Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017

Transcription

1 civil air navigation services organisation Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report ANSP Performance Results The ANSP View

2 The CANSO Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 is a collective and entirely voluntary benchmarking effort of CANSO Member air navigation service providers (ANSPs) which covers data from the ANSPs 2016 fiscal year and trend data between the 2012 and 2016 fiscal years. Editorial Team Paul Cripwell, NAV CANADA, current Chair of the Global Benchmarking Workgroup (GBWG) Siree Vatanavigkit, Aeronautical Radio of Thailand (AEROTHAI), incoming Chair of the GBWG Helios - CANSO Performance Benchmarking Project Team Contributors Nigel Fitzhardinge, Airways NZ Kunthinee Karunratanakul, AEROTHAI Krishnan Udayabhanu Rao, Airports Authority of India (AAI) Kanhaya Lal, AAI Carol Teo, Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) Edmund Heng, CAAS Christopher Gregg, Federal Aviation Administration - Air Traffic Organization (FAA-ATO) Dina Dolan, FAA-ATO Aleksandra Damsz, FAA-ATO Kristin Stadum, FAA-ATO Diana Galgoczi, HungaroControl Livia Cseh, HungaroControl Sigurleifur Kristjansson, ISAVIA Aslaug Adalsteinsdottir, ISAVIA Yoshiaki Dei, Japan Air Navigation Service (JANS) Liva Krigere, Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme (LGS) Bill Clark, NAV CANADA Ana Pinto, NAV Portugal Jolanta Wakulicz, Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA) Mindaugas Gustys, Oro Navigacija Tomas Tamašauskas, Oro Navigacija Audrius Radzevičius, Oro Navigacija Ted Fudge, Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO) Disclaimer This report has been compiled using data provided by participating ANSPs. To facilitate comparability, data for each ANSP has been transformed to be consistent with standard definitions. The resulting data and comparisons have been produced solely for the use of ANSPs, and other interested parties, to assess and appraise performance in air navigation services (ANS) provision. It is not intended that the data from this report is used for any wider purpose, nor does the data provide a definitive assessment of any metric relating to ANSP processes. December

3 THE ANSP VIEW Introduction: The ANSP View... Key Performance Indicators... Participants... Methodology... Continental Cost Efficiency and Productivity: Oceanic Cost Efficiency and Productivity: Sources... Acronyms and abbreviations... page 4 page 5 page 6 page 8 page 10 page 19 page 26 page 68 ANNEXES Annex 1: Data definitions... Annex 2: Contextual data... Annex 3: KPI Data... page 27 page 29 page 56 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - List of participating ANSPs... Figure 2 - Participating ANSPs Flight Hours... Figure 3 - CANSO ANS performance framework... Figure 4 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)... Figrue 5 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)... Figure 6 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, PPP adjusted (USD)... Figure 7 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity... Figure 8 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)... Figure 9 - Annual ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD)... Figure 10 - Unit ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD) PPP adjusted... Figure 11 - Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS... Figure 12 - IFR hours per ATCO in OPS... Figure 13 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)... Figure 14 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)... Figure 15 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) PPP adjusted... Figure 16 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity... Figure 17 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)... Figure 18 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)... Figure 19 - Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs... page 6 page 7 page 9 page 10 page 11 page 12 page 13 page 14 page 15 page 16 page 17 page 18 page 19 page 20 page 21 page 22 page 23 page 24 page 25 3

4 Introduction: The ANSP View Background This is the second part of CANSO s Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report It contains performance indicators for identified air navigation service providers (ANSPs) for the year 2016, along with trend data between the 2012 and 2016 fiscal years. ANSPs also provided contextual comments, including any exceptional events during the year or items that may impact the comparability of their data. Additional comments on important events are provided with the contextual data that also provides insights on the results of the participating ANSPs. For the key messages and an overview of the industry as a whole, please see the Executive Summary. 4

