HELLENIC AIR NAVIGATION SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN GREECE RP

Transcription

1 HELLENIC AIR NAVIGATION SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN GREECE RP Edition : 0.7 Edition Date : Status : FINAL i

2

3 DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD The following table records the complete history of the successive editions of the present document. EDITION DATE REASON FOR CHANGE SECTIONS PAGES AFFECTED /2/2011 Draft of work in progress ALL 0.2 3/3/2011 Draft of work in progress ALL /3/2011 Draft of work in progress ALL /4/2011 Draft of work in progress ALL /5/2011 Data insertion ALL /5/2011 Draft for consultation with stakeholders ALL 0.6 2/6/2011 Updated draft ALL /6/2011 FINAL - iii

4

5 Table of Contents Table of Contents... v List of Figures and Tables... vii Relevant Regulations... viii Abbreviations and Acronyms... ix 1. Introduction THE SITUATION OVERALL ASSUMPTIONS FOR RP STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION National Performance Targets and Alert Thresholds PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND ALERT THRESHOLDS FOR RP CONSISTENCY 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 ANSP s SHARE TO THE NATIONAL TARGETS HANSA s SHARE TO THE NATIONAL TARGETS METSP s SHARE TO THE NATIONAL TARGETS Military Dimension of the Plan PERFORMANCE OF THE FUA APPLICATION ADDITIONAL KPI s Analysis of Sensitivity EXTERNAL ASSUMPTIONS COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS PLANS Implementation of the Performance Plan ANNEXES ANNEX A Table 1 - Total Costs-En-route Table 2 - Unit rate calculation Total costs-terminal ANNEX B STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION MATERIAL v

6 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS MINUTES OF THE STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION vi

7 List of Figures and Tables Figure 1: General socio-economic situation in Greece... 3 Figure 2: GDP growth... 3 Figure 3: Inflation... 4 Figure 4: SU forecasts Table 1: Unit rate trend...5 Table 2: KPI's for local target setting in PR1...7 Table 3: Presentation of the National targets and thresholds for RP1...7 Table 4: Reference values for capacity...9 Table 5: Presentation of en-route capacity target for RP1...9 Table 6: Presentation of en-route cost-efficiency target for RP Table 7: EU-wide targets and associated thresholds for RP Table 8: En-route capacity target-details at National level...12 Table 9: En-route service units forecast used for the calculation of the national en-route cost-efficiency targe...13 Table 10: National determined en-route costs-breakdown per entity (in nominal terms in EURO)...14 Table 11: National determined en-route costs-breakdown by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)...14 Table 12: National determined en-route costs-total in real terms...15 Table 13: National real en-route determined unit rate...15 Table 14: National costs for terminal ANS-breakdown per entity/ charging zone...16 Table 15: Carry-overs from the years before RP1- under(-) and over(+) recoveries (in nominal terms in EURO)...17 Table 16: HCAA/ANSP contribution to the National capacity target ( at ANSP level)...20 Table 17: HCAA/ANSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)...21 Table 18: HCAA/ANSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by service (in nominal terms in EURO)...21 Table 19: Complementary information on the cost of capital en-route (in nominal terms in EURO)...22 Table 20: HCAA/ANSP-Terminal ANS costs in EURO...22 Table 21: HCAA/ANSP-Investments (capex) in nominal terms in EURO for en-route and terminal ANS...23 Table 22: HANSA-Determined en-route ANS costs by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)...24 Table 23: HANSA-Determined en-route ANS costs by service (in nominal terms in EURO)...24 Table 24: HANSA-Terminal ANS costs in EURO...24 Table 25: METSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)...25 Table 26: METSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by service (in nominal terms in EURO)...25 vii

8 Relevant Regulations Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 2010 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions and amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services. Commission Decision No 2011/121/EU 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 Commission Regulation (EU) No 1191/2010 amending Commission Regulation1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 of 20 December 2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services. Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky (the framework Regulation) Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky (the service provision Regulation) Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the organization and use of the airspace in the single European sky (the airspace Regulation) Regulation (EC)No 1070/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Regulations (EC)No 549/2004, (EC)No 550/2004, (EC)No 551/2004 and (EC)No 552/2004 in order to improve the performance and sustainability of the European aviation system. Commission Regulation (EU)No 255/2010 of 25 March 2010 laying down common rules on air traffic flow management Commission Regulation (EC) No 1315/2007 of 8 November 2007 on safety oversight in air traffic management and amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC. viii

