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

Transcription

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

2 Edition 01 June 27, /100

3 DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD The following table records the complete history of the document. EDITION NUMBER EDITION DATE REASON FOR CHANGE Draft 0 Version Initial draft Draft 0 Version Updated draft Draft 0 Version Updated draft following ANSP working meeting Draft 0 Version Additional updates Draft 0 Version Updated draft after the first meeting of Danube FAB Performance Focus Group Draft 0 Version Updated draft after PRU-NSA Romania bilateral meeting Draft 0 Version Draft for stakeholder consultation Edition Updated draft after stakeholder consultation Edition 01 June 27, /100

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1.1. The situation Scope of the plan 1.2. Overall assumption for RP General economic assumption Trend of traffic forecast Overall status of aviation safety Institutional context of ANS provisions 1.3. Stakeholder Consultation Outcome of stakeholder consultation 2. National performance targets and alert thresholds 2.1 Romania Performance targets and alert thresholds for RP Consistency with EU-wide targets (and thresholds) Capacity Cost-efficiency 2.3. Carry-overs from the years before RP Parameters for risk sharing and incentives 3. Contribution of each accountable entity 3.1. Entity share in the national targets and individual binding performance targets 3.2. Investments 3.3. Incentive mechanisms to be applied on entities to encourage targets to be met in RP1 4. Civil-military dimension of the plan 4.1. Performance of FUA application 4.2. Additional KPIs 5. Analysis of sensitivity and comparison with the previous performance plan 6. Implementation of the Romanian National Performance Plan Edition 01 June 27, /100

5 LIST OF ANNEXES A. Reference documents B. Reporting tables & Additional information, Romania En-route C. Reporting tables & Additional information, Romania TNC D. Extract from ANSP Business Plans E. DANUBE FAB, Flight hours and KPIs F. Extracts from State Safety Programme Romania G. Outcome of stakeholder consultation LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Romania expected evolution of macroeconomic figures Table 2: GDP product components use Table 3: Consumer price index Table 4 Medium term fiscal and budgetary framework Table 5: IFR Flight movements forecast Table 6: Service units forecast Table 7: ROMANIA national capacity and cost-efficiency targets and thresholds for RP1 (according to EU 691/2010 Regulation) Table 8: Safety KPIs currently used at national level (according to national provisions) Table 9: ROMATSA Safety KPIs 2009 Table 10: En-route capacity target for RP1 Table 11: Romania En-route cost-efficiency KPI for RP1 Table 12: EU-wide targets and associated thresholds for RP1 Table 13: En-route capacity target details at national level Table 14: Summer 2010 performance ( LSSIP ) Table 15: Capacity profiles/plan, , LSSIP Table 16: Chargeable SU Table 17: En-route service units forecast used for the calculation of the national en-route cost-efficiency target Table 18: Breakdown of the National Romania determined en-route costs per entity (in nominal terms in national currency) Table 19: Breakdown of the National Romania determined en-route costs per nature (in nominal terms in national currency) Table 20: National real determined en-route costs in RON 2009 Table 21: Romania real en route determined unit rate (in national currency at 2009 prices and in EUR 2009) Table 22: National costs for terminal ANS breakdown per entity (in nominal terms in national currency) Table 23: Carry-overs from the years before RP1 - Under (-) and over (+) recoveries (in nominal terms in national currency) Table 24: NSA/RCAA determined en-route costs in nominal terms Edition 01 June 27, /100

6 Table 25: SNAIA/RCAA determined en-route costs in nominal terms Table 26: ROMATSA determined en-route costs in nominal terms Table 27: EUROCONTROL determined en-route costs in nominal terms Table 28: Annual investments (Capex) in nominal terms in national currency for en-route and terminal ANS Table 29: Description of the main investments impacting RP1 for ROMATSA (in nominal terms in national currency) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Traffic and en-route ATFM delays Figure 2: Delay and performance, , LSSIP Figure 3: Capacity profile and demand, LSSIP Figure 4: Evolution of determined unit rates according to SUs variations Figure 5: Evolution of the total costs according to unforeseen changes Edition 01 June 27, /100

7 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The situation Scope of the plan (1) The Romanian National Performance Plan for Air Navigation Services , Ed. 01/2011 (RNPP1) has been elaborated according to the provisions of 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 and to the Guidance Material for national/fab performance plans produced by the Performance Review Unit (PRU) of EUROCONTROL in support of the Performance Review Body (PRB) of the Single European Sky, Released Issue 23 February (2) The RNPP1 covers the first reference period (RP1), from 1 January 2012 to 31 December (3) The RNPP1 is elaborated and adopted at national level for RP1. For the second reference period and beyond it is envisaged to elaborate a performance plan at DANUBE FAB level. (4) The National Supervisory Authority (NSA) responsible for drawing up the performance plan is the Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority (RCAA), designated by Order of the Romanian Ministry of Transports, Construction and Tourism no. 1185/2006 as NSA responsible for the implementation of SES legislation, including Reg. no. 549/2004 and further Regulations adopted by the Commission for its implementation, except the security matters. (5) The accountable entities covered by the RNPP1 are: Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration ROMATSA Designation act: Ministry of Transports Order no of December 21, 2006 for the designation of the Autonomous Enterprise "Romanian Administration of Air Traffic Services" ROMATSA as a provider of air traffic services for general air traffic and aviation meteorological services Certification: CN 01/ , Amdt. 02/ , valid until , for the following ANS services: - ATS (en-route and terminal ATS); - CNS; - MET services - AIS (only PIB) Edition 01 June 27, /100

8 AIS Department within Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority SNAIA/RCAA Certification: CN 05/ , valid until , for all AIS package, except PIB. National Supervisory Authority Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority NSA/RCAA Designation act: Order of the Romanian Ministry of Transports, Construction and Tourism no of July 3, (6) The RNPP1 geographical scope is FIR Bucureşti. (7) NSA responsible for the aggregation of performance metrics for Danube FAB The aggregation of performance metrics for Danube FAB will be performed by the Romanian NSA/RCAA together with the Bulgarian NSA. 1.2 Overall assumption for RP General economic assumption Expected evolution of GDP Nominal GDP, EURbn *¹ Exchange rate RON/EUR, eop *2 Consumer prices, % y-o-y, ave *3 121,7 4,21 6,10 134,6 4,21 6,60 150,5 4,18 4,50 165,8 4,16 3,10 *1 & *3 - EUROSTAT/BMI Calculation Romania Business Forecast Report Q *2 - National Institute of Statistics Table 1: Romania expected evolution of macroeconomic figures 181,2 4,13 2,80 Gross domestic product components use Annual average rate Gross domestic product Domestic demand, of which: Individual final consumption of population Final consumption of the adm group. collective Gross fixed capital formation Exports of goods and services Imports of goods and services Source: National Budget Law project for 2011 and Table 2: GDP product components use Economic increase Macroeconomic forecast assumed that active measures improving the business environment, reducing macroeconomic imbalances and stabilizing the banking sector will foster sustainable economic growth and create jobs. During , gross domestic product will grow by an average annual rate of 4.3%. Domestic demand will remain on an upward trend, supported in particular by the resumption of investment process, is expected to grow by an annual average rate 4.5%. Gross fixed capital will increase by an average annual rate of 7,4%. Individual final consumption of the population will register an average annual rate of growth 3,9%, which is a propensity for Edition 01 June 27, /100

9 smoothing of the population consumption compared to the situation before the crisis, expecting an increase in the propensity to save, will support the financing of investment projects. External Trade In the period exports of goods will rise by an average annual rate 10,0%, slightly higher than imports of goods, whose average annual rate growth is estimated at 9,8%. From 2011 to 2014, FOBFOB trade deficit is expected to increase by 28,1%, its share in GDP decreasing slightly to 3,7%. The current account deficit will remain at around 7 billion, its share in GDP decreasing to 4,0% as estimated for Intra-EU exports and imports of goods will register average growth rates located by 0,5 percentage points below the total exports and by 0,2 points percentage for imports. As a feature of the period , a faster development of the trade with non EU countries is reported. Thus foreign trade conducted with countries outside the EU area will have an average growth rate of 11,3% for exports and 10,5% for imports. For the period is expected to maintain coverage of imports through exports to the EU on average 82,3% and an increase of the extra EU by 1,1 percentage points to 80,5%. Inflation for the period The inflation reduction trend will continue, even if the pace will be lower than that observed in Exchange rate impact will be modest, manifested in the purpose of supporting the disinflation process. Thus, a slight nominal appreciation of the leu versus the European currency was taken into account. Estimates were considering normal agricultural years and reduced volatility of the price of the international oil. Thus, the inflation rate will fall gradually to the level of 2,5% at the end of 2014, with an average of 2,8%. - % - Consumer price index - dec./dec previous year - yearly average ,5 2,8 4,5 3,1 Table 3: Consumer price index Medium-term fiscal and budgetary framework Restructuring public expenditure within the meaning of the current adjustment to sustainable levels in order reduce the budget deficit and discretionary spending by targeting investment projects are the main pillars on which medium-term budgetary framework is build. Specific medium-term objective is the general consolidated budget adjustment to a target deficit below 3% of GDP. Income, expenditure and general consolidated government budget deficit (% GDP) 2012 estimated 2013 estimated 2014 estimated revenue 33,3 32,8 32,1 costs 36,3 35,3 34,0 deficit 3,0 2,5 1,9 Table 4: Medium term fiscal and budgetary framework 2,5 2,8 Edition 01 June 27, /100

10 1.2.2 Trend of traffic forecast Romania - IFR Flight Movements ( 000) Romania Annual growth rates IFR Flight Movements (%) H B L H 4,9 5,8 7,0 6,8 B 8,2 3,5 4,6 4,7 5,0 L 2,4 4,0 3,5 4,0 Source: EUROCONTROL STATFOR Edition v February 2011 Table 5: IFR Flight movements forecast Romania Total service units ( 000) Romania Service Units (Annual growth in total service units - %) H B L H 2,6 5,5 7,3 7,0 B 9,0 1,5 4,2 5,3 5,4 L 0,5 3,1 4,2 4,5 Source: EUROCONTROL STATFOR May 2011 Update Table 6: Service units forecast Overall status of aviation safety The Romanian State Safety Programme (draft) has been developed according to ICAO Concept of Safety. The State Safety Programme (SSP) document was drafted by RCAA and was submitted to the Ministry of Transports and Infrastructure for approval. One of the main objectives envisaged in the SSP is to support the stakeholders in identifying, eliminating/ reducing all types of risks to achieve an acceptable level of safety. RCAA actively promotes a more predictive and proactive method approach to managing safety. As part of its current activities the RCAA continuously monitors the ATM/ANS performance and ensure that proper actions are taken in case of more important events or in case of repeatable ones. Since 2006, Romania is part in the European Safety Programme developed by EUROCONTROL and is currently undertaking activities contained by its successor European Safety Programme Plus Institutional context of ANS provisions (1) The Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority, established by Government Decree 405/1993 as national safety oversight and licensing authority is an autonomous self-financed, state owned organisation. Starting with July 2006, RCAA is designated by the Ministry of Transports, Construction and Tourism Order no. 1185/2006, published in the Official Journal of Romania Edition 01 June 27, /100

11 Part I no.602/ , to perform the roles and responsibilities of a National Supervisory Authority (NSA) in compliance with SES legislation, except those related to aviation security. Starting August 2005 several organisational changes have been implemented within the RCAA, including the full separation (at functional level) of RCAA s AIS Department (SNAIA/RCAA), providing aeronautical information services falling under the SARPs of ICAO Annex 15 - the whole integrated package of aeronautical information except for the PIBs, from the RCAA departments which fulfil the role and tasks of the NSA. (2) Civil Air Navigation Services are provided by the Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration (ROMATSA) to all GAT-IFR. ROMATSA is an autonomous, economically independent organisation. The tasks of ROMATSA are based on Government Decrees No. 74, dated 1991, No. 731, dated 1993, No. 75, dated 2005, 1090, dated 2006, and 1251, dated Flight Information Services within Bucuresti FIR are provided by Bucuresti FIC located in the Bucharest ACC facility. Flight information services are also provided by ACC and TWR units in their respective areas of responsibility. For the provision of air traffic services ROMATSA operates the en-route facilities of Bucuresti ACC which presently has two physical locations (Bucuresti as main location and Arad as secondary location) and all the civil Aerodrome Control Towers and the Approach Control units within Bucuresti FIR. The reduction of the Bucuresti ACC sectors physical locations from five to three, which are operational since November 2003 by means of a new integrated and highly interoperable ATM system significantly increased the capacity of Bucuresti ACC. The target concept provided by the Government Decree no. 536/2000, to further reduce the en-route physical locations to a single one in Bucharest, is currently under implementation and will be finalised by ROMATSA also provides Aeronautical Information Services (partly) and Meteorological Services for civil aviation. ROMATSA also provides the technical services for the Air Traffic Services equipment at the airports and at the en-route facilities. Alerting service is provided by all ROMATSA ATS units. An Administrative Council performs the high level management roles and tasks of ROMATSA and also approves strategic decisions. Current management decisions within the frame of ROMATSA responsibilities remain at the Board of Directors of ROMATSA. (3) Expected changes: The certified AIS Department within RCAA (SNAIA/RCAA) is expected to be transferred to ROMATSA by the end of Stakeholder consultation Initial consultation has already taken place with ANSP ROMATSA during several consultation meetings in 2010 and Information for the consultation meeting, including the Draft of RNNP1 was sent to the stakeholders on , three weeks in advance of the consultation meeting. Edition 01 June 27, /100

