ON AGENDA ITEM 2 The attached report has been approved by thee Committee for submission

More information

REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS

REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS IN THE PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING A CONCESSION FOR SERVICE FOR THE OBJECT CIVIL AIRPORT FOR PUBLIC

More information

DIRECTORATE CIVIL-MILITARY ATM COORDINATION. FLEXIBLE USE of AIRSPACE in EUROPE «Challenges»

DIRECTORATE CIVIL-MILITARY ATM COORDINATION. FLEXIBLE USE of AIRSPACE in EUROPE «Challenges» DIRECTORATE CIVIL-MILITARY ATM COORDINATION FLEXIBLE USE of AIRSPACE in EUROPE «Challenges» Olivier Mrowicki CHISINAU 4th August 2009 1 Report of the PRC in 2007 Objective: Review of civil-military use

More information

Civil/Military Cooperation ICAO Workshop. Civil/Military Cooperation in Ukraine

Civil/Military Cooperation ICAO Workshop. Civil/Military Cooperation in Ukraine Civil/Military Cooperation ICAO Workshop Civil/Military Cooperation in Ukraine October 2013 Ukraine Gained independence in 1991 Population: 47 million Total area: 603,700 sq.km Land boundaries: 4,558 km

More information

CR-Text WG Ref Common requirement analysis Common acceptable means of compliance

CR-Text WG Ref Common requirement analysis Common acceptable means of compliance Common SES-Certification 4-States/Eurocontrol ANSPs for METEO Common Requirements AMCs and analyses working sheet for METEO Status: February 006 4 States AMC matrix meteo.xls 1 of 13 Common SES-Certification

More information

EUROCONTROL. Visit of the Transport Attachés. 10 April Frank Brenner. Director General EUROCONTROL

EUROCONTROL. Visit of the Transport Attachés. 10 April Frank Brenner. Director General EUROCONTROL EUROCONTROL Visit of the Transport Attachés 10 April 2015 Frank Brenner Director General EUROCONTROL One day s traffic EUROCONTROL - Visit of the Transport Attachés - 10 April 2015 2 ATM Today Air Transport

More information

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Question: What is the scope of the Basic Regulation regarding aerodromes foreseen under Art. 4 Para. 3a? Art. 4 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 [3a] Aerodromes, including equipment,

More information

Terms of Reference for a rulemaking task. Requirements for Air Traffic Services (ATS)

Terms of Reference for a rulemaking task. Requirements for Air Traffic Services (ATS) Rulemaking Directorate Terms of Reference for a rulemaking task Requirements for Air Traffic Services (ATS) ISSUE 1 9.7.2014 Applicability Process map Affected regulations and decisions: Affected stakeholders:

More information

USE OF RADAR IN THE APPROACH CONTROL SERVICE

USE OF RADAR IN THE APPROACH CONTROL SERVICE USE OF RADAR IN THE APPROACH CONTROL SERVICE 1. Introduction The indications presented on the ATS surveillance system named radar may be used to perform the aerodrome, approach and en-route control service:

More information

ELEVENTH AIR NAVIGATION CONFERENCE. Montreal, 22 September to 3 October 2003

ELEVENTH AIR NAVIGATION CONFERENCE. Montreal, 22 September to 3 October 2003 4/8/03 English, French, Russian and Spanish only * ELEVENTH AIR NAVIGATION CONFERENCE Montreal, 22 September to 3 October 2003 Agenda Item 3: 3.1 : Air traffic management (ATM) performance targets for

More information

Guidance for Complexity and Density Considerations - in the New Zealand Flight Information Region (NZZC FIR)

Guidance for Complexity and Density Considerations - in the New Zealand Flight Information Region (NZZC FIR) Guidance for Complexity and Density Considerations - in the New Zealand Flight Information Region (NZZC FIR) Version 1.0 Director NSS 14 February 2018 Guidance for Complexity and Density Considerations

More information

ATM STRATEGIC PLAN VOLUME I. Optimising Safety, Capacity, Efficiency and Environment AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA DIRECTORATE OF AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

ATM STRATEGIC PLAN VOLUME I. Optimising Safety, Capacity, Efficiency and Environment AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA DIRECTORATE OF AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ATM STRATEGIC PLAN VOLUME I Optimising Safety, Capacity, Efficiency and Environment DIRECTORATE OF AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Version 1 Dated April 08 Volume I Optimising Safety,