9 Abbreviations and Acronyms The most important abbreviations used in this document are the following: A :Actual ACC :Area Control Center AIS :Aeronautical Information Services ANS : Air Navigation Service ANSP : Air Navigation Service Provider APP :Approach ATFM :Air Traffic Flow Management ATM :Air Traffic Management ATC :Air Traffic Control ATS :Air Traffic Services AOM :Airspace Organization and Management AOP :Airports Operations Domain BSO :Basic Objective COM :Communications CT :Consolidated Table D :Determined ET :Entity Table F :Forecast FAB :Functional Airspace Block FIN :Financial FIR :Flight Information Region FUA :Flexible Use of Airspace GAT :General Air Traffic HANSA :Hellenic Air Navigation Supervisory Authority HCAA :Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority HUM :Human Resources Domain ICAO :International Civil Aviation Organization IMF :International Monetary Fund KPA KPI MET :Key Performance Area :Key Performance Indicator :Aviation Meteorology METSP :Meteorological Service Provider NAV NSA OI PM PMP PS QA QM RP SAF SAR SES SSP SUs SUR T TMA WP :Navigation :National Supervisory Authority :Operational Improvement :Project Manager :Project Management Plan :Performance Scheme :Quality Assurance :Quality Management :Reference Period :Safety Domain :Search and Rescue :Single European Sky :State Safety Program :Service Units :Surveillance :Target :Terminal Control Area :Work Package ix

10 1. Introduction 1.1 THE SITUATION In order to meet the requirements of Commission Regulation (EU) no. 691/2010 of July 2010 (laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions and amending Regulation (EC) no. 2096/2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services) Hellenic Air Navigation Supervisory Authority (HANSA) has prepared for Greece the present Performance Plan which covers the first Reference Period (RP1; ). This Performance Plan has been developed at a national level and registers Greece s intention, for the duration of the first reference period, to achieve the objectives of the Single European Sky and the balance between the needs of all airspace users and supply of services provided by air navigation service providers. Accountable Entities: The accountable entities covered by the present performance plan are the following: HCAA/ANSP: The Greek Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) was certified by HANSA for a bundle of services (ATS, CNS, AIS) on 25 June 2010.The duration of the certificate is one (1) year. An extension of the certificate has been issued by HANSA until 30 April HANSA: A single NSA, the "Hellenic Air Navigation National Supervisory Authority" (HANSA), has been established functionally separated from the air navigation service provision. Law 3446/2006 establishes the NSA while Presidential Decree 150/2007 covers the organization, the staffing and the responsibilities of the NSA. Presidential Decree 103/2010 regulates the internal functioning of the NSA. METSP: The meteorological service for civil aviation is provided by the National Meteorological Service, the Regional Met Centre MAKEDONIA and the Regional Met Centre ATA, which are subordinated to the Ministry of Defence. HANSA certified the Hellenic National Meteorological Service Provider on 20 May 2010.The duration of the certificate is three (3) years. Geographical Scope: The airspace under Hellenic responsibility is encompassed by the ATHINAI FIR/ HELLAS UIR as per AIP Greece. Two ACCs, the Athinai and Makedonia ACCs provide within the ATHINAI FIR/HELLAS UIR with air traffic services. The environment can be considered as highly complex due to the large number (10) of adjacent FIRs and the traffic profile (a lot of climbing/descending flights). Fifteen (15) TMAs are established at civil airports and eight (8) MTMAs at military aerodromes. The lower limit of TMAs is generally ft. GND. The upper limit varies between FL 85 and FL 460. Twenty-six (26) Control Zones (CTRs) are established around civil airports and eight (8) Control Zones around military aerodromes. 1

11 The Athinai TMA is the only high complexity TMA. However, taking into account traffic complexity and distribution, the Makedonia, Kerkira, Iraklion and Rodos TMAs can also be considered as complex TMAs. There is no cross border provision of ATS. Body providing aggregation of performance targets for FAB: Greece is cooperating with other EU Member States (Cyprus, Malta and Italy) in establishing a Functional Airspace Block (FAB) which is called BLUE MED. However, the four States have decided that, since BLUE MED is not yet formed, each State should submit its own NPP. 1.2 OVERALL ASSUMPTIONS FOR RP1 For the development of the present Performance Plan, the following key factors have been taken into account: General socio-economic situation of Greece: In spring 2010 Greece jointed the three-year Economic Adjustment Programme and consequently adopted comprehensive fiscal consolidation measures.they are expected to have a dampening impact on domestic demand. However, successful and credible fiscal adjustment efforts are expected to compensate for the economic cost of adjustment and lead to the beginning of a recovery in the second half of Because of the general socio-economic situation though, it is difficult to draw exact conclusions as to how the economy will move in the long term. For the year 2011, fiscal tightening will have a strong contraction impact on economic activity, on the back of cuts in public wages, an increasing tax burden and ensuing declining disposable income and public spending. Real GDP is expected to further decline by 3% in 2011 mainly due to carry-over effects while growth is expected to turn around positively during the second half of the year, with the recovery gaining further momentum in Inflationary pressures have built up in the course of 2010, fuelled by the VAT-rates rises in March and July and the increase in excise duties on alcohol, tobacco and fuel. The contraction of economic activity, reflected in weakening labour demand from the retail, wholesale and construction sectors, is weighing heavily on employment which is set to fall by more than 5% over the forecast horizon. Reduced employment opportunities in the private sector, along with the recruitment freeze and cuts in short-term contracts in the public sector will push the unemployment rate up to just below 15% in Negative employment growth and declining wages should weigh on disposable income over the medium-term, dampening real demand. 1 1 GREECE-Rebalancing growth amidst ongoing fiscal consolidation/european Economic Forecast-Autumn