5 Key Performance Indicators The following section presents 2016 and trend data for both continental and oceanic activities in line with the CANSO ANS Performance Framework levels 1-3 (see page [12]), as well as an additional KPI on the employment cost of air traffic controllers (ATCOs) in operations (OPS) as a percentage of total cost. Indicator KPI Numerator Denominator Figure References Continental Oceanic Cost Efficiency and Productivity Performance Indicators 2016 / Trend Cost per IFR Total Cost IFR flight hours Figure 4 Figure 13 flight hour 2A ATCOs in OPS Employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour Employment costs for ATCOs in OPS ATCOs in OPS hours Figure 5, 6 Figure 14, 15 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C ATCOs in OPS hour productivity Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS IFR flight hours Costs excluding employment costs for ATCOs in OPS Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS ATCOs in Figure 7 Figure 16 OPS hours IFR flight hours Figure 8 Figure 17 ATCOs in OPS Figure 9, 10 ATCOs in ATCOs in OPS Figure 11 OPS hours IFR flight hours ATCOs in OPS Figure 12 Continental and Oceanic Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost Efficiency Performance Indicators 2016 / Trend CO1 Cost per IFR Total Cost IFR flight hours Figure 18 flight hour CO2 Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS Total Cost Figure 19 Notes on this year s KPIs This year Airways New Zealand provided data for two financial years (July June 2017 and July June 2016). This allows better alignment with localised reporting and provides more relevant benchmarking opportunities for other ANSPs. As the report s trend data is between those two submissions, it is however not possible to compare trend data in this year s report with the same metrics included in last year s report, which were for July June 2015 only. 5

6 Participants The following ANSPs opted into this report: Region Member Label for Graphics Air Traffic & Navigation Services ATNS Africa Civil Aviation Authority of Uganda CAUU Kenya Civil Aviation Authority KCAA Corporacion Centroamericana de Servicios de Navegacion COCESNA Americas Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Organization FAA-ATO NAV CANADA NAV CANADA Servicios para la Navegación del Espacio Aereo Mexicano SENEAM Asia Pacific Aeronautical Radio of Thailand AEROTHAI Airports Authority of India AAI Airways New Zealand Airways NZ Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore CAAS Japan Air Navigation Service JANS Administration de la Navigation Aérienne ANA Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic ANS CR Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü DHMI Estonian Air Navigation Services EANS Finavia Finavia Europe HungaroControl Pte.Ltd. Co. HungaroControl Isavia Ltd ISAVIA Luftfartsverket LFV Latvijas gaisa satiksme LGS Letové Prevádzkové Služby LPS Navegação Aérea de Portugal - NAV Portugal, E.P.E NAV Portugal SE Oro Navigacija Oro Navigacija PANSA Polish Air Navigation Services Agency PANSA Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration ROMATSA Sakaeronavigatsia Ltd Sakaeronavigatsia Slovenia Control Slovenia Control Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services SMATSA IIc SMATSA Figure 1 - List of participating ANSPs Note: ANSPs have the option to opt-in or opt-out of The ANSP View, which is why this list of participating ANSPs differs slightly from the participants list in the Executive Summary. 6

7 ANSP Total IFR Flight Hours 2016 (Continental) Growth IFR Flight Hours (Continental) Total IFR Flight Hours 2016 (Oceanic) Growth IFR Flight Hours (Oceanic) FAA-ATO 23,798,765 2% 1,985,454 5% AAI 3,075,221 15% NAV CANADA 2,901,807 1% 618,626 7% JANS 2,261,685 4% SENEAM 1,407,217 DHMI % AEROTHAI 748,521 11% LFV 431,832 0% CAAS 430,087 5% PANSA 426,110 6% NAV Portugal 398,024 11% ROMATSA 338,782-3% ATNS 284,204 5% 8,879-10% Airways NZ 265,211 3% 117,212 9% ANS CR 251,992 4% HungaroControl 238,135 3% SMATSA 237,951 5% Finavia 105,306-6% LPS 97,738 4% LGS 78,990 2% KCAA 73,758 1% EANS 67,869 1% Oro Navigacija 54,469-2% Sakaeronavigatsia 50,914 0% Slovenia Control 50,608 1% Isavia 30,124 11% 260,088 11% ANA 21,600 CAAU 18,448 COCESNA Figure 2 - Participating ANSPs Flight Hours 7