12 1.3.1 Outcome of stakeholder consultation Romanian CAA and the Directorate General "Civil Aviation Administration" Ministry of Transport, Information Technology and Communications of the Republic of Bulgaria, designated as National Supervisory Authorities, conducted the consultation process as follows: - on 05 May, 2011, a consultation meeting with representatives of airspace users, was held in Bucharest, at Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration "ROMATSA" Headquarters ; - the meeting agenda is presented in Appendix G1, - invitations were sent on 14 April, 2011 by and fax (Appendix G2), - the guest list is presented in Appendix G3, - the matters discussed, comments and observations on the national plans of performance (Romanian and Bulgarian) were transposed in a minute (Appendix G4). On 18 May 2011, IATA representatives made in writing a series of observations and comments on the Romanian Performance Plan (Appendix G5). Romanian CAA sent their response to these observations and comments on 16 June, 2011 (Appendix G6). Subsequent discussions held by are listed in Appendix G7. 2. NATIONAL PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND ALERT THRESHOLDS 2.1 Romania Performance targets and alert thresholds for RP1 This section presents for each KPA, the KPIs and associated targets adopted at national level for RP1. In accordance with Regulation (EU) 691/2010 national performance targets are set for two of the four KPAs: capacity and cost efficiency for en-route. No specific national alert threshold for capacity where set. For RP1 Romania has not included additional KPIs in the RNPP1. National Targets National KPA KPI Thresholds Capacity Cost-efficiency En-route ATFM delay (minutes per flight) Determined en-route unit rate (2009 prices in national currency) ,44 146,06 140,81 No alert threshold is proposed for RP1 Deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual traffic versus the traffic forecasts below Deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual costs at EUwide level versus the reference costs below Table 7: ROMANIA national capacity and cost-efficiency targets and thresholds for RP1 (according to EU no. 691/2010 Regulation) Edition 01 June 27, /100

13 (1) Safety performance targets currently used at national/ansp level The safety monitoring process is mainly based on the results raising from safety oversight visits (audits/ inspections) performed by NSA/ RCAA at certified ANS/ ATM providers, occurrences reports and safety assessments conclusions. In the second period of January each year the results of safety monitoring activities carried out according to Art. 4 of Regulation (EC) 1315/2007 are internally analyzed and the conclusions are presented in a formal Monitoring Report. The above mentioned Monitoring Report is the base for the Annual Safety Oversight Report, produced according to Art. 14 of Regulation (EC) no. 1315/2007. This Annual Safety Oversight Report is taken into consideration for drafting Annual SES Reports, required by Art. 12 of Regulation (EC) no. 549/2004. In progress Risk category Target level of safety Minimum accepted level of safety Table 8: Safety KPIs currently used at national level (according to national provisions) Alert threshold level of safety Risk category 1. Aircraft incident risks Accident number probability (of ATM direct or indirect contribution) Serious incidents number probability (of ATM direct or indirect contribution) Major incidents number probability (of ATM direct or indirect contribution) Significant incidents number probability (of ATM direct or indirect contribution) No immediate effect on safety number probability (of ATM direct or indirect contribution) 2. ATM specific risks Specific ATM events number probability that determined total incapacity to provide safe ATM Target level of safety 10-8 (effective value 0) 10-6 (effective value 0) 10-4 (effective value 1 incident/year) 10-3 (effective value 9 incidents/year) 10-2 (effective value 90 incidents/year) Minimum accepted level of safety 10-6 (effective value 0) 10-4 (effective value 1 incident/year) 10-3 (effective value 9 incidents/year) 10-2 (effective value 90 incidents/year) 10-1 (effective value 900 incidents/year) Alert threshold level of safety By event By event By event By 40 events By 400 events 0 events/year 0 events/year By event Edition 01 June 27, /100

14 services and total time. Specific ATM events number probability that determined serious incapacity to provide safe ATM services and total time Specific ATM events number probability that determined major incapacity to provide safe ATM services and total time Specific ATM events number probability that determined significant incapacity to provide safe ATM services and total time (provide safe but Inaccurate ATM services) Specific ATM events number probability with no immediate effect on safety 1 events/year 9 events/year By event 9 events/year 90 events/year By 30 events 90 events/year 900 events/year By 300 events 900 events/year events/year By events Table 9: ROMATSA safety KPIs 2009 Current target levels of safety were determined/ derived/ set taking into account the provisions of existing requirements as contained in Commission Regulation (EC) No.2096/2005 of 20 December 2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services and ESARR 4, as well as different ICAO, EC, EUROCONTROL, EUROCAE, etc documents in connection with: - ANS risk classification schemes (EC Draft advisory material for Draft IR Establishing a Risk Classification Scheme for the Design of the ATM Functional System Edition 0.7 from December 2008); - safety minima (EUROCONTROL Safety minima study: Review of existing standards and practices - SRC Doc 1, Edition 1.0 from ); - Aircraft accidents/ incidents historical data (EUROCONTROL Aircraft accidents / incidents and ATM contribution. Review and Analysis of Historical Data Edition 3.0 from ); Deriving safety objectives (EUROCAE ED-125 Process for Specifying Risk Classification Scheme and Deriving Safety Objectives in ATM draft from ). As indicated at the beginning of this section, ROMANIA does not apply any optional targets for the safety KPIs that have been defined for RP1, but will monitor and publish performance against these indicators as required. The following is an overview of relevant activities in relation to the safety KPIs. (a) Effectiveness of safety management The effectiveness of safety management is already assessed by NSA/RCAA using the Safety Framework Maturity Survey methodology, defined by EUROCONTROL, in line with ICAO and EU safety requirements and covering the following areas: general safety, safety achievement, safety assurance and safety promotion. The Safety Maturity Survey evaluates the progress made by an ANSP regarding the effectiveness of its safety management system. The results of these Edition 01 June 27, /100

15 processes are taken into account for continuous improvement of safety management at both NSA and ANSP levels, respectively safety oversight and provision of Air Navigation Services. The effectiveness of safety management will be assessed during RP1 according to the methodology that will be adopted by the European Commission prior to RP1. During RP1 NSA/RCAA will monitor and publish this key performance indicator. (b) Application of the severity classification One version of Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) is currently in use in ROMATSA for experimental purposes i.e. to check the results obtained by applying internal procedures that are based on the severity schemes of ESARR 2, versus the RAT results. During RP1 the severity classification of RAT will be applied according to the methodology that will be adopted by the European Commission prior to RP1 and NSA/RCAA will monitor and publish this key performance indicator. (c) Reporting of Just Culture NSA/RCAA and ANSP s have developed a just culture environment for many years. A joint declaration at NSA/RCAA and Ministry of Transports level regarding the enhancement of an open reporting/ just culture environment is in place since ROMATSA has participated already in two Just Culture Surveys carried out on behalf of EUROCONTROL. The results were evaluated and improvement measures are established. During RP1 NSA/RCAA will monitor and publish this key performance indicator according to the methodology that will be adopted by the European Commission prior to RP1. (2) Capacity targets and threshold The capacity target adopted at national level, presented in Table 10 below is consistent with the reference value provided for Romania by EUROCONTROL capacity planning process. For RP1 Romania has considered that no national alert threshold needs to be set. Capacity KPI Value Value Target Minutes of en route ATFM delay per flight Table 10: En-route capacity target for RP1 (3) Environment For RP1, Romania has no national KPI for the environment. However, taking into account international requirements on reducing environmental impact, at national level, several initiatives and specific actions have been developed and are currently under deployment, namely: (a) The Implementation, by ROMATSA, of an Environmental Management System according with ISO 14001:2004 based on the following principles: - environmental performance continuous improvement; - reduced environmental impact procedures implementing; - rationalized energy, materials, processes; - promoting the environmental culture. (b) Supporting flight efficiency and emission reductions through: Edition 01 June 27, /100

16 - Operational opportunities to minimize flight time and reduce fuel use and emissions through shorter routes wherever possible. ROMATSA successfully applies the following methods to reduce flight time, fuel use and emissions: - Direct to clearances given by ATC as shortcuts; - Good civil/military coordination and Flexible Use of Airspace; - Optimum flight level allocation; - Continuous climb departures often given. - Efficient TMA design and utilisation, through implementation and enforcement wherever possible of procedures continuous descent approaches (CDA s) or continuous descent operations (CDO) and improved terminal control area operations activity. - ROMATSA improved procedure at Timisoara which led to noise and fuel reduction through: - holding patterns away from the city; - separation obtained mainly by speed reduction; - increased capacity, reduced flying time by 10 minutes; - In order to determine an optimal landing trajectory (continuous descent approach) that leads to fuel and noise reduction on the slope of the landing, ROMATSA has participated in two projects: (Working Group members: ROMATSA, TAROM: B /500 / ATR42 pilots, Henri Coanda Airport, Romanian CAA and EUROCONTROL) - 50 non-b-cda flights assessed for reference and - 19 B-CDA flights. The role of this project was to develop procedures to identify problems and its application. Opinions of ROMATSA air traffic controllers involved in this project were assessed, analyzed and used by EUROCONTROL in the development of the document with the international movement "CDA Implementation Guidance Information, EUROCONTROL, August (WG members: ROMATSA, TAROM: A318 pilots, Henri Coanda Airport, Romanian CAA and AIRBUS) 63 non-cda flights assessment 50 CDA flights. - Route redesign process by creating more direct flights routes in DANUBE FAB airspace. A daily saving of 19,4 hours may be obtained in DANUBE FAB. This equals hours per year or 1,8% of the present controlled flight hours in the Bulgarian and Romanian airspaces. In this case, the daily distance saving is 8.058,84 NM, the daily fuel saving is ,54 kg and the CO2 reduction is ,98 kg. (4) Cost- efficiency Cost-efficiency KPI Target Target Target Real en-route determined unit rate (in national currency at 2009 prices) 151,44 146,06 140,81 Table 11: Romania En-route cost-efficiency KPI for RP1 Edition 01 June 27, /100

17 2.2. Consistency with EU-wide targets (and thresholds) KPA Safety Capacity Environment Cost-efficiency EU-wide targets KPI EU-wide thresholds According to Annex I, section 1.1 of the 691/ 2010 (EU) Regulation no target and associated thresholds have been set Deviation over a calendar year by at Minutes of en-route 0,50 least 10% of the actual ATFM delay per flight traffic versus the traffic forecasts below Improvement of the average horizontal enroute flight efficiency indicator compared to 2009 (in % points) Average EU-wide determined unit rate for en-route ANS (in euros 2009) 0,75 57,88 55,87 53,92 Deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual traffic versus the traffic forecasts below Deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual traffic versus the traffic forecasts below Deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual costs at EU-wide level versus the reference costs below References for the activation of the thresholds Reference en-route traffic at EU-wide level (in thousands en-route service units) Reference determined en-route costs at EU-wide level (in million Euros 2009) Table 12: EU-wide targets and associated thresholds for RP Capacity The assessment for consistency with the European-wide performance targets of the capacity targets of National/FAB Performance Plans is based on reference values provided by EUROCONTROL s capacity planning process: - for ,7 minutes average en-route ATFM delay per flight for the full year and for all causes; - for ,6 minutes average en-route ATFM delay per flight for the full year and for all causes; - for ,5 minutes average en-route ATFM delay per flight for the full year and for all causes, as adopted by the European Commission. For the RP1 the Romania reference values for capacity are: - for ,00 minutes average en-route ATFM delay per flight for the full year and for all causes; - for ,00 minutes average en-route ATFM delay per flight for the full year and for all causes; - for ,00 minutes average en-route ATFM delay per flight for the full year and for all causes. Edition 01 June 27, /100

18 IFR flights (Daily Average) Enroute Delay (minutes per flight) ROMANIA PERFORMANCE PLAN For the RP1 the reference values for Danube FAB are: - for ,07 minutes average en-route ATFM delay per flight for the full year and for all causes; - for ,09 minutes average en-route ATFM delay per flight for the full year and for all causes; - for ,08 minutes average en-route ATFM delay per flight for the full year and for all causes. Romania ATFM delays were zero for both en-route and terminal service provision recorded in the previous timeframe and there are not foresee any delays caused by internal or external issues (weather, environment issues, airport delays, aerodrome or ATC capacity problems) in the future. Consequently, we envisage that ATFM delays per flight and per minute will remain at the same level and setting any alert thresholds is not considered necessary at this stage for RP A 2010A 2009A 2010A 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014F Actual en-route ATFM delay in minutes per flight Reference value from the capacity planning process of EUROCONTROL (en-route ATFM delay minutes per flight) % n/n-1 National capacity target (en-route ATFM delay in minutes per flight) % n/n-1 Difference between the target and the reference value Table 13: En-route capacity target details at national level Traffic and en-route ATFM delays LRBBACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays Peak Day Traffic Summer Traffic Yearly Traffic Summer Traffic Forecast High Traffic Forecast - Summer Low Traffic Forecast - Summer Summer enroute delay (all causes) Figure 1: Traffic and en-route ATFM delays, Edition 01 June 27, /100

19 Summer 2010 performance Traffic Evolution 2010 Capacity Baseline En-route Delay (min/flight) Optimum All reasons Without weather Capacity gap + 9.7% 183 (0%) No Average en-route ATFM delay per flight remained at zero in Summer 2010, the same as in Summer 2009 Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Comment ATS route network and sectorisation improvements Summer 2010 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer It was calculated with NEVAC, giving the potential capacity of the ACC. The delivered capacity, calculated with ACCESS, was 123. During the measured period, a maximum configuration of 16 sectors was opened, the peak 1 hour demand was 113 flights and the peak 3 hour demand was 104, indicating that the ACC had sufficient capacity to meet the demand with spare capacity in the system. Table 14: Summer 2010 performance ( LSSIP ) Planning Period En route delay actual performance and EU delay breakdown The planning period includes the first SES reference period (2012 to 2014) of the performance regulation. As a result, the following EU en-route delay targets were considered: For 2014: 0,5 minutes average en-route ATFM delay per flight for the full year and for all causes, as adopted by the European Commission For 2012 and ,7 and 0,6 minutes, respectively, average en-route ATFM delay per flight for the full year and for all causes, as recommended by the PRB. The EU en-route delay target was broken down at ANSP and ACC level by EUROCONTROL. The en-route delay performance ( ) and the EU delay breakdown for the period 2012 to 2014 are presented in the figure below. Edition 01 June 27, /100

20 Delay (min) per flight ROMANIA PERFORMANCE PLAN LRBBACC Yearly delay per flight (all reasons) EU delay breakdown Summer Period Figure 2: Delay performance , LSSIP The planning is focusing on the summer season to reflect the most demanding period of the year from a capacity perspective. This keeps consistency with the previous planning cycles. ACC LRBBCTA 2010 Baseline LRBB 183 Summer en-route ATFM delay breakdown * 0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.03** Capacity Profiles Profiles (hourly movements and % yearly increase) H 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% Ref % 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% L 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% C/R 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% 183 0% Year Measures planned ATS route network and sectorisation improvements Significant Events Max sectors Capacity increase Sufficient capacity to meet demand Reference profile 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Table 15: Capacity profiles/plan, , LSSIP Edition 01 June 27, /100