12 The overall economic situation for Greece in key sectors, from the year 2009 up to the year 2014, can be summarized in the following table: Forecasts for Greece GDP growth (%, yoy) -2,3-4,2-3,0 1,1 2,1 2,1 Inflation (%, yoy) 3 1,35 4,70 2,54 0,50 0,66 0,95 Unemployment (%) 9,5 12,5 12,5 15,2 Public budget balance (% of GDP) -15,4-9,6-7,4-7,5-7,8-7,8 Current account balance (% of GDP) -14,0-10,6-8,0-6,5-5,2-4,1 Figure 1: General socio-economic situation in Greece The expected evolution of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and of the national Inflation is presented schematically below: GDP growth (%) 3,0 GDP % 2,0 1,0 0,0-1,0-2,0-3,0-4,0-5,0 Figure 2: GDP growth GDP % 2 The Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece Second review autumn Source: International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April

13 Inflation rate (%): 5,00 4,50 4,00 3,50 3,00 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00 INFLATION % INFLATION % Figure 3: Inflation rate Traffic forecast: According to the Eurocontrol short and medium term forecast of Service Units of May , the traffic in Greece is going to increase at around 21% from 2010 to Below is a table with the total units for Greece between 2010 and 2016, according to EUROCONTROL forecasts, with the high, low and baseline scenario for each year: Total SU in thousands H GREECE B % 4.2% 3.4% 3.7% 3.5% 3.6% L Figure 4: SU forecasts EUROCONTROL Short-and-Medium-Term Forecast of Service Units: May 2011 Update Doc 434-SUF-May11-v1.0.pdf 4

14 Unit rate trend: The unit rate trend for the first reference period is presented in the following table: Real enroute determined unit rate 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 F 2013 F 2014 F profile Total costs in real terms (in EUR2011) Total SU Real enroute determined unit rate profile (in EUR2011) % n/n % -3.5% -5.9% % Table 1: Unit rate trend Details on the calculations of the unit rate are given in chapter no. 2 National performance targets and alert thresholds. Overall status of Aviation Safety: There are arrangements on safety both at State level and at ANSPs level. At State level the existing arrangements on safety are: the National legal safety regulatory framework and a series of safety relevant activities. Greece, in order to discharge its obligation to ICAO for the development of a State Safety Programme (SSP), has designated the Governor of Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority as the National Coordinator for the development of the Greek State Safety Programme (SSP). To this end, the HCAA Governor has established a relevant Committee. The primary task of this Committee is to collect and integrate all existing national arrangements and safety elements, aiming at developing an SSP manual as the basis for the establishment of the Greek SSP. The Committee, so far, has developed a considerable amount of material in coordination with all the relevant State aviation stakeholders. The establishment of national Acceptable Levels of Safety (ALoS) is still pending. The development of a list of national safety indicators and targets, such as the measurement of safety maturity, the extent of RAT use, the safety culture measurement (as required by the EC regulation 691/2010), has not been finalized yet. The completion of this task will allow the State to monitor the level of aviation safety. 5

15 Institutional context for ANS provision: o Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks: it is the Ministry responsible for the civil aviation in Greece o HANSA: The Hellenic Air Navigation Supervisory Authority is the Greek NSA responsible for the certification, supervision and oversight of the Air Navigation Services Providers, according to the regulations of the European Commission for Air Navigation Services in the framework of the Single European Sky, including the Eurocontrol Safety Regulatory Requirements (ESSAR s). o ANSP: is the certified Air Navigation Service Provider responsible for ANS provision. The duration of its certificate has been extended by HANSA until 30 April Law 3913/2011 regarding the reconstruction of HCAA has been put into effect but its implementation will not affect the status of civil aviation safety. o METSP: is the certified Meteorological Air Navigation Service Provider responsible for the provision of meteorological data. o Military Component(HAF): The Military Authorities (Hellenic Air Force HAF provide Air Traffic Services to civil aircraft at military Aerodromes/Terminal Control Areas. HAF is also user of some designated/reserved parts of the airspace. Civil military co-ordination is ensured through agreed procedures (use of LoAs etc). 1.3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION In accordance with the Performance Scheme Regulation, recital number 11, article 10 clauses 2 (b) and 3 (j), the following stakeholders consultation took place: 1. On 28/3/2011 between HANSA, ANSP and METSP experts for the costefficiency. 2. On 1/4/2011 between HANSA and ANSP representatives where guidance material for the preparation of the Performance Plan and the role of each accountable entity was presented. 3. On 19/4/2011 between HANSA and ANSP for the elaboration of the data that will be inserted in the Performance Plan. 4. On 7/6/2011 consultation with all relevant stakeholders (ANSP, METSP, IATA).All relevant information regarding the meeting is provided in ANNEX B Stakeholders Consultation Material. 6