8 Methodology Data collection: CANSO ANSP Members provided data for this analysis. Data submission has been greatly simplified this year. The submission of data has initially focussed on the data required for this report, while additional data to support the trial KPIs is being collected on a different schedule. ANSPs are able to revise data submitted in previous years. The data submission workbook includes validation calculations that ANSPs are encouraged to consult in the data collection phase. The entire dataset is available to all participating ANSPs to enable closer analysis and evaluation of performance trends. Data processing: Data has been processed by Helios. It was subject to a one-step quality check for significant changes, potential errors or omissions and is subject to continued revision by participating Members. Separation of continental and oceanic data: Information is provided both for continental and oceanic air navigation services, where applicable. Each of these environments has different challenges associated with providing ANS. For example, it is more straightforward to provide ground infrastructure for communications and surveillance services in continental airspace than it is over vast oceans. Exchange rate conversion: ANSPs submit data in their chosen currency. For KPI comparison, data is presented in USD KPI data is converted using the Bank of England 2016 exchange rates (average rate during the year) where available and supplemented with the data available at currency and foreign exchange rate website, XE.com. Growth rates: Data is presented from 2016 and then for the one-year and four-year trends. The four-year trend 1 is calculated as the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) 2. The use of a CAGR shows clearly the overall trend between 2012 and However, it masks the fluctuations that may have taken place over the intervening years, which are also important in understanding performance trends. In addition, if 2012 was an outlier, this trend may not be representative of the trend over this timeframe. The trend analysis is presented above the 2016 KPI data, and is based on the data submitted in the ANSP s chosen currency. As a result, it is impossible to reverse engineer the USD metrics in 2016 s report, using this report. PPP correction: Salaries and the cost of living vary extensively around the world. One way to correct for this is by using purchasing power parity (PPP). Employment costs for ATCOs in OPS are corrected using the International Monetary Fund (IMF) PPP conversion rates. There are, of course, limitations to this approach, as the cost of living can vary widely within a country and may be higher or lower in the region where ANS offices are located. Q1 and Q3: The first quartile (Q1) is defined as the middle number between the smallest number and the median of the data set and the third quartile (Q3) is the middle value between the median and the highest value of the data set. The median is defined as the value separating the upper half of the data from the lower half. For ANSPs that operate in a currency other than the USD, the assumption of lower cost may be caused in part by the strengthening USD. Between 2012 and 2016, the USD appreciated against most other world currencies, meaning each USD buys more foreign currency. This change in the relative value of the dollar effectively lowers the price that ANSPs incur in USD. 1 The four-year trend uses five years of data and four years in growth terms. 2 The compound annual growth rate is calculated by taking the nth root of the total percentage growth rate, where n is the number of years in the period being considered. 8

9 CANSO ANS Performance Framework The cost efficiency and productivity indicators for continental and oceanic services in line with the CANSO ANS Performance Framework. Figure 3 CANSO ANS performance framework It is important to note the dependence of the higher tier metrics on the lower tier ones. This can be established as follows: 1= 2A 2B + 2C 2A= 3A 3B 2B= 3C 3B 9

10 Continental Cost Efficiency and Productivity: Continental Cost efficiency Indicator 1: Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours Figure 4 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD) The 2016 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 416. The main driver behind CAAS increase in this metric was an influx of ATCOs employed in preparation for Singapore s new three-runway system and anticipated increase in traffic at Changi Airport. This led to increased employment and training costs. It should be noted that, regarding depreciation, JANS accounts for the cost of facilities, systems and equipment related to air navigation services, and this affects this indicator as well as indicators 2C, CO1 and CO2. Isavia s costs were driven up by a new salary agreement with the ATCOs, which resulted in an increase in total salary cost of approximately 25% for 2016 compared with

11 2016 Continental - Cost efficiency Indicator 2A: ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS hours Figure 5 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour is USD 80. AAI s reduction in this metric is due to a policy decision to increase the working hours of ATCOs in OPS, which drove a 16% increase in ATCO hours. The increase in ANS CR s metric is a result of bonuses that were paid to ATCOs due to their higher workload and additional effort resulting from the increase in air traffic recorded in 2016 in the airspace of the Czech Republic. All the bonuses were paid in accordance with a collective agreement. Moreover, the increase in air traffic led to more overtime work by ATCOs in