21 Capacity / Demand (movements per hour) ROMANIA PERFORMANCE PLAN LRBBCTA - Capacity profile and demand Reference Capacity Profile Demand / Shortest Routes - Peak Demand / Current Routes - Peak Demand / Shortest Routes - Peak Capacity Baseline Planning Period Outlook No problems are foreseen for Bucharest ACC in the current planning cycle Cost-efficiency (1) En-route SU Forecast Figure 3: Capacity profile and demand (LSSIP ) For the calculation of the determined unit rate for the first reference period Romania has used the latest STATFOR forecast, baseline scenario May 2011 update. Analyzing the number of actual service units versus planned for the past timeframe resulted the following: for the period , as shown in table 16 below, differences between actual and planned service units in accordance to the cost base are important showing a deviation of minus 5% on average. CHARGEABLE SU PLANNED SU according to Romania cost-bases ( 000) ACTUAL SU ( 000) N/(N-1) ACTUAL SU -2,48% -0,29% -4,05% ACTUAL/PLANNED SU -5,18% -11,01% -2,03% -3,25% Table 16: Chargeable SU as for the year 2010, the traffic actually grew and the variation of actual vs planned turned into a positive figure, influenced artificially by an imposed decision to reduce the national Edition 01 June 27, /100

22 unit rate for the first two months of the year. although, we are sceptical about the future optimistic increase in traffic, we have used for the RP1 the baseline scenario recommended by the PRU guidelines for Performance Plans. En-route total service units prior to RP1( 000) Forecast total service units used for the determined unit rate ( 000) Source: STATFOR service units forecast (Baseline scenario in 000s) Date of STATFOR SU forecast: 2009A 2010A 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014F STATFOR (baseline scenario) % n/n-1 +6,0% +6,5% +2,1% +5,3% +5,4% (3.537)* MAY 2011 % n/n-1 +8,9% +1,5% +4,2% +5,3% +5,4% * According to final cost base submitted to EUROCONTROL CRCO in November 2010; Table 17: En-route service units forecast used for the calculation of the national en-route cost-efficiency target (2) Determined en-route ANS costs in nominal terms The following assumptions were used: - for the year 2009 and 2010 figures are actual; - for 2011, costs figures are in accordance with the final cost base submitted to EUROCONTROL CRCO in November 2010 including traffic forecast; - for RP1 costs are influenced by the following elements: - the estimation of the compensation packages for the relocation of the ACC staff from Arad and APP Cluj locations to Bucharest; - the estimation on the influences of the legislation regarding the statute of technical nonnavigating staff; - the level of wages foreseen for the new work agreement; - increase in depreciation costs due to reevaluation requested by the national law. As it is shown in the tables below Romania costs in nominal terms are expected to grow by an average of 4,0% for RP1, increase generated by a higher inflation (+3,5% for RP1) and also by a major increase in depreciation (+25,6% in RP1). Edition 01 June 27, /100

23 ANS en-route cost per entity Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D ANSP ROMATSA 000 RON % n/n-1 6,50% 6,75% 2,93% 4,93% 4,62% NSA RCAA 000 RON % n/n-1-5,92% -18,81% 3,33% 4,09% 3,83% SNAIA RCAA (aeronautical 000 RON information costs) % n/n-1 23,05% 11,12% 2,40% 2,07% 1,64% EUROCONTROL costs* 000 RON % n/n-1 1,29% -13,46% 3,70% 0,61% 2,22% Total determined costs in nominal terms 000 RON % n/n-1 6,02% 5,05% 2,97% 4,67% 4,47% * Exchange rate used for EUROCONTROL costs for RP1 is 1 euro = 4,09484lei (April 2011 exchange rate) Table 18: Breakdown of the National Romania determined en-route costs per entity (in nominal terms in national currency) ANS en-route cost per nature Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D Staff 000 RON % n/n-1 6,21% 6,65% -1,18% 4,45% 4,21% Other operating costs 000 RON % n/n-1 11,98% 12,56% -11,69% 6,93% 7,78% EUROCONTROL costs 000 RON % n/n-1 1,29% -13,46% 3,70% 0,61% 2,22% Depreciation 000 RON % n/n-1-7,80% 2,27% 72,46% 8,74% 5,68% Cost of capital 000 RON % n/n-1 9,23% -6,28% 19,79% 0,10% 0,10% Total determined costs 000 RON in nominal terms % n/n-1 6,02% 5,05% 2,97% 4,67% 4,47% Table 19: Breakdown of the National Romania determined en-route costs per nature (in nominal terms in national currency) (3) Determined en-route ANS costs in real terms National real determined costs expressed in RON 2009 will increase with an average rate of +0,02% in 2014 versus 2009 and +0,55% in 2014 versus Inflation forecast taken into account is in accordance with EUROSTAT estimations as analysed in item 1.2, tables 1 and 3. Edition 01 June 27, /100

24 Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D Total determined costs in nominal terms 000 RON Inflation %* 6,10% 6,60% 4,50% 3.10% 2.80% Inflation index (100 in 2009) ,10 113,10 118,19 121,86 125,27 Total determined costs in real terms (RON 2009) % n/n-1-0,08% -1,46% -1,46% 1,52% 1,62% * EUROSTAT/BMI Calculation Romania Business Forecast Report Q Table 20: National real determined en-route costs in RON 2009 (4) Real en-route determined unit rate As for the real national determined en-route unit rate for RP1 in national currency in 2009 prices the trend will have the expected evolution, as the annual average reduction is foreseen to be - 4,78% in 2014 versus 2009 or -3,55% in 2014 versus The determined costs and the total en-route service units for 2011 are in accordance with the final cost base submitted to EUROCONTROL CRCO in November The actual costs for 2011 are detailed in Annex B and reveal an increase of the depreciation costs and the cost of capital with 41,6% respectively 12,8% in comparison with 2010 actual costs and 38,5% and 20,3% in comparison with the final cost base (November 2010). Romania is making significant efforts in 2011 to reduce other costs in order to compensate the increase of the depreciation costs and the cost of capital. The differences between the traffic forecast used in November 2010 and STATFOR baseline scenario May 2011 update reveals an important reduction of the en-route service units by -2,04%. Determined costs in real terms ( RON) 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D Average per annum ,02% 0,55% Total en-route SUs ( 000) ,0% 5,0% Real en-route determined unit rate in national currency (at RON 2009) 179,94 165,00 156,94 151,44 146,06 140,81-4,79%- 3,55% % n/n-1-8,30% - 4,88% - 3,51% - 3,55% - 3,60% 2009 Exchange rate (1 EUR = ) Real en-route determined unit rates (in EUR2009) EUR at 2009 exchange rate) ,51 38,99 37,08 35,78 34,51 33,26-4,79% - 3,55% % n/n-1-4,88% - 3,51% - 3,55% - 3,60% Edition 01 June 27, /100

25 EU-wide target: average determined en-route unit rate (in 2009 EUR) 57,88 55,87 53, % % Table 21: Romania real en-route determined unit rate (in national currency at 2009 prices and in EUR 2009) (5) Terminal ANS costs Romania has decided to apply Regulation (EU) 691/2010 and Regulation (EC) 1794/2006 only on Bucharest Henri Coandă International Airport, the only airport in Romania that is above the threshold of commercial movements per year. This decision was taken following the analysis of different scenarios on the establishment of terminal charging zones and consultations held with users in An important majority of the users participating at the consultation supported the application of the Regulation and the establishment of charging zone only for Bucharest Henri Coandă International Airport and the continuation of the current charging system at all the other airports. Terminal services for Bucharest airports (airports Henri Coanda - LROP and Aurel Vlaicu - LRBS) are provided by a single unit, some of the technical and administrative services being shared. In order to provide a breakdown of costs between these airports a sharing key based on the relative proportion of the wages of dedicated staff for each airport has been used. From January 2010 actual costs of Bucharest Henri Coandă International Airport are accounted separately. Service units are calculated with an exponent of 0,7 formula. The following flights are exempted from the terminal charges: - Romanian military aircraft; - Foreign military aircraft for which bilateral agreements are in force, on request of the Romanian Ministry of National Defense, - Aircraft performing flights exclusively for the transport, on official mission, of the reigning Monarch and his/her immediate family, Heads of State, Heads of Government, and Government Ministers. In all cases, this must be substantiated by the appropriate status indicator or remark on the flight plan; - Aircraft performing flights for the benefit of the United Nations Organization, Red Cross or Red Crescent Organization; - Civil aircraft performing search and rescue flights or transporting personnel and materials for such actions; - Aircraft carrying out humanitarian flights and providing urgent assistance; - Aircraft forced to land due to technical reasons, bad weather or other force majeure reasons; - Aircraft forced to land by order of the Romanian competent authorities; - Other aircraft according to the law provisions. Other aircraft may be exempted from the payment of charges, totally or in part, with the approval of the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. Edition 01 June 27, /100

26 The costs of the exempted flights are deducted from the cost base according to the Regulation. The current legislation for the reimbursement of the costs of exempted flights from the state budget is limited to the en-route services. Until the legislation changes to include the exempted flights at Bucharest Henri Coandă International Airport in the reimbursement mechanism, the terminal services costs for the exempted flights will be supported from the return on equity. Entity Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D ANSP ROMATSA costs 000 RON % n/n-1 5% 11% 7% 3,7% NSA RCAA costs 000 RON % n/n-1 20,99% 2,89% 3,04% 2,73 Total terminal costs in nominal terms 000 RON % n/n-1 5,16% 10,92% 6,95% 3,64% Table 22: National costs for terminal ANS breakdown per entity (in nominal terms in national currency) (6) Interdependencies between targets For setting and achieving the performance targets Romania considers that safety should not be influenced/compromised. The RNPP1 has to ensure that the level of determined costs also enables investments to deliver high quality services and to ensure a high level of safety and improve environmental efficiency. It is important to note that, although no targets have been set in the areas of safety and environment, these areas have been fully considered in the planning for performance in the period covered by RP1. The cost-efficiency and capacity targets are considered achievable whilst maintaining high safety standards and continuing efforts to improve horizontal flight efficiency 2.3 Carry-overs from the years before RP1 Carry-over from To 2009 To 2010 To 2011 To 2012 To 2013 To 2014 To 2015 To RP Total Table 23: Carry-overs from the years before RP1 - Under (-) and over (+) recoveries (in nominal terms in national currency) Edition 01 June 27, /100

27 2.4 Parameters for risk sharing and incentives (1) Safety and environment No targets at national level and consequently no incentives have been set for safety for RP1. (2) Capacity Taking into account that Romania has not encountered in the past any delay problems, the target for the KPI Delays in ATFM per route and per flight is zero. Hence incentives are not necessary for RP1. (3) Cost-efficiency The incentive used by Romania for cost-efficiency is the mandatory risk-sharing mechanism defined in Article 11a of the Charging Regulation (i.e. Article 11a.1 for traffic risk and 11a. 2 for cost risk). Traffic Risk The NSA, MET and AIS provided by RCAA (according to Article 1 of Regulation (EU) no. 691/2010) are not subject to traffic risk sharing under the Performance Scheme. The following traffic risk mechanism is applied by RCAA: where, over a given year the number of actual total service units is not lower or higher by more than 2% of the forecast established at the beginning of the reference period, the loss or additional revenue of ROMATSA will not be carried over; where, over a given year, the total actual number of service units is higher by more than 2% than the forecast established at the beginning of the RP1, 70% of the additional revenues of ROMATSA in excess of 2% shall be returned to airspace users. where, over a given year, the total actual number of service units is lower by more than 2% than the forecast established at the beginning of the RP1, 70% of the loss of revenues incurred by ROMATSA in excess of 2% shall be borne by airspace users. Cost risk ROMATSA, the NSA/RCAA and SNAIA/RCAA will bear any shortfall or surplus in revenues compared to determined costs during the course of RP1. Variations in EUROCONTROL costs will be recoverable in full form the users as they fall within the category of international agreements within the Charging Regulation. In accordance with Regulation (EU) 1191/2010, article 11a, cost risk sharing mechanism will not apply to the difference between actual and determined costs which may be deemed to be out of control of ROMATSA or NSA/RCAA as a result of: unforeseen changes in national pension regulations and pension accounting regulation; unforeseen changes in to national taxation law; unforeseen and new cost items not covered in the national performance plan but required by national law; unforeseen changes in costs and revenues stemming from international agreements; major changes in interest rates on loans. Edition 01 June 27, /100

28 3. CONTRIBUTION OF EACH ACCOUNTABLE ENTITY 3.1 Entity share in the national targets and individual binding performance targets (1) NSA / RCAA Supervision costs Although the national supervisory authority (NSA)/RCAA costs have only a small contribution to the national determined unit rate, the Romanian NSA is accountable for the national cost-efficiency target. The NSA/RCAA costs comprise: staff costs, other operating costs, depreciation costs and capital costs. The cost base of RCAA s safety and economic regulation of en-route NSA is charged directly to ROMATSA. Tables 24 presents the NSA/RCAA determined en-route costs in nominal terms for RP1. Costs by nature ( 000 Ron) Staff costs 6.234, , , , ,93 Other operating costs 2.966, , , , ,20 Depreciation 401,91 238,52 271,70 282,30 293,87 Cost of capital 632,02 570,89 343,20 393,80 443,10 TOTAL Costs , , , ,10 Table 24: NSA/RCAA determined en-route costs in nominal terms (2) SNAIA / RCAA Aeronautical information services costs Air Navigation and Aeronautical Information Department (SNAIA) is part of the organizational structure of RCAA and its mission is to ensure the flow of aeronautical information and data in accordance with the requirements necessary for the quality, safety, efficiency and regularity of national and international air traffic. To meet the requirements of Regulation (EC) no. 549/2004 on the separation, at least at the functional level, from the supervisory authority of the air navigation service provider, in 2005 SNAIA structure was subordinated directly to the Director General. Since 2005 the accounting for SNAIA is kept separately from the NSA/RCAA part. Costs by nature ( 000 Ron) Staff costs 3.087, , , , ,27 Other operating costs 1.054, , , , ,50 Depreciation 141,59 208,19 235,02 234,60 233,33 Cost of capital TOTAL Costs 4.283, , , , Table 25: SNAIA/RCAA determined en-route costs in nominal terms Edition 01 June 27, /100