16 2. National Performance Targets and Alert Thresholds The following table lists all the Key Performance Indicators (KPI s) for each Key Performance Area (KPA) and their status as mandatory or optional for the RP1 according to Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010: KPA Local KPI for Target Setting in RP1 Status Effectiveness of safety management (Maturity) Optional Application of severity classification scheme Optional Targets for: Safety *Separation infringements *Runway incursions Optional *ATM special technical events Application of just culture Optional Environment Average horizontal en-route flight efficiency Optional Minutes of en-route ATMF delay per flight Mandatory Targets for: Capacity *ATFM airport delays *Additional time in taxi-out phase Optional *Additional time in arrival sequencing/merging area Cost Efficiency Determined unit rate for en-route ANS Mandatory Table 2: KPI's for local target setting in PR1 2.1 PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND ALERT THRESHOLDS FOR RP1 This section presents, for each KPA, the KPI s and associated targets that form Greece s Performance Plan. It also presents the defined alert thresholds beyond which the alert mechanism may be activated. A summary of the National Targets and Thresholds is presented in the following table: KPA (a) Safety (b) Capacity (c) Environment (d) Cost-efficiency KPI Not set for the first reference period En-route ATFM delay (minutes per flight) Not set for the first reference period Determined en-route unit rate (2011 prices in EURO) National Targets Table 3: Presentation of the National targets and thresholds for RP1 National Alert Thresholds - Deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual traffic versus the traffic forecasts - Deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual costs versus the reference costs 7

17 A) SAFETY TARGET AND THRESHOLD For the first reference period the SAFETY key performance indicators, according to the Performance Scheme Regulation, are: (a) The first national safety KPI shall be the effectiveness of safety management as measured by a methodology based on the ATM Safety Maturity Survey Framework. This indicator shall be developed jointly by the Commission, the Member States, EASA and Eurocontrol and adopted by the Commission prior to the first reference period. During this first reference period, national supervisory authorities will monitor and publish these key performance indicators, and Member States may set corresponding targets. (b) The second national safety KPI shall be the application of the severity classification of the Risk Analysis Tool to allow harmonized reporting of severity assessment of Separation Minima Infringement, Runway Incursions and ATM Specific Technical Events at all Air Traffic Control Centers and airports with more than commercial air transport movements per year within the scope of this Regulation (yes/no value). The severity classification shall be developed jointly by the Commission, the Member States, EASA and Eurocontrol and adopted by the Commission prior to the first reference period. During this first reference period, national supervisory authorities will monitor and publish these key performance indicators, and Member States may set corresponding targets. (c) The third national safety KPI shall be the reporting of just culture. This measure shall be developed jointly by the Commission, the Member States, EASA and Eurocontrol and adopted by the Commission prior to the first reference period. During this first reference period, national supervisory authorities will monitor and publish this measure, and Member States may set corresponding targets.en Official Journal of the European Union L 201/13 Greece, for the first reference period, will not set any safety targets at National level. B) CAPACITY TARGET AND THRESHOLD For the first reference period, the mandatory capacity KPI is the minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight. It is defined as follows: (a) the indicator is defined as the difference between the take-off time requested by the aircraft operator in the last submitted flight plan and the calculated take-off time allocated by the central unit of ATFM. (b) the indicator is given for each year of the reference period. In order to prepare the development of a second national capacity KPI, Member States shall report as from the first reference period: (a) the total of ATFM delays attributable to terminal and airport air navigation services; (b) the additional time in the taxi out phase; (c) for airports with more that commercial movements per year the additional time for ASMA (Arrival Sequencing and Metering Area). The alert threshold for the first reference period, where an alert mechanism will be activated, is the deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual traffic versus the traffic forecasts. 8

18 For Greece the capacity targets that would be consistent with the EU-target, as calculated by EUROCONTROL, are set as shown in the following table: Capacity KPI ACC ACC Code 2012 F 2013 F 2014 T Intermediate Value Intermediate Value Minutes of en-route ATHENS LGGGCTA ATFM delay per flight 5 MAKEDONIA LGMDCTA ANSP Table 4: Reference values for capacity Nevertheless, the minutes of en-route ATFM delay for the years 2012 to 2014 are expected to be higher than the reference values and reach the numbers shown in the table below: Capacity KPI ANSP 2012 F 2013 F 2014 T Alert Threshold Intermediate Value Intermediate Value Minutes of en-route ATFM delay per flight ANSP Deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual traffic versus the traffic forecasts Table 5: Presentation of en-route capacity target for RP1 The reasons for the discrepancy between the EUROCONTROL reference values and the targets set for Greece for the first reference period of the Performance Plan are being analytically explained in the paragraph 2.2 Consistency with the European Union-Wide performance targets (b) capacity. C) ENVIRONMENT TARGET AND THRESHOLD The EU-wide environment target is the average horizontal en-route flight efficiency. For the first reference period, Greece does not propose to adopt any environment KPI at National level. D) COST-EFFICIENCY TARGET AND THRESHOLD For the first reference period, the mandatory cost-efficiency KPI is the determined unit rate for en route air navigation services, defined as follows: (a) the indicator is the result of the ratio between the determined costs and the forecast traffic contained in the performance plans in accordance with Article 10(3)(a) and (b) of the performance regulation; (b) the indicator is expressed in national currency and in real terms; (c) the indicator is provided for each year of the reference period. 5 Capacity reference values- EU Target ACC Breakdown 9