12 The reason for the significant change in Sakaeronavigatsia s metric from last year is a decrease in ATCO hours, driven by a new order issued by the Georgian Civil Aviation Agency decreasing annual working hours from 1728 to 1452, coupled with an increase in ATCO employment costs. This was a result of inflation in 2016 and, an increase in the number of employees; 12 ATCOs were recruited in FY2016. Isavia s increase is driven by the new salary agreement that was mentioned after Figure 4. The increase in DHMI s ATCO costs last year was due to the decision taken by the Ministry of Labor and Social Security during the Collective Labor Agreement Debates regarding an additional payment to staff of all public entities. This decision was also binding on DHMI due to which payment was made to all staff including ATCOs Figure 6 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, PPP adjusted (USD) The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, after PPP adjustment is USD

13 2016 Continental - Productivity Indicator 2B: ATCOs in OPS hour productivity Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours Figure 7 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS hour productivity is Within Europe, traffic growth continued in 2016 with a shift towards the South-West axis. Consequently, one of the highest increases in overall traffic was observed in Portugal and NAV Portugal faced an increase in en-route traffic and high arrival/departures at airports of both FIRs. This has driven the increase in this metric. For Isavia, the increase is a result of traffic increasing, while ATCO hours went down due to industrial action. 13

14 2016 Continental - Cost efficiency Indicator 2C: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs / IFR flight hours Figure 8 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD) The 2016 average cost excluding ATCOs in operations employment cost per IFR flight hour is USD 296. ATNS decrease in this metric is due to a deliberate cost containment decision, made in anticipation of zero increase in tariffs. 14

15 2016 Continental - Cost efficiency Indicator 3A: Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / No. ATCOs in OPS Figure 9 - Annual ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD) The 2016 average unit ATCO in OPS employment cost is USD 121,021. The increase in employment cost for NAV CANADA is related to the increase in traffic that resulted in an increase in the number of shifts required to meet this demand and the use of overtime to fill these shifts. 15

16 Figure 10 - Unit ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD) PPP adjusted The 2016 average unit ATCO in OPS employment cost, after PPP adjustment, is USD 192,

17 2016 Continental - Productivity Indicator 3B: Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: ATCOs in OPS hours / No. ATCOs in OPS Figure 11 - Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS The 2016 average annual working hours per ATCO in OPS is 1,593 hours. The reduction in Sakaeronavigatsia s metric is due to a new order issued by the Georgian Civil Aviation Agency decreasing annual working hours from 1728 to AAI s change in this metric is due to the policy decision to increase the working hours of ATCOs in OPS. The change in Isavia s metric is due to industrial action. The 3% growth in AEROTHAI s metric corresponds to the 11% growth in IFR flight hours. 17

18 2016 Continental - Productivity Indicator 3C: Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: IFR flight hours / No. ATCOs in OPS Figure 12 - IFR hours per ATCO in OPS The 2016 average annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS is 1,101 IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS. NAV Portugal s increase in this metric was, as before, driven by a significant increase in traffic. 18

19 Oceanic Cost Efficiency and Productivity: Oceanic - Cost efficiency Indicator 1: Cost per IFR flight hour (USD) Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours Figure 13 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD) The 2016 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 90. For comparison, this figure for continental flights is USD

20 2016 Cost efficiency - Oceanic Indicator 2A: ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs hour (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS Hours Figure 14 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) The 2016 oceanic average employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is USD 122. For comparison, the figure for continental airspace is USD 79. This figure is, however, skewed by the smaller number of ANSPs participating in this report that service oceanic airspace. For comparison, the average figure for continental airspace for the ANSPs above is USD 113. The explanation for Isavia s increase is the same as for the continental indicator: the new salary agreement with the controllers. Note, the fact that FAA-ATO ATCO in OPS employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is higher for oceanic than continental stems from the higher cost of living in the areas that cover oceanic traffic. 20

21 Figure 15 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) PPP adjusted The 2016 oceanic average employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is USD 118. For comparison, the average figure for continental airspace is USD

