PERFORMANCE REPORT ENVIRONMENT

Transcription

1 PERFORMANCE REPORT ENVIRONMENT May 2018

2 Contents Description & Analysis 3 KPI #1: KEA/HFE at FABEC level (excl. 10 best/worst days) PI #1: HFE based on Actual at FABEC level (incl. all days) PI #2: KEP/HFE based on filed FPL at FABEC level (excl. 10 best/worst days) PI #3: HFE based on filed FPL at FABEC level (incl. all days) PI #4: HFE based on Actual at State level (incl. all days) PI #5: HFE based on filed FPL at State level (incl. all days) PI #6: ASMA PI #7: atxot PI #8: Effectiveness of Booking Procedure for FUA PI #9: Effectiveness of SUA usage Glossary 8 Page: 2

3 Description & Analysis ENV KPI #1: KEA at FABEC level (excl. 10 best/worst days) Confirming the trend observed for the last 2 months, the inefficiency of flown trajectories on the horizontal plan is increasing with a value of 3.23%, stopping positive trend observed until March. The indicator is at 0.18pp above the yearly target (3.05%), and the trend is not downwards, taking into account the small increase of traffic by 1.00% in FABEC in May 2018 compared to May Difference between KEA and KEP is 2.74pp, same value to previous month. Severe delays experienced in May, whatever the reasons but mainly due to industrial actions, are the main explanations of the May performance figures, showing how important are the interdependencies between capacities, weather, and HFE. ENV PI#1: HFE based on Actual at FABEC level (including all days) On a monthly basis, HFE (KEA including all days) has reached 3.53%, which is a significant degradation compared to the previous month (3.27%) and which confirms reversal of the trend observed up until March Compared to May 2017 (3.32%), it represents an increase of the inefficiency values by 0.21pp. ENV PI#2: HFE based on Filed FPL at FABEC level (excl. 10 best/worst days) After a period of stabilization, reaching its lowest level (5.94%) in March, the indicator is also showing a reversal of the trend, but remains below the bar of. The improvement compared to April 2017 is clear anyway (5.97% vs 6.01%), considering that all cause delays in May 2018 are much higher than delays in May 2017 (en-route delays reached 3.75 min this month vs 0.98 min in May 2017). In an international context where traffic is still growing (+2.9% for Europe) very important delays due to industrial actions were observed this month compared to the same month in 2017, encouraging Aircraft Operators to file longer routes, also affected by strong delays due to reasons such as Capacity, Staffing, or Weather. Regarding delays due to weather, they were the most important delays for almost all FABEC ANSPs. As a reminder, implementation in March 30 th of S-WAFLE project in Bordeaux, offering more airspace for military training and then resulting in average to a route extension by 1NM for Bordeaux traffic, contributed to the deterioration of the indicator. In the 2018 context with almost harmonized unit rates in FABEC, meaning that the shortest route is the cheapest route most of the time, KEP is also favored compared to May 2017 because en-route traffic (steady traffic = +1.0%) is growing more than evolving traffic (-1.0%) over FABEC area. ENV PI#3: HFE based on Filed FPL at FABEC level (including all days) Compared to same value in 2017, the figure is showing an deterioration for May (6.21% vs 5.96% monthly, and 6.05% vs 5.99% for YTD), but cannot be considered as a bad result (especially YTD) taking into account that delays in May 2018 are much higher that delays of the same month of 2017 (+2.77 per flight for all causes, but per flight for CRSTMP). ENV PI#4: HFE based on Actual at State level (including all days) At national level, figures of YTD for all states are similar to figures of the same month of 2017 (with a small improvement for The Netherlands), but on a monthly basis, the inefficiency value is increasing for all states, except for The Netherlands, with the following results: Belgium (+0.20pp), Switzerland (+0.38pp), France (+0.26pp) and Germany (+0.18pp). The increase of the KEA value at FABEC level seems equally shared amongst all states. As a reminder, do not forget that PI#4 is impacted by HFE based on Filed FPL at State level (PI#5). ENV PI#5: HFE based on Filed FPL at State level (including all days) At national level, figures of YTD for all states are similar to figures of the same month of On a monthly basis, inefficiency is increasing for all states with the following results: Belgium (+0.30pp), The Netherlands (+0.01pp), Switzerland (+0.17pp), France (+0.35pp) and Germany (+0.14pp). Page: 3