19 In addition, States have to report their terminal air navigation services costs and unit rates in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 and must justify to the Commission any deviation from the forecasts. The alert threshold for the first reference period, where an alert mechanism will be activated, is the deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual costs versus the reference costs. For Greece, the cost-efficiency targets for RP1 are the ones shown in the table below: Cost efficiency KPI 2012 F 2013 F 2014 T Alert Threshold Real en-route determined unit rate (in EURO at 2011 prices) Intermediate Value Intermediate Value Table 6: Presentation of en-route cost-efficiency target for RP1 - Deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual costs versus the reference costs 2.2 CONSISTENCY WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION-WIDE PERFORMANCE TARGETS This section sets out the justifications for Greece s targets and their consistency with the EU-wide targets, in particular with due regard to the assessment criteria set out at Annex III of the Performance Scheme IR. For the performance reference period starting on 1 January 2012 and ending on 31 December 2014, the European Union-wide performance targets, according to Commission Decision No 2011/121/EU of 21 February 2011, shall be as follows: (a) environment target: an improvement by 0,75 of a percentage point of the average horizontal en route flight efficiency indicator in 2014 as compared to the situation in 2009; (b) capacity target: an improvement of the average en route Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) delay so as to reach a maximum of 0,5 minute per flight in 2014; (c) (c) cost-efficiency target: a reduction of the average European Union-wide determined unit rate for en route air navigation services from 59,97 EUR in 2011 to 53,92 EUR in 2014 (expressed in real terms, EUR 2009), with intermediate annual values of 57,88 EUR in 2012 and 55,87 EUR in For all key performance indicators applicable to the performance reference period, the alert threshold beyond which the alert mechanism referred to in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 may be activated shall be a deviation over a calendar year by at least 10 % of the actual traffic recorded by the Performance Review Body versus the traffic forecasts expressed in en route service units: in 2012, in 2013 and in For the cost-efficiency indicator, the costs evolution alert threshold beyond which the alert mechanism referred to in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 may be activated shall be a deviation over a calendar year by at least 10 % of the actual costs at European Union- 10

20 wide level recorded by the Performance Review Body versus the reference determined costs level (expressed in real terms, EUR 2009): in 2012, in 2013 and in The above are presented in the following table: KPA KPI EU-WIDE TARGETS EU-WIDE THRESHOLDS (b) Capacity Minutes of en-route ATFM delay per flight c) Environment Improvement of the average horizontal enroute flight efficiency indicator compared to 2009 (in % points) (d)cost-efficiency Average EU-wide determined unit rate for en route ANS (in Euros 2009) Deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual traffic versus the traffic forecasts Deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual traffic versus the traffic forecasts Deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual traffic versus the traffic forecasts References for the activation of the thresholds - Deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual costs at EU-wide level versus the reference costs Reference en-route traffic at EUwide level (in million en-route service units) Reference determined en-route costs at EU-wide level (in million Euros 2009) Table 7: EU-wide targets and associated thresholds for RP1 11

21 Capacity The performance of the ANSP with respect to the mandatory capacity KPI for RP1 is shown in the table below: Capacity 2009A 2010A 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014T En-route ATFM delay prior to RP1 (enroute ATFM delay minutes per flight) / Reference value from the capacity planning process of EUROCONTROL (en-route ATFM delay minutes per flight) % n/n % -18.8% National/FAB capacity target (en-route ATFM delay in minutes per flight) Difference between the target and the reference value Table 8: En-route capacity target-details at National level % n/n % 13.6% The national capacity targets the first reference period were calculated on the basis of the en-route ATFM delay recorded during the three previous years, i.e The reasoning behind these figures is listed below: The significant increase of overflights that has been documented as of 2003 onwards, mainly attributed to the continuous efforts for improvement of the route network has resulted to an increase in en-route ATFM delays. The economic situation in Greece has resulted in a big decrease in domestic flights that is expected to continue until the end of the year The STATFOR forecast data on traffic evolution for Greece for the first reference period show a sizeable increase of traffic at about 3% per annum. Having regard to the decrease in domestic flights and the evolution of overflights so far, Greece expects an increase in traffic higher than 3% p.a.. The economic situation, Greece being under the Economic Support Mechanism, and the austerity measures taken, in conjunction with the fact that the ANSP staff is part of the public sector, cannot guarantee immediate actions in personnel recruitment. Consequently, the existing personnel, which is additionally expected to decrease due to scheduled retirements, cannot easily cope with significant traffic increase. Furthermore, there is no evidence so far that adequate investments for infrastructure have been undertaken that could lead to capacity increase. 6 If the Libyan situation still exists during the summer of 2011, the mean en-route ATFM delay will be deteriorated. 12