22 2016 Oceanic - Productivity Indicator 2B: ATCOs in OPS hour productivity Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours Figure 16 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS hour productivity is 4.1 IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS hours, significantly higher than the continental figure of As would be expected, traffic volumes in oceanic airspaces vary considerably between flight information regions (FIR). NAV CANADA and FAA-ATO exhibit the higher volumes, while ATNS has very little oceanic traffic but must still provide basic coverage at all times. 22

23 2016 Oceanic - Cost efficiency Indicator 2C: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs / IFR flight hours Figure 17 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD) The 2016 average cost excluding ATCOs in operations employment cost per IFR flight hour is USD 65. ATNS is not included on this graph, as it does not separately calculate costs for oceanic flights, and thus it is impossible to obtain an accurate picture of what costs excluding ATCO costs for oceanic flights. 23

24 Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost efficiency: Continental and Oceanic - Cost efficiency Indicator CO1: Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs /IFR flight hours Figure 18 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD) The 2016 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 409. Compare this average value to that from Figure 4 Cost per IFR flight hour (continental) where the average value is USD 416, which, as last year, reflects the influence of a small number of ANSPs that have oceanic services with significantly lower unit costs. 24

25 2016 Continental and Oceanic - Cost efficiency Indicator CO2: Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / Total costs Figure 19 - Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs The 2016 average employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs is 29%. 25

26 Sources Definitions: EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V2.6 EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V3.0 Exchange rate data: XNode3790.x=7&A3790XNode3790.y=5&Nodes=&SectionRequired=I&HideNums=- 1&ExtraInfo=true#BM IMF World Economic Outlook database: 26

27 Annex 1: Data Definitions Contextual Data Element Definitions Data Element IFR hours per sq. km Sq. km oceanic and continental % surveillance 30,000ft radar and ADS-B only % surveillance 30,000ft radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs Number of ACC facilities Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach facilities Number of co-located approach and tower facilities Number of co-located approach, tower and ACC facilities Number of stand-alone towers Definitions This is the result of dividing the number of IFR hours for the current year of data by surface area (in square kilometres). The size (the surface area) of the airspace for which an ANSP is responsible. This should include the area where ANS have been delegated to the ANSP by another provider, and exclude the area in which ANS have been delegated to another ANSP. The sq. km here should be consistent with ACC coverage with respect to total area. Differentiation for facilities controlling only upper or lower airspace will be addressed by item 3 below. (Source: PRU D1). Surveillance coverage from radar and ADS-B. Surveillance coverage from radar, ADS-B and ADS-C. A Flight Information Region is airspace of defined dimensions within which flight information service and alerting service are provided. ACC facilities are the ATC units providing ATC services to enroute traffic in control areas under its jurisdiction. Part of an ACC may also provide approach services. An ACC unit is described above. An approach control unit is an ATC unit providing ATC services to arriving, departing and over-flying flights within the airspace in the vicinity of an airport. Definition of an approach control unit is above. Definition of an approach control unit is above. A tower control unit is an ATC unit at an airport responsible for the provision of ATC services in respect of flights that are landing and taking off and other traffic that is on the active runway(s). For definitions see above. Definition of a tower control unit is above. 27

28 Input Data Definitions Data Element Total Costs IFR flight hours ATCO hours ATCO employment cost Other costs Number of ATCOs Definitions The sum of operating costs, depreciation/amortisation and cost of capital related to providing continental and oceanic ATC/ ATFM services. Meteorological costs and EUROCONTROL costs (if applicable) are not included. Total number of controlled IFR flight hours in continental and oceanic airspace. Total annual working hours for ATCOs in operations including breaks and overtime. Holiday is not included. Total employment costs including gross wages and salaries, payments for overtime and other bonuses, employer contribution to social security scheme and taxes, pension contributions and other benefits for ATCOs in operations. This excludes: mission related expenditures, including travel expenditures and training fees, as these are considered operating costs. Total Costs - ATCO in OPS employment costs. The number of FTE ATCOs whose employment costs were included in ATCO employment cost participating in an activity that is either directly related to the control of traffic or is a necessary requirement for ATCOs to be able to control traffic. 28