29 (3) ROMATSA Air navigation service provider costs Costs by nature ( 000 Ron) Staff costs Other operating costs Depreciation Cost of capital TOTAL Costs Table 26: ROMATSA determined en-route costs in nominal terms (4) EUROCONTROL Costs Costs by nature ( 000 Ron) EUROCONTROL costs Table 27: EUROCONTROL determined en-route costs in nominal terms 3.2 Investments The SESAR programme is expected to develop an interoperable pan-european ATM system capable of meeting future demand. All RP1 investments are intended to provide benefits to ROMATSA customers, either directly through improving the level of services provided or indirectly by decreasing user charges through improving operational efficiency. nr. crt CAPEX expenditure (national currency) Currency 2009A 2010A 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014F 1 Mode S radars installation MRON A-SMGCS MRON DATA LINK CPDLC MRON ATM System ROMATSA MRON ADS-B MRON Sub-total main Capex above MRON Sub-total others Capex MRON Edition 01 June 27, /100

30 nr. crt CAPEX expenditure (national currency) Currency 2009A 2010A 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014F Total Capex MRON Table 28: Annual investments (Capex) in nominal terms in national currency for en-route and terminal CAPEX Project ID Mode S radars installation A-SMGCS DATA LINK CPDLC ATM System ROMATSA ADS-B Domain (ex. ATM Systems, C, N, S,..) CNS CNS CNS ATM CNS Allocation en-route/terminal R- 85% R 85% T- 100% R 100% ANS T 15% T 15% R-100% Assessed impact on Performance Targets high avg avg high avg (Planned) Start date of investment project (Planned) Commissioning date of investment Lifecycle (Amortisation periods in years) Planned total Capex (in national currency) mil lei European ATM Master Plan (Ols reference) - L10 L06 L01-L10 - Related SES IR/Community 2010/C /2009 Specifications /02 29/2009 Note Note: 29/2009; 1033/2006; 1032/2006; 633/2007; 1265/2007; 30/2009; 262/2009; 73/2010/255/2010; 2007/C290/06; 2008/C68/03; 2008/C149/06;2007/C188/032009/C 323/06; 2010/C18/16 Table 29: Description of the main investments impacting RP1 for ROMATSA (in nominal terms in national currency) Mode S radars will provide increased traffic capacity and improved flight safety for En-Route and Terminal traffic. Taking into account that the CCAMS implementation programme initiated by EUROCONTROL suffered significant delays of implementation terms both at EUROCONTROL and ANSPs level and the CCAMS represents an intermediate phase (the target being the Mode S implementation in the whole IFPS space until 2020) ROMATSA will implement the Mode S from the first stage. EU Regulation entitled Aircraft Identification for surveillance for the SES (ACID), stipulates, in Annex 1, areas in which Mode S identification will be implemented starting with February In the SSC meeting, Romanian representative requested to include Romania in the list of states which will implement the Mode S in the first stage. This request has been accepted by the EU and FIR Bucharest has been included in Annex 1 of ACID EC Regulation. Mode S implementation is on schedule. Mode S sensors will replace MSSR sensors which due to maintenance high costs as well as their age imposed the necessity of this investment. Edition 01 June 27, /100

31 Mode S sensors installation will be made in order to anticipate the mandatory Mandate for Mode S implementation and to prevent investments in alternative solutions as CCAMS or Enhanced ORCAM. Thereby, we consider that implementing of one mandatory system (Mode S) and avoiding short lifetime systems (CCAMS) will bring benefits in terms of investment costs and time. A-SMGCS system will increase the operational capacity of the airport and the safety of aircrafts operation on the airport movement area. Data Link CPDLC will reduce the workload on the VHF-Voice spectrum and will facilitate the work of pilots and controllers by reducing voice communications. ATM System ROMATSA will be implemented to maintain and to improve the ability to control flights and to increase flight safety. ADS-B System will provide increased traffic capacity and improved flight safety for En-Route traffic. ROMATSA s terminal ANS costs A cost-efficiency target for terminal costs does not form part the KPIs under the performance scheme for RP1. However, forecast terminal ANS costs are detailed in Annex C Incentive mechanisms to be applied on entities to encourage targets to be met in RP1 Incentive mechanisms are detailed in section CIVIL MILITARY DIMENSION OF THE PLAN 4.1 Performance of the FUA application The application of the FUA concept in Romania is in line with Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 2150/2005. The major objective of the FUA concept is the more efficient use of airspace by civil and military users. The high-level Civil-Military policy body Council for Airspace Management (CMSA) and Romanian Airspace Management Cell (Romanian AMC) ensures that there is a more effective sharing of Romanian airspace through joint civil/military strategic planning and pre-tactical airspace allocation. The military coordination units are collocated with the civil ATS units (ACC and APPs) and are responsible for ASM at tactical level. The FUA concept increased the flexibility of airspace use and provided ATM with the potential to increase the air traffic system performance. It allows the maximum common use of airspace by appropriate coordination between civil and/or military users. The FUA concept is also applied to enhance airspace usage based on any temporary airspace structures as a function of achieving increased airspace capacity and environmental performance. An airspace structure reorganised to increase the accessibility of many airspace users is accepted as essential to increasing the capacity of the ATS system and reducing GAT delays. Therefore, Area Control Centre (ACC) sector capacity figures were improved in response to the different route and airspace organisation resulting from the daily AMC allocation. The CFMU Interface for Airspace Managers (CIAM) software is used by Romanian AMC for processing and transmitting AUPs to CADF/CFMU. No problems were identified in the application of FUA concept during Edition 01 June 27, /100

32 Measures planned during RP1 Romania intends to implement the EUROCONTROL s LARA Programme as an automated ASM support tool for the application of the flexible use of airspace (FUA), which will provide automatically the necessary data to the PRISMIL Programme for the performance measurements. Romania has decided to use PRISMIL as support of civil-military dimension of the performance plan including military mission effectiveness performance requirements. This decision was supported by the PRISMIL main functionalities: To facilitate performance measurements, monitoring, analysis, reporting and review; To support performance assessment at national and FAB level; To assist in the implementation of the civil-military dimension of the performance plan. 4.2 Additional KPIs Romania will define a set of civil-military KPIs to monitor the effectiveness of airspace use after the full implementation of the EUROCONTROL s PRISMIL Programme. 5. ANALYSIS OF SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE PLAN Analysis of sensitivity is the quantitative technical evaluation of the impact generated by variations of the input variables on the performance targets. For the analysis of sensitivity have been identified a series of key variables which can have a measurable impact to performance targets. The variables taken into account refer to costefficiency targets and include: - Variations of the en-route service units according to STATFOR forecast (low scenario and - 5% of base scenario); - Variations of the total determined costs caused by unforeseen changes; - Macroeconomic indicators evolution. The first scenario proposes to describe the sensitivity of the total revenues if the total service units decrease during the first reference period. Three assumptions have been used: first assumption using STATFOR base scenario (May 2011 update) for total service units; second assumption using STATFOR low scenario for total service units and third assumption using -5% of STATFOR base scenario. The recoveries have been calculated for each of these assumptions using the traffic risk sharing mechanism defined in article 11 a) of the Charging Regulation as the following table describes. Edition 01 June 27, /100

33 Figure 4: Evolution of total revenues according to SUs variations The second scenario proposes to describe the evolution of the total costs determined by unforeseen and out of the control of air navigation service provider, Member State and qualified entities as article 8 point c) from the Common Charging Regulation stipulates and their recovery through a carry-over to the following period. The following figure describes each of the three assumptions: +5%, +7% and +10% increase of the staff costs determined by unforeseen changes in national pension regulations and pension accounting regulation or unforeseen changes in to national taxation law and calculates the impact to the total costs which is considered significant. Edition 01 June 27, /100

34 Figure 5: Evolution of the total costs according to unforeseen changes Main macroeconomic indicators taken into account for the elaboration of the National Performance Plan are: inflation and exchange rate. The inflation rate in Romania during the last years is to be described as significant as long as in October 2010 Romania registered the highest inflation rate within the EU, with an increase of prices of 7,9%, compared to the same month in 2009 (according to EUROSTAT). A volatile inflation over the reference period, as the previously years revealed, creates difficulties for Air Navigation Providers to correctly predict the rate of inflation. Actual inflation may end up significantly above the expectations causing losses in real incomes and the related under-recovery will not be recovered until the next reference period. Exchange rate during the first reference period is estimated to have a low impact and is mainly caused by the payments related to EURO (ex. EUROCONTROL costs, imported equipments/products and/or service contracts). 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ROMANIAN NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN Mechanisms put in place by the NSA/RCAA to ensure that the performance targets are monitored and reached Performance monitoring for safety, capacity and cost efficiency is performed by the NSA/RCAA according to the specific provisions included in Regulation (EU) no.691/2010, Regulation (EC) no.1315/2007 as modified, Regulation (EC) no.2096/2005 as modified, Regulation (EC) Edition 01 June 27, /100

35 no.1794/2006 as modified and Regulation (EU) no.255/2010, implemented at national level. Regarding the safety area, at national level, a report is published each year containing information collected through the mandatory/voluntary occurrence reporting system, for the purpose of informing the general public about the level of safety in civil aviation. Twice per year, ROMATSA Safety Committee assesses safety performance of the air navigation services provided by ROMATSA, based on the reports issued by the Safety and Quality Directorate. The safety data are collated and reported to NSA/RCAA and EUROCONTROL in terms of yearly high level safety indicators, as provided in the Annual Safety Template (AST). The main strategic action to improve regular safety performance monitoring and analysis of incidents trends are: - Implementation of an Automated Safety Reporting System. The system facilitates the process of reporting, investigation and dissemination by means of an intranet network using ECCAIRS software. The project (SMART Project) started in 2005 and it is still under development. ECCAIRS is also being used at the moment accordingly. - Implementation of an Automated Safety Monitoring Tool as a complementary system to the actual human reporting system. Regarding safety, capacity and cost-efficiency, the NSA/RCAA monitors the performance of the accountable entities in terms of the KPIs and targets defined in the RNPP1, as well as the achievement of actions defined in the ANS part of the State Safety Program and ANSPs business plans by its oversight function according to the national regulation RACR SSNA ed. 02/2008 and to the national procedure PIAC SSNA, Part I, II and III, which establishes: - the process to verify compliance with applicable regulatory requirements prior to the issue or renewal of the ANSPs certificates (including compliance with related conditions attached to the certificate), compliance with any obligations in the certification act and ongoing compliance of the ANSPs trough: - audit visits; - inspections; - documentation review; - the follow up process to ensure the implementation of corrective actions and the mechanisms to revoke, suspend or limit the certification of ANSPs. Additionally to the ongoing monitoring process mentioned above, during RP1 the NSA/RCAA analyze the implementation of RNPP1 based on the periodical specific reports of the ANSPs regarding each of the key performance areas and evaluates the progress made to achieve the corresponding targets. If any deviations from RNPP1 are found, ANSPs are asked to provide detailed justifications. If any problems are identified, they are discussed with the ANSPs and appropriate corrective actions are implemented in order to rectify the situation. In case the performance targets risk not being achieved, NSA/RCAA submits a Report to the Ministry of Transports and Infrastructure, which further reports to the European Commission, according to the provisions of Art. 17 (3) of Regulation (EU) No. 691/2010. Edition 01 June 27, /100

36 An Annual Report on the monitoring of the performance plan and targets is prepared by NSA/RCAA and submitted to the Ministry of Transports and Infrastructure. The Ministry of Transports and Infrastructure reviews the Annual Report and the NSA makes amendments, if necessary. The Ministry of Transport approves the Annual Report and submits it to the European Commission, according to the provisions of Art. 17 (3) of Regulation (EU) no. 691/2010. Annex A - Reference documents 1. 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 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009; 2. 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; 3. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1191/2010; 4. Commission Decision of 21 February 2011 setting the European Union-wide performance targets and alert thresholds for the provision of air navigation services for the years 2012 to 2014 (2011/121/EU); 5. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 of 20 December 2005 laying down common requirements for the provision of air navigation services as last amended by Regulation (EU) 691/ Guidance material for national/fab performance plans, Released Issue 23 February FAB progress report. Edition 01 June 27, /100

37 Annex B Reporting Tables & Additional Information (Data for 2009 and 2010 are actual, for are forecasts) Charging zone name: Romania Entity name: All entities Table 1 Total costs Forecast Costs* Determined Costs Actual costs Cost details 2010F* 2011F* ** 2011** Detail by nature (in nominal terms) 1.1 Staff 425,8 409,2 404,4 422,4 440,1 383,7 409,2 1.2 Other operating costs 118,6 139,4 128,2 134,9 143,5 132,7 139,4 1.3 Depreciation 36,0 36,1 62,3 67,7 71,5 35,3 50,0 1.4 Cost of capital 41,4 43,1 51,7 51,7 51,8 46,0 51,9 1.5 Exceptional items 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1.6 Total costs 621,8 627,8 646,5 676,7 707,0 597,7 650,5 Total % n/n-1 1,0% 3,0% 4,7% 4,5% 8,8% Staff % n/n-1-3,9% -1,2% 4,4% 4,2% 6,7% Other op. % n/n-1 17,6% -8,0% 5,2% 6,4% 5,1% 2. Detail by service (in nominal terms) 2.1 Air Traffic Management 359,0 386,4 402,3 422,1 441,6 366,1 406,0 2.2 Communication 70,3 56,1 51,5 54,0 56,5 46,8 51,9 2.3 Navigation 32,9 33,7 35,0 36,7 38,4 31,8 35,3 2.4 Surveillance 36,8 37,7 39,1 41,1 43,0 35,6 39,5 2.5 Search and rescue 0,5 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2.6 Aeronautical Information 39,6 38,2 40,3 42,1 43,9 36,5 40,5 2.7 Meteorological services 33,0 33,8 35,6 37,3 39,1 32,4 35,9 2.8 Supervision costs 10,5 8,3 8,6 8,9 9,3 10,2 8,3 2.9 Other State costs 39,1 33,03 34,3 34,5 35,2 38,2 33, Total costs 621,8 627,8 646,5 676,7 707,0 597,7 650,5 Total % n/n-1 1,0% 3,0% 4,6% 4,5% 8,8% ATM % n/n-1 7,6% 4,1% 4,9% 4,6% 10,9% CNS % n/n-1-8,9% -1,6% 4,9% 4,6% 10,9% 3. Complementary information on the cost of capital and on the cost of common projects (in nominal terms) Average asset base 3.1 Net book val. fixed assets 450,8 442,1 541,7 542,1 542,6 491,8 541,7 3.2 Adjustments total assets 0,0 0,0 3.3 Net current assets 71,2 96,9 104,6 104,8 105,0 84,3 107,5 3.4 Total asset base 522,0 539,0 646,3 646,9 647,6 576,1 649,2 Cost of capital % 3.5 Cost of capital pre tax rate 7,9% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 3.6 Return on equity 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 3.7 Average interest on debts Cost of common projects 3.8 Common Project 1 Edition 01 June 27, /100