22 Cost-efficiency Historically, the Greek en-route unit rate is well below the European average and is among the lowest in the European Union. For the first reference period, the cost-efficiency target of Greece is expected to present an annual reduction in the determined en-route unit rate of 4.3%. The Greek target therefore is consistent and even surpasses the EU-wide target. The following tables summarise all relevant costs. Full reporting tables are included as ANNEX A to this document. 1) En-route SU Forecast (in thousands) The Service Units forecasts used are from the STATFOR May 2011 forecasts: 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 Source: STATFOR STATFOR STATFOR STATFOR % n/n-1 7.6% 1.2% 4.2% 3.4% 3.7% STATFOR service units forecast (Baseline scenario) Date of STATFOR SU forecast: MAY 2011 MAY 2011 MAY 2011 MAY 2011 MAY 2011 MAY 2011 % n/n-1 7.6% 1.2% 4.2% 3.4% 3.7% Table 9: En-route service units forecast used for the calculation of the national en-route costefficiency target 2) Determined en-route ANS costs in nominal terms The tables below show the efforts made to maintain costs at a stable level. It has to be stressed that, since 2010, Greek government has adopted austerity measures which have resulted in cuts in wages and increase in operating costs (mainly due to rises in VAT, fuel prices, electricity, telecommunications, water et.c.). This procedure is still ongoing and it is expected to affect the cost base at least for the year 2012, given the fact that all accountable entities in this Performance Plan are part of the Public Sector. 7 EUROCONTROL Short- and Medium-Term Forecast of Service Units: May 2011 Update 13

23 ANS en-route cost per entity Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D ANSP EURO 143,3 142,0 142,8 143,2 143,4 % n/n-1-8.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.1% HANSA EURO 12,4 11,1 12,6 12,7 12,9 % n/n-1 6.8% 0.8% 1.6% METSP EURO 9,7 9,8 9,6 9,6 9,6 % n/n-1 1.0% -2.0% 0 0 Total determined costs in nominal terms EURO 165,4 163,6 165,0 165,5 165,9 % n/n-1-1.1% 0.9% 0.3% 0.2% Table 10: National determined en-route costs-breakdown per entity (in nominal terms in EURO) ANS en-route costs per nature Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D Staff EURO 139,0 121,4 119,8 119,6 119,6 119,6 % n/n-1-1.3% -0.2% 0 0 Other operating costs EURO 16,6 33,2 33,0 34,3 34,7 35,0 % n/n-1-0.6% 3.9% 1.2% 0.9% Depreciation EURO 7,9 7,4 7,3 7,5 7,6 7,6 % n/n-1-1.4% 2.7% 1.3% 0 Cost of capital EURO 3,3 3,4 3,5 3,6 3,6 3,7 % n/n-1 2.9% 2.9% 0 2.8% Exceptional items EURO % n/n Total determined costs in nominal terms EURO 166,8 165,4 163,6 165,0 165,5 165,9 % n/n-1-1.1% 0.9% 0.3% 0.2% Table 11: National determined en-route costs-breakdown by nature (in nominal terms in EURO) 14

24 3) Determined en-route ANS costs in real terms The following table provides the calculations of the conversion of the determined en-route costs from nominal terms into real 2009 terms. The projected inflation rates used were derived as described in section 1.2. Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D Total determined costs in nominal terms Inflation % Inflation index (100 in 2009) Total determined costs in real 2009 terms EURO % 2.54% 0.50% 0.66% 0.95% EURO % n/n-1-3.5% 0.4% -0.3% -0.7% Table 12: National determined en-route costs-total in real terms 4) Real en-route determined unit rate Based on the total determined costs in real 2009 terms and the Service Units forecasts, the real en-route determined unit rate is presented in the table below: Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D Determined costs in real terms (in national currency at 2009 prices) EURO Total en-route SUs Real en-route determined unit rate in national currency (at 2009 prices) EURO % n/n-1-4.7% -3.7% -3.6% -4.3% EU-wide target: average determined en-route unit rate (in 2009 EUR) 2009 EUR 57,88 55,87 53,92 Table 13: National real en-route determined unit rate 15