29 Annex 2: Contextual Data ANSP: AEROTHAI In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance? Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Legal status: The traffic growth along with limitations in airspace infrastructure are the main drivers for operational/airspace organisation improvements, air traffic flow management and increased safety measures. Thailand Modernization CNS/ATM System (TMCS) project which is a nation-wide ANS infrastructure enhancement, and deployment of service improvement projects in accordance with applicable Aviation System Block Upgrades (ASBU) strategies and APAC Seamless ATM Plan. Slower traffic growth rate compare to 2015 was due to the limited capacity of the airspace and infrastructure. AEROTHAI is working on enhancing capacity while maintaining and improving safety standard. A company established as a public-private partnership to provide the services on behalf of the government, and part-owned by the government. Contextual data element Continental Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km Sq. km. oceanic and continental 777,760 Percentage surveillance coverage at 100% 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 100% 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs 1 Facilities Number of ACC facilities 1 Number of co-located ACC and 0 approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach 1 facilities Number of co-located approach and 6 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers 14 The number of co-located approach/ tower and stand-alone towers and their respective numbers of ATCOs do not reflect actual facilities. These numbers are split by the currently available data, of which some physical stand-alone towers may be represented Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities 0 29

30 ANSP: Airports Authority of India In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance? Traffic growth, availability of technology, and government initiatives for structural reform in civil aviation by converting it into mass transportation. Technological upgradation, human capital improvements, optimisation of resources. Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides. Contextual data element Continental Oceanic Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. oceanic and continental 3,570,000 6,400,000 Percentage surveillance coverage at 100% 0% 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 100% 100% ADS-C 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs 1 3 Partially continental, partially oceanic Facilities Number of ACC facilities 0 Number of co-located ACC and 0 approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach 0 facilities Number of co-located approach and 49 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers 7 Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities 12 30

31 ANSP: Airways New Zealand In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance? Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Upgrading of aircraft sizes and a recent increase in total traffic. Continuing increase in capital spend. Ongoing development of ops strategy programme to provide resilience and service using a 1 centre, 2 locations concept. No exceptional events. Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government). Contextual data element Continental Oceanic Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km Sq. km. oceanic and continental 863,100 28,790,000 Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs 1 1 Facilities Number of ACC facilities 0 1 Number of co-located ACC and 1 0 approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach 0 0 facilities Number of co-located approach and 7 0 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers 10 0 Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities % 100% Oceanic: FANS1A equipped aircraft 100% 100% Oceanic: FANS1A equipped aircraft 31

32 ANSP: Administration de la navigation aérienne In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance? Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Single European Sky (SES) performance targets and regulation; functional airspace block (FAB) performance targets and projects; and European SES Implementation Plan (ESSIP). Annual setting / reviewing of KPI s and PI s as per service areas in KPAs: safety, capacity, environment, and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF); specific targets and actions are monitored = first year of applying SES performance plan and establishing a full set of KPIs helped to improve performance. Legal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions Contextual data element Continental Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km. 5.4 Sq. km. oceanic and continental 4,000 Percentage surveillance coverage at 0% 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 0% 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs 1 Facilities Number of ACC facilities 0 Number of co-located ACC and 0 approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach 1 facilities Number of co-located approach and 1 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers 0 Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities 0 32

33 ANSP: Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they? In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance? Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Yes, objectives are stated in the corporate Business Plan developed currently for years 2015 to Objectives cover 4 KPAs: safety, environment, capacity and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). EU regulations on Performance and Charging Scheme. Internal performance monitoring system with predefined objectives to be met. No factors or exceptional events were noticed in Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government). Contextual data element Continental Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km Sq. km. oceanic and continental 76,300 Percentage surveillance coverage at 100% 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 100% 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs 1 Facilities Number of ACC facilities 1 Number of co-located ACC and 1 approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach facilities Number of co-located approach and 3 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers 1 Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities 33