More information

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY, PAKISTAN OPERATIONAL CONTROL SYSTEMS CONTENTS

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY, PAKISTAN OPERATIONAL CONTROL SYSTEMS CONTENTS CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY, PAKISTAN Air Navigation Order No. : 91-0004 Date : 7 th April, 2010 Issue : Two OPERATIONAL CONTROL SYSTEMS CONTENTS SECTIONS 1. Authority 2. Purpose 3. Scope 4. Operational Control

More information

Belgian Civil Aviation Safety Policy

Belgian Civil Aviation Safety Policy Belgian Civil Aviation Safety Policy 08/10/2012 DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL Our reference: Brussels, LA/DG/2012-875 Rev.03 08/10/2012 Regarding: Belgian Civil Aviation Safety Policy 1 Introduction

More information

DRAFT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION (EUROCONTROL) AND THE KINGDOM OF MOROCCO

DRAFT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION (EUROCONTROL) AND THE KINGDOM OF MOROCCO DRAFT AGREEMENT The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation, hereinafter referred to as EUROCONTROL, acting through its Permanent Commission and represented by its Director General, Mr.

More information

Certification Procedure

Certification Procedure Certification Procedure Frequentis AG Final Presentation, ESTEC, Dec. 06 th 2009 Thales Alenia Space Espana Thales Alenia Space France Thales Alenia Space Italia Topics 1 Overview 2 Key points 3 Conclusions

More information

Proposed Changes to Inverness Airport s Airspace The Introduction of Controlled Airspace and Optimisation of Instrument Flight Procedures

Proposed Changes to Inverness Airport s Airspace The Introduction of Controlled Airspace and Optimisation of Instrument Flight Procedures Proposed Changes to Inverness Airport s Airspace The Introduction of Controlled Airspace and Optimisation of Instrument Flight Procedures What is an Airspace Change Proposal? It is a formal UK Civil Aviation

More information

EASA rulemaking in ATM/ANS. Entry Point North annual AFIS Seminar 5th and 6th of September 2012, Malmö

EASA rulemaking in ATM/ANS. Entry Point North annual AFIS Seminar 5th and 6th of September 2012, Malmö EASA rulemaking in ATM/ANS Entry Point North annual AFIS Seminar 5th and 6th of September 2012, Malmö Single European Sky II Four pillars of Single European Sky II Single European Sky legislation on ATM»

More information

1.2 Notwithstanding the provision in 1.1 this BL applies to the airport in Denmark with the most passenger movements.

1.2 Notwithstanding the provision in 1.1 this BL applies to the airport in Denmark with the most passenger movements. Regulations for Civil Aviation BL 9-15 Edition 4, 16 November 2017 Regulations on payment for using airports 1 (airport charges) 2 In pursuance of 1 a, 71 (1) and (3), 149 (10) and 153 a (1) of the Danish

More information

AIR NAVIGATION SERVICE PROVIDERS

AIR NAVIGATION SERVICE PROVIDERS AIR LAW, REGULATION AND COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT COURSE DESIGNED FOR ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY AND TURKISH AVIATION ACADEMY BY McGILL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF AIR AND SPACE LAW AIR NAVIGATION SERVICE PROVIDERS

More information

2.2 ANSP Certification, Designation & Cross-Border ANS Provision

2.2 ANSP Certification, Designation & Cross-Border ANS Provision 2.2 ASP Certification, Designation & Cross-Border AS Provision 2.2.1 Certification For the time being there is no schedule agreed for the certification. It will be defined after an action plan is developed

More information

Efficiency and Automation

Efficiency and Automation Efficiency and Automation Towards higher levels of automation in Air Traffic Management HALA! Summer School Cursos de Verano Politécnica de Madrid La Granja, July 2011 Guest Lecturer: Rosa Arnaldo Universidad

More information

Euromed Civil Aviation II project

Euromed Civil Aviation II project Euromed Civil Aviation II project Final event on GNSS for aviation Gilles Fartek, Euromed Civil Aviation II (INTEGRA A/S) Euromed Aviation II is financed by EC DEVCO Air Traffic management EUROMED AVIATION

More information

DFS Aviation Services GmbH. A brand of experience

DFS Aviation Services GmbH. A brand of experience EN DFS Aviation Services GmbH A brand of experience Published by DFS Aviation Services GmbH Heinrich-Hertz-Straße 26 63225 Langen Germany www.dfs-as.aero Photo credits DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH,

More information

EASA NPA on SERA Part ENAV Response sheet. GENERAL COMMENTS ON NPA PACKAGE Note: Specific comments are provided after the General Comments