38 4. Complementary information on inflation and on total costs in real terms 4.1 Inflation % (1) 6,1% 6,6% 4,5% 3,1% 2,8% 6,1% 6,6% 4.2 Price index - Base 100 in ,1 113,1 118,2 121,9 125,3 106,1 113,1 4.3 Total costs real terms (2) 586,0 555,1 547,0 555,3 564,3 563,3 575,1 Total % n/n-1-5,3% -1,5% 1,5% 1,6% 2,1% 5. Deduction of costs allocated to exempted VFR flights (in nominal terms) 5.1 Total costs 621,8 627,8 646,8 676,7 707,0 597,7 650,5 5.2 Costs for exempted VFR flights 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 5.3 Total costs after deduction (3) 621,8 627,8 646,8 676,7 707,0 597,7 650,5 Costs and asset base items in ' RON - Service units in ' (1) Forecast inflation used for establishing the determined costs in nominal terms - actual inflation (2) Determined costs (performance plan) in real terms - actual costs in real terms - base 100 in 2009 (3) Determined costs (after deduction of VFR costs) reported at line Reporting Table 2 (in nominal terms) *Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F) **Forecast data used for the latest submission (November 2010 data for 2010 and 2011 F) Charging zone name: Romania Entity name: ANSP (ROMATSA) Table 1 Total costs Forecast Costs* Determined Costs Actual costs Cost details 2010F* 2011F* ** Detail by nature (in nominal terms) 1.1 Staff 416,8 400,8 395,6 413,3 430,9 374,3 400,8 1.2 Other operating costs 73,3 102,7 90,1 96,5 104,2 90,5 102,7 1.3 Depreciation 35,3 35,7 61,7 67,2 71,0 34,8 49,5 1.4 Cost of capital 40,8 42,5 51,3 51,3 51,3 45,4 51,3 1.5 Exceptional items 1.6 Total costs 566,2 581,7 598,8 628,3 657,4 545,0 604,4 Total % n/n-1 2,7% 2,9% 4,9% 4,6% 10,9% Staff % n/n-1-3,8% -1,3% 4,5% 4,2% 7,1% Other op. % n/n-1 40,2% -12,3% 7,1% 8,0% 13,5% 2. Detail by service (in nominal terms) 2.1 Air Traffic Management 359,0 386,4 402,3 422,1 441,6 366,1 406,0 2.2 Communication 70,3 56,1 51,5 54,0 56,5 46,8 51,9 2.3 Navigation 32,9 33,7 35,0 36,7 38,4 31,8 35,3 2.4 Surveillance 36,8 37,7 39,1 41,1 43,0 35,6 39,5 2.5 Search and rescue 0,5 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2.6 Aeronautical Information 33,6 33,5 35,4 37,1 38,8 32,2 35,7 2.7 Meteorological services 33,0 33,8 35,6 37,3 39,1 32,4 35,9 2.8 Supervision costs 2.9 Other State costs 2.10 Total costs 566,2 581,7 598,8 628,3 657,4 545,0 604,4 Edition 01 June 27, /100

39 Total % n/n-1 2,7% 2,9% 4,9% 4,6% 10,9% ATM % n/n-1 7,6% 4,1% 4,9% 4,6% 10,9% CNS % n/n-1-8,9% -1,6% 4,9% 4,6% 10,9% 3. Complementary information on the cost of capital and on the cost of common projects (in nominal terms) Average asset base 3.1 Net book val. fixed assets 446,5 437,7 537,3 537,3 537,3 487,5 537,3 3.2 Adjustments total assets 3.3 Net current assets 67,6 94,2 104,8 104,8 104,8 80,7 104,8 3.4 Total asset base 514,1 531,8 642,0 642,0 642,0 568,2 642,0 Cost of capital % 3.5 Cost of capital pre tax rate 7,9% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 3.6 Return on equity 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 3.7 Average interest on debts Cost of common projects 3.8 Common Project 1 4. Complementary information on inflation and on total costs in real terms 4.1 Inflation % (1) 6,1% 6,6% 4,5% 3,1% 2,8% 6,1% 6,6% 4.2 Price index - Base 100 in ,1 113,1 118,2 121,9 125,3 106,1 113,1 4.3 Total costs real terms (2) 533,7 514,4 506,6 515,6 524,8 513,7 534,4 Total % n/n-1-3,6% -1,5% 1,8% 1,8% 4,0% 5. Deduction of costs allocated to exempted VFR flights (in nominal terms) 5.1 Total costs 566,2 581,7 598,8 628,3 657,4 545,0 604,4 5.2 Costs for exempted VFR flights 5.3 Total costs after deduction (3) 566,2 581,7 598,8 628,3 657,4 545,0 604,4 Costs and asset base items in ' RON - Service units in ' (1) Forecast inflation used for establishing the determined costs in nominal terms - actual inflation (2) Determined costs (performance plan) in real terms - actual costs in real terms - base 100 in 2009 (3) Determined costs (after deduction of VFR costs) reported at line Reporting Table 2 (in nominal terms) *Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F) **Forecast June 2011 Charging zone: Romania Entity name: NSA/RCAA + SNAIA/RCAA Table 1 Total costs Forecast Costs* Determined Costs Actual costs Cost details 2010F* 2011F* A 2011** Detail by nature (in nominal terms) 1.1 Staff 9,0 8,3 8,7 9,0 9,3 9,3 8,3 1.2 Other operating costs 45,3 36,7 38,1 38,5 39,3 42,2 36,7 1.3 Depreciation 0,6 0,4 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,4 1.4 Cost of capital 0,6 0,6 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,6 0,6 1.5 Exceptional items Edition 01 June 27, /100

40 1.6 Total costs 55,5 46,1 47,7 48,4 49,6 52,7 46,1 Total % n/n-1-17,0% 3,5% 1,4% 2,5% -12,5% Staff % n/n-1-6,9% 4,7% 3,1% 2,8% -10,5% Other op. % n/n-1-18,9% 3,8% 0,9% 2,3% -12,9% 2. Detail by service (in nominal terms) 2.1 Air Traffic Management 2.2 Communication 2.3 Navigation 2.4 Surveillance 2.5 Search and rescue 2.6 Aeronautical Information 6 5 4,9 5,0 5,1 4, Meteorological services 2.8 Supervision costs 10,5 8,3 8,6 8,9 9,3 10,2 8,3 2.9 Other State costs (inc.ectl) 39,1 33,0 34,3 34,5 35,2 38,2 33, Total costs 55,5 46,1 47,7 48,4 49,6 52,7 46,1 Total % n/n-1-17,0% 3,5% 1,4% 2,5% -12,5% ATM % n/n-1 CNS % n/n-1 3. Complementary information on the cost of capital and on the cost of common projects (in nominal terms) Average asset base 3.1 Net book val. fixed assets 4,4 4,4 4,4 4,9 5,3 4,4 4,4 3.2 Adjustments total assets 3.3 Net current assets 3,5 2,7-0,1 0,1 0,2 3,5 2,7 3.4 Total asset base 7,9 7,1 4,3 4,9 5,5 7,9 7,1 Cost of capital % 3.5 Cost of capital pre tax rate 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 3.6 Return on equity 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 8,0% 3.7 Average interest on debts Cost of common projects 3.8 Common Project 1 4. Complementary information on inflation and on total costs in real terms 4.1 Inflation % (1) 6,1% 6,6% 4,5% 3,1% 2,8% 6,1% 6,6% 4.2 Price index - Base 100 in ,1 113,1 118,2 121,9 125,3 106,1 113,1 4.3 Total costs real terms (2) 52,3 40,8 40,4 39,7 39,6 49,7 40,8 Total % n/n-1-22,1% -1,0% -1,7% -0,3% -17,9% 5. Deduction of costs allocated to exempted VFR flights (in nominal terms) 5.1 Total costs 55,5 46,1 47,7 48,4 49,6 52,7 46,1 5.2 Costs for exempted VFR flights 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 5.3 Total costs after deduction (3) 55,5 46,1 47,7 48,4 49,6 52,7 46,1 Costs and asset base items in ' RON - Service units in ' (1) Forecast inflation used for establishing the determined costs in nominal terms - actual inflation (2) Determined costs (performance plan) in real terms - actual costs in real terms - base 100 in 2009 (3) Determined costs (after deduction of VFR costs) reported at line Reporting Table 2 (in nominal terms) *Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F) **Forecast June 2011 Edition 01 June 27, /100

41 Charging zone name: Romania Entity name: All entities Table 2 Unit rate calculation Unit rate calculation 2010F* 2011F* Determined costs in nominal terms and inflation adjustment 1.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. - Table 1 621,8 627,8 646,8 676,7 707,0 1.2 Actual inflation rate - Table Forecast inflation rate - Table 1 6,1% 6,6% 4,5% 3,1% 2,8% 1.4 Inflation adjustment - Article : year n amount to be carried over 2. Forecast and actual total service units 2.1 Forecast total service units (performance plan) 3,2 3,5 3,6 3,8 4,0 2.2 Actual total service units 3,4 3,5 2.3 Actual / forecast total service units (in %) 5,7% -0,4% 3. Costs subject to traffic risk sharing (ANSP) 3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1) 533,2 548,0 563,2 591,0 618,3 3.2 Inflation adjustment - Article : amount carried over to year n 3.3 Traffic - Article : amounts carried over to year n 3.4 Traffic risk sharing - Article : add. revenue carried over to year n 3.5 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2: revenues losses carried over to year n 3.6 Uncontrollable costs - Article : amounts carried over to year n 3.7 Bonus or penalty for performance - Article Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 47,2 46,6 2,6 0,0 0,0 3.9 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 580,4 594,6 565,8 591,0 618, Traffic risk sharing - Article : add. rev. year n to be carried-over 3.11 Traffic risk sharing - Article : revenue loss year n to be carried-over Parameters for traffic risk sharing 3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article % 70% 70% 3.13 % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article % 70% 70% 4. Costs not subject to traffic risk sharing - Article 11a (2) 4.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (Table 1) 88,6 79,9 83,3 85,7 88,6 4.2 Inflation adjustment - Article : amount carried over to year n 4.3 Traffic - Article : amounts carried over to year n 4.4 Uncontrollable costs - Article : amounts carried over to year n 4.5 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 4.6 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 88,550 79,870 83,289 85,704 88, Other revenues - applied unit rate (in national currency) 5.1 Revenues from other sources - Article ,1 6,5 2,2 1,3 1,3 5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate Year n unit rate (in national currency) 196,84 188,86 179,10 177,64 176,06 Edition 01 June 27, /100

42 5.4 ANSP component of the unit rate 179,66 175,83 165,89 164,92 163, MET component of the unit rate 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0, NSA-State component of the unit rate 17,19 13,03 13,21 12,72 12, Year n unit rate that would have applied without other revenues 207,10 190,69 179,71 177,99 176,38 Costs, revenues and other amounts in ' RON - Service units in ' (1) Over/under recoveries incurred up to the year of entry into force of the determined cost method *Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F) Charging zone name: Romania Entity name: ANSP (ROMATSA) Table 2 Unit rate calculation Unit rate calculation 2010F* 2011F* Determined costs in nominal terms and inflation adjustment 1.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. - Table 1 566,2 581,7 598,8 628,3 657,4 1.2 Actual inflation rate - Table Forecast inflation rate - Table 1 6,1% 6,6% 4,5% 3,1% 2,8% 1.4 Inflation adjustment - Article : year n amount to be carried over 2. Forecast and actual total service units 2.1 Forecast total service units (performance plan) 3,2 3,5 3,6 3,8 4,0 2.2 Actual total service units 2.3 Actual / forecast total service units (in %) 3. Costs subject to traffic risk sharing (ANSP) 3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1) 533,2 548,0 563,2 591,0 618,3 3.2 Inflation adjustment - Article : amount carried over to year n 3.3 Traffic - Article : amounts carried over to year n 3.4 Traffic risk sharing - Article : add. revenue carried over to year n 3.5 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2: revenues losses carried over to year n 3.6 Uncontrollable costs - Article : amounts carried over to year n 3.7 Bonus or penalty for performance - Article Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 47,2 46,6 2,6 0,0 0,0 3.9 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 580,4 594,6 565,8 591,0 618, Traffic risk sharing - Article : add. rev. year n to be carried-over 3.11 Traffic risk sharing - Article : revenue loss year n to be carried-over Parameters for traffic risk sharing 3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article % 70% 70% 3.13 % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article % 70% 70% 4. Costs not subject to traffic risk sharing - Article 11a (2) 4.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (Table 1) 33,0 33,8 35,6 37,3 39,1 Edition 01 June 27, /100