34 ANSP: Air Traffic & Navigation Services Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they? To provide safe, expeditious and efficient air traffic management solutions and associated services, whilst ensuring long-term economic, social and environmental sustainability. Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government). Contextual data element Continental Oceanic Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km Sq. km. oceanic and continental 9,279,080 12,720,920 Percentage surveillance coverage at 0% 0% 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 95% 0% 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs 2 1 Oceanic services are provided by ATSO and not ATCO Facilities Number of ACC facilities 0 0 Number of co-located ACC and 0 0 approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach 0 0 facilities Number of co-located approach and 9 0 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers 10 0 Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities 2 0 Oceanic is provided in one the centres 34

35 ANSP: Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides. Contextual data element Continental Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km Sq. km. oceanic and continental 840,000 Percentage surveillance coverage at 69% 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 100% 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs 1 Facilities Number of ACC facilities 1 Number of co-located ACC and 0 approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach 1 facilities Number of co-located approach and 0 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers 2 Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities 0 35

36 ANSP: Civil Aviation Authority of Uganda Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they? In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance? Legal status: Yes. It aims at delivering a range of services to ensure the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic within the Ugandan airspace. Business, tourism and UN operations. Airspace redesign, installation/modification of ANS facilities, training of staff and airport expansion to comply with ICAO ASBU and implementation of performance based navigation (PBN). A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government). Contextual data element Continental Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km Sq. km. oceanic and continental 249,690 Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs 1 Facilities 100% radar coverage within 180 nautical miles (NM) radius from NN and 90% coverage outside 180NM 100% radar coverage within 180 NM NN and 90% radar coverage beyond 180 NM NN Number of ACC facilities 1 Located at Entebbe Number of co-located ACC and None approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach 1 Entebbe airport facilities Number of co-located approach and 1 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers 2 Entebbe and Gulu airports Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities 36

37 ANSP: Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Overflights continued to rise in a context of important changes in traffic patterns due to airspace closures in Iraq and Syria. New procedures for approach, arrival and departure were implemented at 8 airports. Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides. Contextual data element Continental Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km Sq. km. oceanic and continental 982,000 Percentage surveillance coverage at 100% 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs 2 Facilities Number of ACC facilities 2 Number of co-located ACC and 2 approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach facilities Number of co-located approach and 44 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities 37

38 ANSP: Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Organization Legal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions. Contextual data element Continental Oceanic Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km Sq. km. oceanic and continental 14,832,411 60,628,411 Percentage surveillance coverage at 100% 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs 21 5 Facilities Number of ACC facilities 21 Number of co-located ACC and 3 approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach 27 facilities Number of co-located approach and 132 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers 131 Excludes federal contract towers Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities 1 38

39 ANSP: Finavia Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they? In your opinion what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance? Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. SES-regulation/performance requirements. 1. FAB co-operation projects, 2. For Finavia rostering principles review, 3. Investment / procurement programmes, 4. Staff reductions. Preparation of corporatisation (separate ANS and airports businesses in individual companies in 2017). Less traffic than expected resulting in less income. Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government Contextual data element Continental Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km Sq. km. oceanic and continental 411,000 Percentage surveillance coverage at 100% 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 0% 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs 1 Facilities Number of ACC facilities 1 ACC facilities at two sites (Tampere and Helsinki) operated dynamically by common management. Number of co-located ACC and 1 approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach 0 facilities Number of co-located approach and 5 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers 18 Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities 1 39

40 ANSP: HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance? Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. The main driver of European performance is the performance scheme. The ANSPs have to bear cost and traffic risk, however they do not have influence on traffic. Continuously changing legal framework. Effective resource allocation due to extra traffic and flexible sectorisation in order to minimise delay and overtime of ATCOs. Increased traffic due to the Ukrainian situation. Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government). Contextual data element Continental Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. oceanic and continental 104,000 Hungarian airspace and the upper airspace over Kosovo Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs 2 Facilities Number of ACC facilities 0 Number of co-located ACC and 1 approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach 0 facilities Number of co-located approach and 0 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers 1 Number of co-located ACC, approach 0 and tower facilities 0% 0% ADS-B and ADS-C coverage but 100% radar coverage at 30,000ft 0% 0% ADS-B and ADS-C coverage but 100% radar coverage at 30,000ft 40