25 5) Terminal ANS costs The Performance Scheme Regulation requires that, for RP1, EU member States provide an overview of determined costs for terminal services. This information is provided in the following table: ANS terminal cost per entity/charging zone Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D ANSP EURO % n/n-1 0.1% 0.1% -0.3% 0.0 HANSA EURO 0,1948 0,1962 0,1690 0,1660 0,1660 % n/n-1 0.7% -13.9% -1.8% 0.0 Total terminal costs in nominal terms EURO , , , % n/n-1 0.1% 0.1% -0.3% 0.0 Table 14: National costs for terminal ANS-breakdown per entity/ charging zone Independencies between targets The Key performance Areas covered by this Performance Plan, i.e. capacity and cost-efficiency, should not be considered as stand alone, performance in one area will affect performance in other areas. A balance should be found between the cost of investments necessary to provide adequate capacity and the cost of delays if insufficient capacity is provided. The cost-efficiency target adopted by Greece is consistent, and even surpasses, the EU-wide targets. On the other hand, the en-route ATFM delays are well above the reference values provided by Eurocontrol and as a result the capacity target is not consistent with the EU-wide targets. This is caused mainly because traffic has increased dramatically over the years, it is expected to continue to do so, but no new staff recruitments nor any investments for the improvement of the capacity target are foreseen due to the fact that Greece in under the European Support Mechanism. Nevertheless, HCAA has made an effort to expedite approval for the initiation of five major projects within the next 3 years, which would improve capacity and cost-efficiency but as these would take some time to implement it would be crucial to invest in the human factor. 16

26 2.3 CARRY-OVERS FROM THE YEARS BEFORE RP1 The following table provides an overview of the carry-overs form the years before RP1 that are relevant to the period covered by RP A 2008 A 2009 A 2010 F 2011 F 2012 P 2013 P 2014 P Carry- overs of under / over recoveries (in '000 euro) Balance Year 2004 Balance Year 2005 Balance Year 2006 Balance Year 2007 Balance Year 2008 Balance Year 2009 Balance Year 2010 Balance Year Amounts carried over to year (i) (1) Adjustment total service units Table 15: Carry-overs from the years before RP1- under(-) and over(+) recoveries (in nominal terms in EURO) 2.4 PARAMETERS FOR RISK SHARING AND INCENTIVES Incentives: For the time being, no incentive mechanisms are foreseen to be applied regarding the capacity and cost-efficiency targets. Risk-sharing: The traffic risk-sharing mechanism comprises the following: o Where, over a given year n, the actual number of service units does not exceed or fall below the forecast established at the beginning of the reference period by more than 2 %, the additional revenue or loss in revenue of the air navigation service provider with regard to determined costs shall not be carried over. o Where, over a given year n, the actual number of service units exceeds the forecast established at the beginning of the reference period by more than 2 %, a minimum of 70 % of the additional revenue obtained by the air navigation service provider(s) concerned in excess of 2 % of the difference between the actual service units and the forecast with regard to 17

27 determined costs shall be returned to airspace users no later than in year n+2. o Where, over a given year n, the actual number of service units falls below the forecast established at the beginning of the reference period by more than 2 %, a maximum of 70 % of the loss in revenue incurred by the air navigation service provider(s) concerned in excess of 2 % of the difference between the actual service units and the forecast with regard to determined costs shall be borne by the airspace users in principle no later than in year n+2. However, Greece may decide to spread the carry -over of such loss in revenue over several years with a view to preserving the stability of the unit rate. The following costs shall not be submitted to traffic risk sharing and shall be recovered irrespective of traffic evolution: (a) the determined costs established in application of Article 5(2) of EC Regulation 1191/2010 with the exception of agreements relating to cross border air traffic service provision; (b) the determined costs of METSP; (c) the carry-overs authorised from a previous year or reference period and bonuses or penalties resulting from incentive schemes; (d) the over- or under-recoveries resulting from traffic variations, which shall be recovered no later than in year n+2. Where, over a given year n, the actual service units are lower than 90 % of the forecast established at the beginning of the reference period, the full amount of the loss in revenue incurred by the air navigation service provider(s) concerned in excess of the 10 % of the difference between the actual service units and the forecast in respect of determined costs shall be borne by the airspace users in principle no later than in year n+2. However, Greece may decide to spread the carry-over of such loss in revenue over several years with the view to preserving the stability of unit rate. Where, over a given year n, the actual service units exceed 110% of the forecast established at the beginning of the reference period, the full amount of the additional revenue obtained by the air navigation service provider(s) concerned in excess of the 10% of the difference between the actual service units and the forecast in respect of determined costs shall be returned to airspace users in year n+2. The cost risk-sharing mechanism provides that: (a)where, over the whole reference period, actual costs fall below the determined costs established at the beginning of the reference period, the resulting difference shall be retained by the air navigation service provider, Member State or qualified entity concerned; (b)where, over the whole reference period, actual costs exceed the determined costs established at the beginning of the reference period, the resulting difference shall be borne by the air navigation service provider, Member State or qualified entity concerned without prejudice to the activation of an alert mechanism in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010; Points (a) and (b) may not apply to the difference between actual and determined costs which may be deemed to be out of the control of the air navigation service providers, Member States and qualified entities as a result of: 18