43 4.2 Inflation adjustment - Article : amount carried over to year n 4.3 Traffic - Article : amounts carried over to year n 4.4 Uncontrollable costs - Article : amounts carried over to year n 4.5 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 4.6 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 33,0 33,8 35,6 37,3 39,1 5. Other revenues - applied unit rate (in national currency) 5.1 Revenues from other sources - Article ,1 6,5 2,2 1,3 1,3 5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate 580, Year n unit rate (in national currency) 179,66 175,83 165,89 164,92 163, ANSP component of the unit rate 5.5 MET component of the unit rate 5.6 NSA-State component of the unit rate 5.7 Year n unit rate that would have applied without other revenues 189,91 177,66 166,50 165,26 164,02 Costs, revenues and other amounts in ' RON - Service units in ' (1) Over/under recoveries incurred up to the year of entry into force of the determined cost method *Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F) Charging zone: Romania Entity name: NSA/RCAA + SNAIA/RCAA Table 2 Unit rate calculation Unit rate calculation 2010F* 2011F* Determined costs in nominal terms and inflation adjustment 1.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. - Table 1 55,5 46,1 47,7 48,4 49,6 1.2 Actual inflation rate - Table Forecast inflation rate - Table 1 6,1% 6,6% 4,5% 3,1% 2,8% 1.4 Inflation adjustment - Article : year n amount to be carried over 2. Forecast and actual total service units 2.1 Forecast total service units (performance plan) 3,2 3,5 3,6 3,8 4,0 2.2 Actual total service units 2.3 Actual / forecast total service units (in %) 3. Costs subject to traffic risk sharing (ANSP) 3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1) 3.2 Inflation adjustment - Article : amount carried over to year n 3.3 Traffic - Article : amounts carried over to year n 3.4 Traffic risk sharing - Article : add. revenue carried over to year n 3.5 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2: revenues losses carried over to year n 3.6 Uncontrollable costs - Article : amounts carried over to year n 3.7 Bonus or penalty for performance - Article Edition 01 June 27, /100

44 3.8 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 3.9 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 3.10 Traffic risk sharing - Article : add. rev. year n to be carried-over 3.11 Traffic risk sharing - Article : revenue loss year n to be carried-over Parameters for traffic risk sharing 3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article Costs not subject to traffic risk sharing - Article 11a (2) 4.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (Table 1) 55,5 46,1 47,7 48,4 49,6 4.2 Inflation adjustment - Article : amount carried over to year n 4.3 Traffic - Article : amounts carried over to year n 4.4 Uncontrollable costs - Article : amounts carried over to year n 4.5 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 4.6 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 55,5 46,1 47,7 48,4 49,6 5. Other revenues - applied unit rate (in national currency) 5.1 Revenues from other sources - Article 1.3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate 55,5 46,1 47,7 48,4 49,6 5.3 Year n unit rate (in national currency) 17,19 13,03 13,21 12,72 12, ANSP component of the unit rate 5.5 MET component of the unit rate 5.6 NSA-State component of the unit rate 5.7 Year n unit rate that would have applied without other revenues 17,19 13,03 13,21 12,72 12,37 Costs, revenues and other amounts in ' RON - Service units in ' (1) Over/under recoveries incurred up to the year of entry into force of the determined cost method *Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F) Additional Information Table-1 Romania-Route Year: Description of the methodology used for allocating costs of facilities or services between different air navigation services based on the list of facilities and services listed in the relevant ICAO Regional Air Navigation Plan, (Doc 7754) and a description of the methodology used for allocating those costs between different en route charging zones; Costs are reported for the following entities: - ROMATSA Romanian ANSP providing ATM- CNS services, aeronautical MET, part of AIS services and part of search and rescue. Both for en-route and terminal. Costs of ROMATSA are established by cost centres corresponding to the territorial structure of the company. Costs of facilities and services listed in the ICAO Regional Air Navigation Plan are accounted in the cost centre to which they belong; Edition 01 June 27, /100

45 - Romanian CAA Romanian NSA, also providing part of AIS services. A single en-route charging zone is established. 2. Description of the costs incurred by the Contracting States ( Other State costs ); This category includes only the contribution to EUROCONTROL, reported, as recommended by CRCO, in Table 1 State NSA, although the contribution is paid and accounted by ROMATSA. No other State costs are included in the cost-base. 3. Description and explanation of the method adopted for the calculation of depreciation costs: historic costs or current costs. When current cost accounting is adopted, provision of comparable historic cost data; Historic costs are used for the calculation of depreciation. At the end of 2010, in accordance with the national accounting practices aligned with the European directives the assets of ROMATSA have been restated at fair value by an independent expert. After the restatement the net book value of the assets has been increased by about 30%. The restatement has been also audited by independent auditor KPNG Romania, together with all financial statements of ROMATSA for Justification for the cost of capital, including the components of the asset base, the possible adjustments to total assets and the return on equity; Cost of capital was calculated for 2010 at the average net book value of fixed assets and the average value of the net current assets, excluding interest bearing accounts. The value of fixed assets at was restated at fair value by an independent expert, following a tender procedure. Cost of capital of 2011 was calculated at the net book value of the assets at The return on equity applied was 8% which is in line with the 10 year rate of the government bonds. 5. Definition of the criteria used to allocate costs between terminal and en route services; For 2009: Cost allocation between en route and terminal services was done on a statistical basis. For each territorial unit that serve both en route and terminal the costs were allocated based on the following criteria: - In accordance with the organisational structure; - in proportion to the average distance flown or time spent; - in proportion to the personnel. Separate accounts are kept at each territorial subunit of ROMATSA. For each subunit an allocation percentage is calculated. The calculation is based on the share of each staff category in the total of the wages. Following allocation percentages are used: ACC 100% en-route; APP 64% en-route (except APP Bucharest that starting 1 June 2009 is integrated in ACC Bucharest and its cost are allocated 100% to en-route); combined APP/TWR 32% en-route; TWR 0% en-route; MET 75% en-route. CNS personnel wages are allocated according to the percentage of the equipment served (e.g. MSSR 100% en-route; ILS 0% en-route, etc.). Administrative staff wages are allocated according to the average allocation of the other categories of staff. Costs of headquarters are allocated Edition 01 June 27, /100

46 90% to en-route. 6. Breakdown of the meteorological costs between direct costs and MET core costs defined as the costs of supporting meteorological facilities and services that also serve meteorological requirements in general. These include general analysis and forecasting, weather radar and satellite observations, surface and upper-air observation networks, meteorological communication systems, data-processing centres and supporting core research, training and administration; ROMATSA is the designated service provider for aeronautical MET and runs its own meteorological services internally. These services are provided only for aviation purposes. ROMATSA acquires some raw data from the Romanian National Meteorological Administration. This data consists of: - national synoptic data; - data transferred from the GTS network; - national upper-air soundings data; - Romanian radar network data; - NWP from national and international models; - Lightning data. These products are acquired by ROMATSA from the NMA, on a contractual basis, at ECOMET fees and do not exceed 6% from the total MET costs of ROMATSA. 7. Description of the methodology used for allocating total MET costs and MET core costs to civil aviation and between en route charging zones; All ROMATSA en-route MET costs are exclusively costs for civil aviation and are allocated to one en-route charging zone. 8. Description and explanation of the differences between planned and actual figures for year n - 1 ; 8.1 Planned and result of 2010 a. Traffic In 2010 the actual en-route traffic was 5.32% over the cost base forecast for chargeable service units (+5,71% for total number of service units). b. Costs. An economy of 24,08 million RON (-3,87%) was recorded in total costs. By nature the actual figures vs. planned were the following: - Staff - 42,1 million lei - Other Operating costs +14,2 million lei (include variation in contribution to EUROCONTROL) - Depreciation 0,7 million lei - Cost of capital +4,6 million lei. Edition 01 June 27, /100

47 c. Result of 2010 Following the evolution of traffic and costs the end result of 2010 shows an over-recovery of 22,03 million lei (5,236 mil. at the 2010 average exchange rate) Current estimation for 2011 At the end of 2010 the assets of ROMATSA were restated at fair value by an independent expert, following a tender procedure. The asset base increased significantly (by about 30%) and this will affect the costs with Depreciation and the Cost of capital. Depreciation is estimated to increase with 13,9 million lei and cost of capital with 8,8 million lei. Together these elements induce an increase in the total costs by 3,6%. However the execution of the budget will focus on the reduction of other costs in order to limit the increase in the cost base. Latest traffic forecast (STATFOR May 2011) is 2,04% below the forecast for the cost base. 9. Description and explanation of the five-year planned costs based on the business plan; Medium term forecast was constructed taking into account the following considerations: - Service units were forecasted according with STATFOR baseline scenario, increasing with an annual rate of %; - inflation rate is foreseen to record 4.5% in 2012, and 2.8% in 2014; The costs evolution in their structure is the following: - Total staff costs will slightly increase by -1.2% in 2012 vs (i.e. less than the inflation rate of 4.5% for 2012), due to the reduction of the total number of staff; - Depreciation costs will be double in 2014 vs. approved 2011 cost base, due to the implementation of the new Operational Concept equipment from 2012 onwards and the re-evaluation of ROMATSA s assets at 31 December 2010 done be an independent authorised expert. Consequently, the performance en-route unit rate (in real terms 2009) is foreseen to decrease in the timeframe with an average of 3.55 per annum (2014 vs. 2011). Additional Information Table-2 Romania-Route Year: Description and rationale for the establishment of the different en route charging zones; The en route charging zone covers the entire airspace of FIR Bucuresti and is consistent with the air traffic control operations and services. 2. Description and explanation on the calculation of the forecast chargeable service units; Total service units have been established using the STATFOR forecasts of May 2011 (the latest available at the time of establishing the cost-base). The baseline scenario has been used. 3. Description of the policy on exemptions and a description of the financing means to cover the related costs; Edition 01 June 27, /100

48 The following flights are exempted from the en route charges: - flights performed by aircraft of which the maximum take-off weight authorised is less than two (2) metric tons; - flights performed exclusively for the transport, on official mission, of the reigning Monarch and his/her immediate family, Heads of State, Heads of Government, and Government Ministers. In all cases, this must be substantiated by the appropriate status indicator or remark on the flight plan; - search and rescue flights authorised by the appropriate competent body; - military flights performed by military aircraft of Romania and the USA; - training flights performed exclusively for the purpose of obtaining a licence, or a rating in the case of cockpit flight crew, and where this is substantiated by an appropriate remark on the flight plan. Flights must be performed solely within this charging zone. Flights must not serve for the transport of passengers and/or cargo, nor for positioning or ferrying of the aircraft; - flights performed exclusively for the purpose of checking or testing equipment used or intended to be used as ground aids to air navigation, excluding positioning flights by the aircraft concerned; flights terminating at the aerodrome from which the aircraft has taken off and during which no intermediate landing has been made (circular flights); - flights performed exclusively under VFR within this charging zone; The costs of the exempted flights are financed through direct payments to ROMATSA from the State budget. 4. Description of the income from other sources when they exist; Revenues from other sources deducted from the cost base include: - Revenues deducted directly from corresponding cost chapter: gains from exchange rate, cancellation of provisions made in previous periods. - Ancillary revenues (services to third parties, rent) and revenues from TenT subsidies were deducted in Unit rate calculation table. 5. Description and explanation of incentives applied on air navigation service providers and, in particular, the modalities to be applied in setting regulatory conditions on the level of unit rates. Description and explanation of the objectives in terms of performance and on the modalities to take them into account in the setting of maximum unit rates; The incentive used by Romania for the cost-efficiency is the mandatory risk-sharing mechanism defined in Article 11a of the Charging Regulation (i.e. Article 11a.1 for traffic risk and 11a. 2 for cost risk). 6. Description of the plans of air navigation service providers in order to meet projected demand and performance objectives; The premises of the development of air navigation services in Romania for the next years are the current external and internal environment conditions, and the strategic guidelines are the ones defined by the revised package of the regulations on the Single European Sky implementation (SES II) in ROMATSA must invest significantly in the air traffic management network and must implement important changes to design internal operations and procedures, in order to fulfil the Single European Sky objectives. ROMATSA Priorities for are: 1. Putting ROMATSA Measures Plan into practice under the post crisis conditions: - Flight Efficiency Plan adjustment initiated by CANSO, EUROCONTROL and IATA. 2. ATM SYSTEM ROMATSA DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION in order to fulfil SES requirements regarding interoperability of ATM System. 3. DANUBE FAB This project has been initiated jointly with the Bulgarian ANSP (BULATSA) since 2004, subject to the strategic guidelines defined by Single European Sky, with the aim of improving the regional efficiency of the air traffic management networks. The initiative of Romania and Bulgaria was sustained by Edition 01 June 27, /100

49 ROMATSA during by expanding the contacts and cooperation actions with the Bulgarian ANSP BULATSA and by gaining political support for this project that materialised in the signature of the Memorandum of Understanding by the Ministers of Transports in February It is to be mentioned: - The Feasibility Study on Establishment of a functional airspace block (FAB) in the Romanian and Bulgarian airspace DANUBE FAB completed in 2008, was followed by the definition of the institutional, technical-operational and economic parameters regarding the implementation of the project, including the stages and the schedule. According to this schedule, the following actions will be taken during : Definition of the legal and regulation framework; Clarification of human resources and social impact for the establishment of the DANUBE FAB; Completion of operational analysis on routes, sectors and architecture of DANUBE FAB; Definition of the aeronautic information services in DANUBE FAB; Definition of the meteorological services in DANUBE FAB; The completion of the technical analysis to determine the system requirements and modifications to be implemented; The formulation of standards and methodologies for personnel training in DANUBE FAB; The establishment of safety, quality and environmental management systems as well as the aeronautic and information security management system; Definition of the economic and financial aspects concerning the operation of the DANUBE FAB. - The Use of 1.25 million Euros granted by the EU TEN-T Agency for the partial financing of the preimplementation stages of the project, respectively until the ratification of the International Agreement by the Parliaments of the two states, action scheduled in The project schedule has been designed based on the requirements of the legislative package on Single European Sky in 2004, amended by the EC Regulation 1070/2009; Danube FAB is scheduled to start functioning in December Description and explanation of incentives applied on users of en route services; No incentives (as described in Regulation 1794/2006) are currently applied on the airspace users. 8. Description and explanation of the methodology used with respect to the recovery of the balance resulting from over or under recovery of previous years; Calculation of the result of 2010: 2010 A Balance to be carried over ('000 RON) Charges billed to users ,6% Total costs for the zone( 1 ) ,4% EUROCONTROL Costs ,3% Income from other sources (1) Cost of exempted VFR flights Cost of exempted IFR flights Edition 01 June 27, /100