41 ANSP: Isavia Ltd In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance? Safety. Upgrading of our flight data processing system (FDPS) and associated systems. Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government). Contextual data element Continental Oceanic Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km Combined oceanic and continental Sq. km. oceanic and continental 5,400,000 Combined oceanic and continental Percentage surveillance coverage at 100% 30% 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 100% 80% 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs 1 2 BIRD/BGGL Facilities Number of ACC facilities Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach facilities Number of co-located approach and 1 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers 2 Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities 1 1 Combined continental/oceanic/ approach 41

42 ANSP: Japan Air Navigation Service In your opinion what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance? Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Drivers: Accommodating increasing air traffic demand particularly in Tokyo metropolitan region Issues: Restrictions on airspace/flight routes due to noise abatement. Implementation of integrated ATC data processing system and airspace reformation. The (actual) flight hours in Fukuoka FIR have increased 4% compared to the previous year. In particular, the international flights and over flights have grown 7% and 9% respectively. Legal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions. Contextual data element Continental Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km Sq. km. oceanic and continental 8,400,000 Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only 100% Radar except oceanic sectors. ADS-B: Installation ongoing ADS-C: Applicable within oceanic sectors. Number of FIRs 1 Facilities Number of ACC facilities 4 Number of co-located ACC and 0 approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach 0 facilities Number of co-located approach and 14 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers 19 Number of co-located ACC, approach 0 and tower facilities 42

43 ANSP: Kenya Civil Aviation Authority Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they? In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance? Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. To plan, develop, manage, regulate and operate a safe, economically sustainable and efficient civil aviation system in Kenya, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act, To provide a safe, efficient and effective civil aviation. Implementation of SMS, upgrade of communication, navigation and surveillance (CNS) equipment. N/A Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides. Contextual data element Continental Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. oceanic and continental 796,844 Percentage surveillance coverage at 100% radar 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 12.5% ADS-C 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs 1 Facilities Number of ACC facilities 1 Number of co-located ACC and 1 approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach 3 facilities Number of co-located approach and 3 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers 5 Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities 1 43

44 ANSP: Luftfartsverket (LFV) Contextual data element Continental Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km Sq. km. oceanic and continental 627,000 Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs 1 Facilities Number of ACC facilities 2 Number of co-located ACC and 2 approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach 1 facilities Number of co-located approach and 21 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities 44

45 ANSP: Latvijas gaisa satiksme Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they? Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Volatility of traffic, uncertainty with traffic to/from Russian Federation. Territory, cost-effectiveness pressures. No. Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government). Contextual data element Continental Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. oceanic and continental 95,200 Percentage surveillance coverage at 100% 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 100% 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs 1 Facilities Number of ACC facilities 0 Number of co-located ACC and 1 approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach 0 facilities Number of co-located approach and 0 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers 1 Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities 0 45

46 ANSP: Letové Prevádzkové Služby (LPS SR) Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they? LPS pursues the following objectives: 1. To maintain the level of safety unchanged with the growing volume of traffic in the Slovak airspace. 2. To create an operational environment, mature enough to meet a long-term demand for air transport and maintain a safe, fast and orderly flow of air traffic at the same time 3. To minimise LPS SR s negative impact on flight efficiency in Europe by minimizing ATFM delays in Slovak airspace. 4. To ensure economic efficiency of air traffic management in Slovakia 5. To minimise the negative impact of air traffic on the quality of environment In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance? Severe impact of highly seasonal nature of air traffic volume in Slovak airspace peaking in the summer period. The projects related to improvement of voice communication capabilities have been launched. Procurement of the radio system for 8,33 khz air - ground voice channel spacing and VoIP implementation started in 2015 and the pilot project for optimisation of voice communication systems and IP networks was initiated in Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. The Government elections followed by the change of Head of the Ministry of Transport. Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides. Contextual data element Continental Comments Operational data IFR hours per sq. km Sq. km. oceanic and continental 48,700 Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs 1 Facilities Number of ACC facilities 1 Number of co-located ACC and 0 approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach 0 facilities Number of co-located approach and 2 tower facilities Number of stand-alone towers 3 Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities 0 46