EASA NPA on SERA Part ENAV Response sheet. GENERAL COMMENTS ON NPA PACKAGE Note: Specific comments are provided after the General Comments EASA NPA on SERA Part ENAV Response sheet GENERAL COMMENTS ON NPA PACKAGE te: Specific comments are provided after the General Comments 1 SERA Parts C and D ENAV still misses clarity on the whole scope

More information

EUROCONTROL. Eric MIART Manager - Airport Operations Programme (APR)

EUROCONTROL. Eric MIART Manager - Airport Operations Programme (APR) Traffic Forecast for 20 Years Resulting Challenges for Airports Potential Solutions AIRNETH, The Hague 12 th of April 2007 EUROCONTROL Eric MIART Manager - Airport Operations Programme (APR) www.eurocontrol.int/airports

More information

SRC POSITION PAPER. Edition March 2011 Released Issue

SRC POSITION PAPER. Edition March 2011 Released Issue E U R O C O N T R O L SRC POSITION PAPER Safety Assessment of Optimised Operations in Low Visibility Conditions Utilising Landing Clearance Delivery Position and/or Landing Clearance Line Concept, Edition1.5,

More information

AFI Plan Aerodromes Certification Project Workshop for ESAF Region (Nairobi, Kenya, August 2016)

AFI Plan Aerodromes Certification Project Workshop for ESAF Region (Nairobi, Kenya, August 2016) AFI Plan Aerodromes Certification Project Workshop for ESAF Region (Nairobi, Kenya, 23-26 August 2016) Aerodromes Certification- ICAO Requirements Arthemon Ndikumana RO/AGA, Nairobi 08/09/2016 AFI Plan

More information

EUR/SAM corridor airspace concept

EUR/SAM corridor airspace concept TWENTYENTH MEETING ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES OVER THE SOUTH ATLANTIC (SAT21) (Lisbon, Portugal, 8 to 10 June, 2016) Agenda Item 2: Air traffic management (ATM) RNP 4 IN THE EUR/SAM CORRIDOR

More information

TWELFTH AIR NAVIGATION CONFERENCE

TWELFTH AIR NAVIGATION CONFERENCE International Civil Aviation Organization AN-Conf/12-WP/13 1/5/12 WORKING PAPER TWELFTH AIR NAVIGATION CONFERENCE Montréal, 19 to 30 November 2012 Agenda Item 4: Optimum capacity and efficiency through

More information

Public Hearing on Single European Sky II: «Make or Break Time» Views of the European Commission

Public Hearing on Single European Sky II: «Make or Break Time» Views of the European Commission Public Hearing on Single European Sky II: «Make or Break Time» Views of the European Commission Olivier WALDNER Deputy Head of Unit, SES and Modernisation of Air Traffic Control European Commission, DG

More information

Civil-Military Cooperation. Advanced Flexible Use of Airspace

Civil-Military Cooperation. Advanced Flexible Use of Airspace Civil-Military Cooperation Advanced Flexible Use of Airspace Need for Airspace data sharing and collaboration Network Manager Military Civil Airlines Military Operational Requirements for the Use of Airspace

More information

MAXIMUM LEVELS OF AVIATION TERMINAL SERVICE CHARGES that may be imposed by the Irish Aviation Authority ISSUE PAPER CP3/2010 COMMENTS OF AER LINGUS

MAXIMUM LEVELS OF AVIATION TERMINAL SERVICE CHARGES that may be imposed by the Irish Aviation Authority ISSUE PAPER CP3/2010 COMMENTS OF AER LINGUS MAXIMUM LEVELS OF AVIATION TERMINAL SERVICE CHARGES that may be imposed by the Irish Aviation Authority ISSUE PAPER CP3/2010 COMMENTS OF AER LINGUS 1. Introduction A safe, reliable and efficient terminal

More information

International Civil Aviation Organization. Agenda Item 6: Free Route Airspace Concept implementations within the EUR Region FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE DESIGN

International Civil Aviation Organization. Agenda Item 6: Free Route Airspace Concept implementations within the EUR Region FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE DESIGN International Civil Aviation Organization AIRARDTF/2 IP03 Second Meeting of the Advanced Inter-Regional ATS Route Development Task Force (AIRARDTF/02) Astana, Kazakhstan, 26-27 October 2017 Agenda Item

More information

Responsibilities Document for the application of Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM)

Responsibilities Document for the application of Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) Responsibilities Document for the application of Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) Edition Number : 1.0 Edition Date : 25/10/2012 Status : Released Version Intended for : Category : ATFM IR Responsibilities

More information