50 -13,6% Costs of exempted flights ,6% Amounts carried over to year (2) Balance of year (i) Charges billed include 6,379 million euro that were recorded as unearned revenues in 2009 (please see explanations in 2011 November Additional information Table 1 point 2.1.c). The following table describes the carry-over of amounts from previous years: 2008 A 2009 A 2010 F 2011 F 2012 P 2013 P 2014 P Carry-over of under / over recoveries (in '000 euro until 2007, in '000 RON from 2008) Balance Year Balance Year Balance Year Balance Year Balance Year Amounts carried over to year (i) Amounts carried over to year (i) Adjusted Amounts in italics in 000 euro Edition 01 June 27, /100

51 Annex C Reporting Tables & Additional Information, TNC ROMANIA- TERMINAL CHARGING ZONE BUCHAREST HENRI COANDA Organisation: ANSP - ROMATSA Charging zone: Romania - 1 Aerodrome Bucharest Henri Coanda (LROP) Table 1 Total costs 2007 A 2008 A 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 F 2013 P 2014 P Detail by nature (in '000 RON) Staff ,9% 41,2% -1,7% -12,0% 5,0% 6,5% 4,1% 3,8% Other operating costs ,6% -31,2% 45,3% 65,0% -11,2% 9,8% 4,1% 3,8% Depreciation ,5% -0,3% -37,2% -28,2% 101,5% 36,4% 34,0% 5,0% Cost of capital Exceptional items -10,3% 3,6% -50,1% 13,1% 61,3% 17,6% 0,0% Detail by services (in '000 RON) Total costs ,6% 23,2% 0,1% -6,9% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7% Air traffic management ,7% -5,8% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7% Communication ,4% -17,0% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7% Navigation ,3% -6,1% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7% Surveillance Search and rescue -0,3% -6,1% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7% Aeronautical information Meteorological services Supervision costs -0,4% -4,1% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7% Other State costs Total costs ,6% 23,2% 0,1% -6,9% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7% Complementary information on inflation and on the cost of capital (in '000 RON) Edition 01 June 27, /100

52 Inflation rate 4,9% 7,9% 5,6% 6,1% 6,6% 4,5% 3,1% 2,8% Average operating capital ,5% -15,3% -49,3% 13,0% 61,4% 17,4% 0,2% Of which, average long term assets ,2% -17,9% -54,8% 12,0% 13,0% 61,4% 17,4% Cost of capital before tax (%) 6,64% 8,12% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,01% 8,00% Return on equity (%) 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% Average interest on debts (%) Charging zone: Romania Entity name: NSA/RCAA TNC Bucharest-Otopeni Airport Table 1 Total costs 2008 A 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 F 2013 P 2014 P Detail by nature (in '000 RON) Staff ,6% 2,8% -1,6% 17,0% 3,5% 3,1% 2,8% Other operating costs ,8% 4,4% -18,8% 43,4% 3,6% 3,1% 2,8% Depreciation ,9% 0,0% -14,0% -10,0% 14,4% 1,9% 1,9% Cost of capital ,9% 0,0% 20,4% -25,0% -36,7% 1,8% 1,7% Exceptional items Detail by services (in '000 RON) Total costs ,5% 3,0% -6,1% 20,9% 2,9% 3,1% 2,7% Air traffic management Communication Navigation Surveillance Search and rescue Aeronautical information Meteorological services Edition 01 June 27, /100

53 Supervision costs Other State costs 3,0% -6,1% 20,9% 2,9% 3,1% 0,9% Total costs ,0% -6,1% 20,9% 2,9% 3,1% 2,7% Complementary information on inflation and on the cost of capital (in '000 RON) Inflation rate 7,9% 5,6% 6,1% 6,6% 4,5% 3,1% 2,8% Average operating capital 125,0 112,5 71,3 72,5 73,8 Of which, average long term assets 42,0 37,5 53,5 54,5 55,4 Cost of capital before tax (%) 9,60% 8,00% 7,99% 8,00% 7,99% Return on equity (%) 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% Average interest on debts (%) Charging zone: Consolidated Entity name: Romania - 1 Aerodrome Bucharest Henri Coanda (LROP) Table 1 Total costs 2008 A 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 F 2013 P 2014 P Staff ,7% -1,6% -11,9% 5,1% 6,5% 4,1% 3,8% Other operating costs ,4% 43,9% 62,9% -10,5% 9,7% 4,1% 3,8% Depreciation ,3% -37,0% -28,1% 100,4% 36,3% 33,8% 5,0% Cost of capital ,3% 3,6% -49,8% 12,7% 60,7% 17,6% 0,0% Exceptional items Total costs ,0% 0,1% -6,9% 5,2% 10,9% 7,0% 3,6% Air traffic management ,7% -5,8% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7% Communication Edition 01 June 27, /100

54 -22,4% -17,0% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7% Navigation ,3% -6,1% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7% Surveillance ,3% -6,1% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7% Search and rescue Aeronautical information Meteorological services ,4% -4,1% 5,0% 11,0% 7,0% 3,7% Supervision costs ,0% -6,1% 20,9% 2,9% 3,1% 2,7% Other State cos Total costs ,0% 0,1% -6,9% 5,2% 10,9% 7,0% 3,6% Inflation rate 7,90% 5,60% 6,10% 6,60% 4,50% 3,10% 2,80% Average operating capital ,5% -15,3% -48,9% 12,9% 60,8% 17,4% 0,2% Of which, average long term assets ,2% -17,9% -54,7% 11,9% 13,1% 61,2% 17,4% Cost of capital before tax (%) 6,67% 8,15% 8,01% 8,00% 8,00% 8,01% 8,00% Return on equity (%) 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% 8,00% Average interest on debts (%) Table 2 Unit rate calculation 2008 A 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 F 2013 P 2014 P Unit rate (in '000 euro) and service units ('000) Total costs for the zone( 1 ) Cost of exempted VFR flights 6,6% 12,4% 4,3% 3,6% Costs of exempted IFR flights ,6% 12,4% 4,3% 3,6% Costs of exempted flights ,6% 12,4% 4,3% 3,6% Amounts carried over to year (i) Income from other sources Edition 01 June 27, /100

55 Chargeable costs ,6% 1,1% 2,1% 7,7% Total service units ,6% 5,4% 1,0% 1,5% 2,5% 3,0% Chargeable service units ,0% 1,5% 2,5% 3,0% Unit rate ( 2 ) 202,57 213,80 212,89 212,06 221,93 5,5% -0,4% -0,4% 4,6% Additional Information Table-1 Romania-TNC Bucharest Henri Coanda International Airport Year: 2012 Provided by ROMATSA 1. Description of the methodology used for allocating costs of facilities or services between different air navigation services based on the list of facilities and services listed in the relevant ICAO Regional Air Navigation Plan, (Doc 7754) and a description of the methodology used for allocating those costs between different en route charging zones; Cost allocation between en route and terminal services was done on a statistical basis. For each territorial unit that serve both en route and terminal the costs were allocated based on the following criteria: - In accordance with the organisational structure; - In proportion to the average distance flown or time spent; - In proportion to the personnel. Separate accounts are kept at each territorial subunit of ROMATSA. For each subunit an allocation percentage is calculated. The calculation is based on the share of each staff category in the total of the wages. Following allocation percentages are used: ACC 100% en-route; APP 64% en-route (except APP Bucharest that starting 1 June 2009 is integrated in ACC Bucharest and its cost are allocated 100% to en-route); combined APP/TWR 32% en-route; TWR 0% en-route; MET 95% (75% from November 2008) en-route. CNS personnel wages are allocated according to the percentage of the equipment served (e.g. MSSR 100% en-route; ILS 0% en-route, etc.). Administrative staff wages are allocated according to the average allocation of the other categories of staff. Costs of headquarters are allocated 90% to en-route. 2. Description and explanation of the differences between planned and actual figures for year (n-1); 2. Result of 2010 a. Costs An overall economy of 7,78 million lei (-18,94%) was achieved in b. Traffic Total number of service units were almost at the forecasted level (-0,04%). Chargeable service units were -2,12% below forecast and exempted service units were more than double the forecasted figure. Following the evolution of costs and traffic an over recovery of 7,457 million lei was recorded at the end of This over recovery will be carried over to c. Current estimation for 2011 National costs will decrease by 10,59% over the approved cost base according to the latest budgetary estimates. The traffic is expected to increase by 1,5%. Following the evolution of costs and traffic, the current estimates for the end result of 2011 is an over-recovery of 4,4 million RON (about 1,07 million euro), that will be carried forward to Edition 01 June 27, /100

56 3.Description and explanation of the five-year planned costs based on the business plan; Medium term forecast was constructed taking into account the following considerations: - Service units were forecasted to increase with 2,3% per annum, i.e. with 1,5% in ,5% in 2013 and 3% in 2014; - inflation rate is foreseen to record 4.5% in 2012, and 2.8% in 2014; The costs evolution in their structure is the following: - Total staff costs will increase by 6,5% in 2012, by 4,1% in 2013 and by 3,8% in 2014; - Other operating costs increase in the period by 5,8% p.a. - Depreciation costs will be almost double in 2014 vs cost base, due to the ambitious investment plan. - Cost of capital will reflect the new asset base. 4. Description of the costs incurred by the Contracting States ( Other State costs ); No other State costs are included in the cost-base. 5. Description and explanation of the method adopted for the calculation of depreciation costs: historic costs or current costs. When current cost accounting is adopted, provision of comparable historic cost data; Historic costs are used for the calculation of depreciation. At the end of 2010, in accordance with the national accounting practices aligned with the European directives the assets of ROMATSA have been restated at fair value by an independent expert. After the restatement the net book value of the assets has been increased by about 30%. The restatement has been also audited by independent auditor KPNG Romania, together with all financial statements of ROMATSA for Justification for the cost of capital, including the components of the asset base; Cost of capital was calculated for 2010 at the average net book value of fixed assets and the average value of the net current assets, excluding interest bearing accounts. The value of fixed assets at was restated at fair value by an independent expert, following a tender procedure. Cost of capital of 2011 was calculated at the net book value of the assets at The return on equity applied was 8% which is in line with the 10 year rate of the government bonds. The return on equity has been distributed between en route and terminal using the depreciation key. 7. Description of the cost for each airport for each terminal charging zone: for aerodromes with less than commercial air transport movements per year being calculated as the average over the previous three years, costs may be presented in an aggregated way per aerodrome; As only the Bucharest Henri Coandă International Airport Description is subject to the Regulation 1794/2006 only the costs for this airport are presented in the tables. Edition 01 June 27, /100

57 8. Breakdown of the MET costs between direct costs and MET core costs defined as the costs of supporting meteorological facilities and services that also serve meteorological requirements in general. These include general analysis and forecasting, weather radar and satellite observation, surface and upper-air observation networks, meteorological communication systems, data-processing centres and supporting core research, training and administration; ROMATSA is the designated service provider for aeronautical MET and runs its own meteorological services internally. These services are provided only for aviation purposes. 9. Description of the methodology used for allocating total MET costs and MET core costs to civil aviation and between en route charging zones; All ROMATSA en-route MET costs are exclusively costs for civil aviation and are allocated to one en-route charging zone. 1. Description and rationale for the establishment of the different terminal charging zones; The terminal charging zone covers only the Bucharest Henri Coandă International Airport the only airport in Romania that is above the threshold of commercial movements per year. Romania has decided not to apply the Regulation (EC) 1794/2006 on the other airports according to the provisions of Art. 5(6). Romania has analysed different scenarios on the establishment of terminal charging zones and consultations were held with users on 10 September An important majority of the users participating at the consultation supported the application of the Regulation and the establishment of charging zone only for Bucharest Henri Coandă International Airport and the continuation of the current charging system at all the other airports. IATA, that could not attend the consultation meeting, informed Romania on 29 October 2009 on their support for the establishment of a separate unit rate for the Bucharest Henri Coandă International Airport. 2. Description and explanation on the calculation of the forecast chargeable service units; Service units are calculated with an exponent of 0, service units taken into account in the cost base were based on the statistical forecast made by ROMATSA. As the number of service units in the time series is limited only to the actual , the accuracy of the forecast, especially on longer term, is limited, but will be improved for future submissions. 3. Description and explanation of the methodology used with respect to the recovery of the balance resulting from over/under recovery of previous years; The treatment of carry-overs of over/under recoveries from previous years is presented below: F F P P P Carry over of under/over recoveries (in '000 RON) Edition 01 June 27, /100

58 Balance Year Balance Year Amounts carried over to year (i) Description of the policy on exemptions and a description of the financing means to cover the related costs; The following flights are exempted from the terminal charges: - Romanian military aircraft; - Foreign military aircraft for which bilateral agreements are in force, on request of the Romanian Ministry of National Defence, - Aircraft performing flights exclusively for the transport, on official mission, of the reigning Monarch and his/her immediate family, Heads of State, Heads of Government, and Government Ministers. In all cases, this must be substantiated by the appropriate status indicator or remark on the flight plan; - Aircraft performing flights for the benefit of the United Nations Organisation, Red Cross or Red Crescent Organisation; - Civil aircraft performing search and rescue flights or transporting personnel and materials for such actions; - Aircraft carrying out humanitarian flights and providing urgent assistance; - Aircraft forced to land due to technical reasons, bad weather or other force majeure reasons; - Aircraft forced to land by order of the Romanian competent authorities; - Other aircraft according to the law provisions. Other aircraft may be exempted from the payment of charges, totally or in part, with the approval of the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. The costs of the exempted flights are deducted from the cost base according to the Regulation. The current legislation for the reimbursement of the costs of exempted flights from the state budget is limited to the en-route services. Until the legislation changes to include the exempted flights at Bucharest Henri Coandă International Airport in the reimbursement mechanism, the terminal services costs for the exempted flights will be supported from the return on equity. 5. Description of the income from other sources when they exist; The following revenues from other sources were used, their corresponding costs being deducted directly from the cost base: - Revenues from provisions for which costs were included in the cost base in previous periods; - Gains from exchange rate 6. Description and explanation of incentives applied on air navigation service providers and, in particular, the modalities to be applied in setting regulatory conditions on the level of unit rates. Description and explanation of the objectives in terms of performance and on the modalities to take them into account in the setting of maximum unit rates; No incentives (as described in Regulation 1794/2006) are currently applied on the air navigation service providers. Edition 01 June 27, /100