28 (i) unforeseen changes in national pension regulations and pension accounting regulations; (ii) unforeseen changes in to national taxation law; (iii) unforeseen and new cost items not covered in the national performance plan but required by law; (iv) unforeseen changes in costs or revenues stemming from international agreements; (v) significant changes in interest rates on loans. Where, over the whole reference period, actual costs are lower than the determined costs established at the beginning of the reference period, the resulting difference shall be returned to airspace users through a carry-over to the following reference period. Where, over the whole reference period, actual costs exceed the determined costs established at the beginning of the reference period, the resulting difference shall be passed on to airspace users through a carry-over to the following period. The national supervisory authority concerned shall explicitly agree to the carry-over after having ascertained that: (i) the variation of actual costs against determined costs is actually the result of developments that are beyond the influence of the air navigation service provider, Member State or qualified entity concerned; (ii) the variation in costs to be passed on to users is specifically identified and categorised. 19

29 3. Contribution of Each Accountable Entity 3.1 ANSP s SHARE TO THE NATIONAL TARGETS (a)safety The SES regulatory framework requires that each certified ANSP has a Safety Management System (SMS) in place. The required Acceptable Levels of Safety (ALoS), to be agreed between HCAA and HANSA, are currently being developed. (b)capacity The HCAA/ANSP will be the only entity accountable for meeting the capacity targets for RP1. Capacity 2009A 2010A 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014T En-route ATFM delay prior to RP1 (enroute ATFM delay minutes per flight) / Reference value from the capacity planning process of EUROCONTROL (en-route ATFM delay minutes per flight) % n/n % -18.8% National/FAB capacity target (en-route ATFM delay in minutes per flight) % n/n % 13.6% Difference between the target and the reference value Table 16: HCAA/ANSP contribution to the National capacity target ( at ANSP level) (c)environment HCAA/ANSP is the accountable entity for the environment. No targets on environment will be set for the first reference period. (d)cost-efficiency Details of the HCAA/ANSP s determined en-route costs are provided in the Reporting tables included in ANNEX A of this document. A summary of these tables is provided below: 8 If the Libyan situation still exists during the summer of 2011, the mean en-route ATFM delay will be deteriorated. 20

30 Determined en-route ANS costs: By nature <HCAA/ANSP> Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D Staff EURO Other operating costs EURO Depreciation EURO Cost of capital EURO Exceptional items EURO Total en-route costs EURO Table 17: HCAA/ANSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by nature (in nominal terms in EURO) By service <HCAA/ANSP> Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D Air Traffic Management EURO Communication EURO Navigation EURO Surveillance EURO Search and rescue EURO Aeronautical Information EURO Meteorological services EURO Supervision costs EURO Other State costs EURO Total costs EURO Table 18: HCAA/ANSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by service (in nominal terms in EURO) 21

31 <HCAA/ANSP> Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D Net book value fixed assets EURO Adjustments to total assets EURO Net current assets EURO Total asset base EURO Cost of capital pre tax rate % 2.5% 2.8% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3% Return on equity % 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% Average interest on debts % Table 19: Complementary information on the cost of capital en-route (in nominal terms in EURO) Terminal ANS costs: <HCAA/ANSP> Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D Staff EURO Other operating costs EURO Depreciation EURO Cost of capital EURO Exceptional items EURO Total terminal costs EURO Table 20: HCAA/ANSP-Terminal ANS costs in EURO Return on equity: For the calculation of the return on equity, the 10-year Greek Government Bond was used which was 10.17% 22

32 Investments: The list for the main CAPEX projects between 2012 and 2014, deemed crucial for the improvement of capacity and cost-efficiency, is shown in the table below. The present economic situation in Greece though, cannot guarantee that these investments will be implemented in due time. Name Planned start date Planned end date Budget k 1. Athinai/Makedonia ACC main VCS/RCS COM Four (4) Airport VCS/RCSs COM HACAS Hellenic AFTN/CIDIN AMHS 4. Thessaloniki/Makedonia International Airport SMR/A- SMGCS COM SUR Elementary Mode S RADAR SENSOR at Himittos. SUR UPGRADE OF PALLAS SYSTEM - MAIN FDPS/RDPS / ODS ATM ATM PATROCLOS Upgrade ATM CRISTAL ADS B OUT In cooperation with EUROCONTROL SUR Table 21: HCAA/ANSP-Investments (capex) in nominal terms in EURO for en-route and terminal ANS 23

33 3.2 HANSA s SHARE TO THE NATIONAL TARGETS HANSA is accountable only for the cost-efficiency target Determined en-route ANS costs: By nature <HANSA> Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D Staff EURO Other operating costs EURO Total en-route costs EURO Table 22: HANSA-Determined en-route ANS costs by nature (in nominal terms in EURO) By service <HANSA> Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D Supervision costs EURO Other State costs(incl ECTL) EURO Total costs EURO Table 23: HANSA-Determined en-route ANS costs by service (in nominal terms in EURO) Terminal ANS costs: <HANSA> Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D Staff EURO - 0,1632 0,1544 0,1273 0,1273 0,1273 Other operating costs EURO - 0,0317 0,0418 0,0418 0,0387 0,0387 Depreciation EURO Cost of capital EURO Exceptional items EURO Total terminal costs EURO - 0,1948 0,1962 0,1690 0,1660 0,1660 Table 24: HANSA-Terminal ANS costs in EURO 24