4 KPI #1: KEA/HFE at FABEC level (excl. 10 best/worst days) 3.80% KEA Yearly Value ( - ) KEA 12M rolling avg. FABEC Yearly Target 3.60% 3.20% 3.24% 3.34% 3.22% 3.30% 3.33% 3.22% 3.23% 3.14% 3.05% 3.23% 2.96% 2.80% (RP 1) KEA 12M rolling avg. 2017/2016 KEA 12M rolling avg. 2018/2017 FABEC YEARLY TARGET % 3.60% 3.31% 3.29% 3.29% 3.27% 3.26% 3.24% 3.23% 3.22% 3.22% 3.21% 3.22% 3.23% 3.20% 2.80% PI #1: HFE based on Actual at FABEC level (incl. all days) 3.80% 3.60% 3.53% 3.20% 3.07% 3.04% 3.15% 3.27% 2.80% 3.80% 3.60% 3.20% 3.07% 3.05% 3.09% 3.14% 3.24% 2.80% Page: 4

5 PI #2: KEP/HFE based on filed FPL at FABEC level (excl. 10 best/worst days) 6.60% 6.40% KEP Yearly Value ( - ) KEP 12M rolling avg. 6.20% 6.15% 6.13% 6.12% 6.08% 6.13% 5.95% 6.01% 5.97% 5.80% (RP 1) KEP 12M rolling avg. 2017/2016 KEP 12M rolling avg. 2018/ % 6.40% 6.20% 5.99% 5.98% 5.97% 5.97% 5.97% 5.96% 5.95% 5.95% 5.95% 5.94% 5.96% 5.97% 5.80% PI #3: HFE based on filed FPL at FABEC level (incl. all days) 6.60% 6.40% 6.20% 5.97% 5.95% 6.01% 6.08% 6.21% 5.80% 6.60% 6.40% 6.20% 5.97% 5.96% 5.98% 6.01% 6.05% 5.80% Page: 5

6 PI #4: HFE based on Actual at State level (incl. all days) 4.50% 3.50% 3.86% 3.77% 3.68% 3.59% 3.56% Belgium 3.56% 3.63%3.84% 4.15% 3.26% 3.37% 3.19% 3.18%3.20% 3.69% 3.25% 3.19% 3.16% France 2.68% 2.67% 2.71% 2.75% 2.84% 3.50% 3.10% 2.87% 2.68% 2.78% 2.66% Germany 2.50% 3.02% 2.88% 2.92% 2.96% 2.90% 3.02% 3.08% 2.93% 2.73% Netherlands 4.46% 4.50%4.53% 4.49% 4.56% Switzerland 4.46% 4.54% 4.59% 4.38% 4.78% Page: 6

7 PI #5: HFE based on filed FPL at State level (incl. all days) 8.00% 7.50% 7.18% 7.24% 7.33% 7.39% 7.19% Belgium 8.00% 7.50% 7.18% 7.21%7.32% 7.56% 7.62% 5.97% 5.94% 5.95% 6.07% 6.30% 5.98% 6.11% 5.97% 5.90% 5.50% France 5.50% 5.79% 5.80% 5.82% 5.81% 5.81% 5.79% 5.81% 5.85% 5.79% 5.80% 5.50% Germany 5.50% 4.97% 4.97% 4.97% 5.01%5.07% 4.97% 4.97% 5.11% 5.28% 4.96% Netherlands 9.00% 9.00% 8.00% 7.71% 7.73% 7.74% 7.77% 7.73% 7.71% 7.75% 7.76% 7.90% 8.00% 7.69% Switzerland Page: 7

8 Glossary KEP / KEA definition KEP compares the length of the en route section of the last filed flight plan Lp with the corresponding Achieved p of the great circle distance. KEA compares the length of the en route section of the actual trajectory La with the corresponding Achieved a of the great circle distance. KEP is the reference for SES-wide improvement with a global target set by the European Commission. KEA is the reference for FAB improvements with individual targets set by the European Commission. Achieved distance calculation 4 reference points are identified for KEP/KEA calculation : The Origin and Destination points are the targets of the trajectory and the reference points for the Great Circle: the airports inside the SES area when the airports are outside the SES area, they are the trajectory point at the SES border The entry and exit points are the first and last points of the part of the trajectory considered within a FAB: the point on the 40NM circle around departure or arrival airport the point on the border with the previous/next FAB TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ADEP - Airport of Departure ADES - Airport od Destination ANSP - Air Navigation Service Provider PRU - Performance Review Unit ATFM - Air Traffic Flow Management YTD - Year to Date value FABEC - Functional Airspace Block Europe Central FPP - FABEC Performace Plan TMA - Terminal Manoeuvring Area, delimited by a 40 NM circle around the origin and destination airport. Page: 8

9 FABEC Performance Report Environment: Editor: Sources: Status: May FABEC PMG EUROCONTROL PRU ( ), FABEC ANSPs Notice The FABEC PMG has made every effort to ensure that the information and analysis contained in this document are as accurate and complete as possible. Only information from quoted sources has been used and information relating to named parties has been checked with the parties concerned. Despite these precautions, should you find any errors or inconsistencies we would be grateful if you could please bring them to the FABEC PMGs attention. Page: 9