59 7. Description of the plans of air navigation service providers in order to meet projected demand and performance objectives; The premises of the development of air navigation services in Romania for the next years are the current external and internal environment conditions, and the strategic guidelines are the ones defined by the revised package of the regulations on the Single European Sky implementation (SES II) in ROMATSA must invest significantly in the air traffic management network and must implement important changes to design internal operations and procedures, in order to fulfil the Single European Sky objectives. ROMATSA Priorities for are: 4. Putting ROMATSA Measures Plan into practice under the post crisis conditions: - Flight Efficiency Plan adjustment initiated by CANSO, EUROCONTROL and IATA. 5. ATM SYSTEM ROMATSA DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION in order to fulfil SES requirements regarding interoperability of ATM System. 6. DANUBE FAB This project has been initiated jointly with the Bulgarian ANSP (BULATSA) since 2004, subject to the strategic guidelines defined by Single European Sky, with the aim of improving the regional efficiency of the air traffic management networks. The initiative of Romania and Bulgaria was sustained by ROMATSA during by expanding the contacts and cooperation actions with the Bulgarian ANSP BULATSA and by gaining political support for this project that materialised in the signature of the Memorandum of Understanding by the Ministers of Transports in February It is to be mentioned: - The Feasibility Study on Establishment of a functional airspace block (FAB) in the Romanian and Bulgarian airspace DANUBE FAB completed in 2008, was followed by the definition of the institutional, technical-operational and economic parameters regarding the implementation of the project, including the stages and the schedule. According to this schedule, the following actions will be taken during : Definition of the legal and regulation framework; Clarification of human resources and social impact for the establishment of the DANUBE FAB; Completion of operational analysis on routes, sectors and architecture of DANUBE FAB; Definition of the aeronautic information services in DANUBE FAB; Definition of the meteorological services in DANUBE FAB; The completion of the technical analysis to determine the system requirements and modifications to be implemented; The formulation of standards and methodologies for personnel training in DANUBE FAB; The establishment of safety, quality and environmental management systems as well as the aeronautic and information security management system; Definition of the economic and financial aspects concerning the operation of the DANUBE FAB. - The Use of 1.25 million Euros granted by the EU TEN-T Agency for the partial financing of the preimplementation stages of the project, respectively until the ratification of the International Agreement by the Parliaments of the two states, action scheduled in The project schedule has been designed based on the requirements of the legislative package on Single European Sky in 2004, amended by the EC Regulation 1070/2009; Danube FAB is scheduled to start functioning in December Description and explanation of incentives applied on users of en route services; No incentives (as described in Regulation 1794/2006) are currently applied on the airspace users. Edition 01 June 27, /100

60 Annex D Extracts from ROMATSA Strategic Business Plan i. In December 2010, ROMATSA issued edition 4.0 of its strategic business plan covering period. The document consolidates our conclusions on the scale of costs and investments correlated with traffic forecasts. The information is subject of annual customer consultation process and revisions and the document is up-dated accordingly. ii. The document is consolidated in Romanian language. iii. The text below represents the extracts from ROMATSA Strategic Business Plan , ed. 4.0/dec A revised document, in English language, will be prepared for the stakeholders consultation (planned in May 2011). Introduction The Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration - RA ROMATSA was established on 1 December 1991 by HG no. 74/1991, as amended and supplemented by HG no. 731/1992, HG no. 75/2005, HG 1090/2006, HG 1251/2007 and HG 741/2008. RA ROMATSA is organized as a self-financing public company, being the certified and designated as air navigation services provider, including air traffic services, aeronautical communication services, navigation and surveillance services in the aeronautical field, aeronautical meteorological services, aeronautical information services, as well as coordination of the search and rescue missions in the FIR-Flight Information Region of Bucharest. In addition to its basic activities, ROMATSA also has the right to perform consulting activities and to provide services in its field of activity, as well as research-development activities, including the manufacturing and trading of products specific to the air traffic management field, by its own forces or in partnership with the internal or external economic entities, as well as to perform its own transport activities, as per the legislation in force. The air navigation services provided by ROMATSA are: a) en-route air traffic control and information in the FIR-Flight Information Region of Bucharest. The services are provided by the Regional Control Centre ACC Bucharest by 3 locations: ACC Bucharest Bucharest location, ACC Bucharest ARAD location and ACC Bucharest Constanţa location. b) terminal (approach and aerodrome) air traffic control and information in Bucharest TMA Terminal Control Area of Otopeni and Băneasa airports, as well as in the CTR Control Areas of the other 16 Romanian airports. Vision and mission By the approval of the European Union regulations for the SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY (SES) concept an irreversible process was initiated for the change of the conception and of the framework for the provision of the air navigation services in Europe, such regulations significantly influencing the way of providing the air navigation services in the entire EUROCONTROL and ECAC space. Edition 01 June 27, /100

61 Therefore, during the reconfiguration process for the European air traffic services network, RA ROMATSA must keep its key role in the area, to maintain a stable position, with a welldefined identity. The strategic goal of RA ROMATSA in the implementation process of the SES concept is the preservation, optimal capitalization and promotion to ROMANIA's interest of the operational, technical and human potential as a national provider of air navigation services. In the context of the Single European Sky, ROMATSA will provide air navigation services at a high level of safety, quality and performance, while observing the applicable requirements and contributing to the achievement of the goals of the Single European Sky together with the consolidation of its position in the region in partnership with the air navigation services providers. For the full satisfaction of our clients we will achieve all of our proposed goals in full safety and security conditions, in an efficient manner, while protecting the environment and using highly qualified and motivated human resources Strategic guidelines Safety: Quality: Efficiency: Capacity: Security: Improving the safety level in accordance with the national and international requirements (SAF). Continuously improving the certified Quality Management System of RA ROMATSA, in all its fields of activity (QAL). Improving the quality and performance level required for the provision of air navigation services, achieving the strategic goals at the most efficient cost/performance rate (FIN). Maintaining the zero delay and optimal capacity level (CAP). Fulfilling the requirements for the aeronautical and information security in cooperation with the competent authorities (SEC). Environment: Implementation, certification and maintenance of an Environment Management System, in accordance with the requirements of ISO 14001:2004 standard (ENV). Human Resources: Maintaining a high level of professionalism and flexibility among all employees by increasing the professional motivation and satisfaction, maintaining a stimulating work environment and promoting a result-based culture (HUM) Medium-level goals OM1 Increase of the safety level: Consolidation and improvement of the safety management system in accordance with the requirements of ICAO and EUROCONTROL in this field. Edition 01 June 27, /100

62 OM2 OM3 Implementation of the safety culture: Promotion and maintenance among all employees of a safety culture. ROMATSA operational concept: Implementation of the operational concept correlated with the European regulations (SES) and regional developments (FAB). OM4 Implementation within ROMATSA of the quality excellence model: Optimization of the organization and functioning of RA ROMATSA by maintaining the certification of the Quality Management System, oriented towards meeting the clients requirements and continuously improving the provided services. OM5 OM6 OM7 OM8 OM9 OM10 OM11 OM12 OM13 OM14 OM15 Cost efficiency: Reaching some high levels of efficiency so that the performances improvement may be achieved at some optimal costs. Development of new levels of cost efficiency for each activity/location. Implementation of FAB concept: Taking the necessary measures to create and implement a FAB in the region in the context of ROMATSA and ATSA Bulgaria initiative. Regional harmonization of the ATM/CNS system: Identification and creation of the necessary levels and procedures for the achievement and maintenance of the interoperability of the ATM/CNS systems. Improvement of the ATM/CNS system: Development of the ATM/CNS system in accordance with the evolution of the operational requirements for interoperability. Improvement of the Air Space Management: Optimization of the air space management in cooperation with the national authorities and regional partners. Increase of the security level: Implementation of some plans and procedures for the prevention of the aeronautical security events and of some plans and procedures for the management of crisis situations in coordination with the national competent bodies for assuring the aeronautical security at national level. Civil-military cooperation: Optimization of the air space management in cooperation with the military authorities. Optimization of processes: Optimization of the internal processes of ROMATSA for the support functions (non-operational), improvement of their organization structure and of the performance indicators. Optimization of the institutional and legal framework: Permanent concern for the improvement of the legal and institutional framework regulating the activity of ROMATSA. Implementation of an environment management system: Development of a policy and of specific procedures in accordance with the applicable environment standards. Continuous improvement of the individual and team performances through the implementation of a performance management mechanism in correlation with Edition 01 June 27, /100

63 the long-term career development, by the staff stimulation and social protection. Priorities for i. Application of ROMATSA Plan of measures given the economic crisis by adaptation of the Flight Efficient Plan initiated by CANSO, EUROCONTROL and IATA, with the following necessary actions: - Operational measures for maintaining the traditional traffic and attracting new traffic (shorter routes, other operational improvements especially for the air space design), - Optimization of using the air space especially in the civil-military cooperation, - Enhancement of cooperation with the main airports (Bucharest, Timişoara, Cluj) and with the air operators for the efficient/optimal use of the facilities in a harmonized decision making environment, - Implementation of the continuous descend approach procedures for landing - CDA, - Direct promotion of ROMATSA services especially to the main air operators served by ROMATSA. - Reschedule of capital expenses for the protection of the organization during the period of the financial crisis, resulting in savings of million Euro, as well as the reduction of operational expenses, without affecting the safety of the provided services - Analysis and adaptation of the work program correlated with the activity of the airports with reduced traffic. - Increase of cooperation with the technical services providers for attracting/obtaining additional income, other than from the basic activity. - Increase of cooperation with the air navigation services providers for the timely identification of the common solutions for the protection and promotion of the common projects. - Promotion and sustaining of a harmonized program at the level of MTI, County Councils for the airport developments correlated with ROMATSA investments. ii. DANUBE FAB in order to improve the regional efficiency of the air traffic management networks, ever since 2004 this project has been initiated in partnership with the Bulgarian corresponding entity (ATSA Bulgaria) in compliance with the strategic guidelines defined by the regulations for the Single European Sky. iii. Finalization of the implementation of the operational concept, defined as per HG 536/2000 and as per the stages of operational development of ROMATSA correlated with the European and regional terms and objectives with respect to the implementation of the Single European Sky concept. Edition 01 June 27, /100

64 iv. ROMATSA project for The project started in 2007 as a result of the need to make the air traffic services in Romania efficient, considering the evolution of ROMATSA performance indicators from the last years, has the following main goals: - Internal reorganization and staged reduction of the total number of staff to the target of 1515 by 31 December Implementation of an E-MANAGEMENT SYSTEM in ROMATSA consisting in the procurement and installation of some software applications for the management of resources and documents in electronic format on a software and communication infrastructure properly dimensioned and secured as per the project needs. v. Assuring full interoperability of the ROMANIAN ATM System with respect to the applicable SES requirements including data-link services. vi. Assuring the surveillance service by radar or radar equivalent in FIR Bucharest and FAB DANUBE by improving the surveillance service with radar Mode S and multilateration. vii. Implementation, in accordance with the Navigation Strategy for ECAC countries, SESAR Master Plan and ICAO PBN Manual, of the following measures: - Gradual introduction of PBN RNAV procedures in all flight phases. - Gradual introduction of APV Baro-VNAV approaching procedures. - Gradual introduction of APV I procedures depending on the deadline for the operational putting into service of EGNOS system. - Introduction by the end of 2016 of a PBN RNAV approaching procedure in all airports. - Maintain ILS equipment as a support for the precision approaching and equipment of each airport with a ILS/DME system for at least one of the landing directions. - Maintain DME equipment as ground means for PBN RNAV assurance. Installation of some additional DME equipment as a support for P-RNAV procedures in the newly defined TMA areas. - Gradual reduction of the number of NDB and VOR equipments, while introducing the new ILS and APV procedures. - Withdrawal from service of all PAR radar precision equipments after the introduction of the new ILS and APV procedures. Modernization context The international background for the modernization of the ATM system in Romania is defined by the harmonized regulation framework of the Single European Sky concept and by FAB DANUBE initiative, for the creation by Romania and Bulgaria of a functional air space block. The development of the air navigation services in Romania for the next years is based on the current conditions of the external and internal environment, and has as Edition 01 June 27, /100

65 strategic guidelines those defined by the revised regulation package of 2008 for the implementation of the Single European Sky (SES II). In order to achieve the objectives for the Single European Sky, ROMATSA must significantly invest in the infrastructure of the air traffic management network and implement some important changes in the concept of the internal operations and procedures. Requirements for the future ROMATSA ATM system for In order to meet the requirements imposed by SES regulations, all factors involved must act in a cooperative manner, using the benefits of a distributed integrated information network. All participants involved in the air traffic management process will have access to the information even from the initial flight planning phases, they will be able to use such information according to their own interests, to identify the possible limitations and constraints, and by using the cooperative decision making mechanisms available in the network, they will be able to negotiate and accept the flights planned parameters. The first requirement for the reconfiguration of the roles and responsibilities of the participants in the ATM network is generated by the introduction of the management concept by planning and corrections/interventions by exception, instead of the classical one of the management by intervention. By the dynamic planning within the network there will be a stable balance created between the known level of the demand and the capacities offered to the air navigation services users. This will be achieved by an active management of the demand and of the available capacities and by ensuring an optimized response in the case of exceptions. Thus, the modernized ATM system of ROMATSA will provide air traffic management services by sequential, correlated and continuously coordinated operations, in all flight phases within FIR BUCHAREST. The services provided will be compliant with the requirements of the air space users, the ATM system will be completely interoperable and, according to EC specifications, it will contribute to reducing the impact of the aviation on the environment. The systems and related operational procedures will enable the assurance of the dynamic flexible routes as required by the users, will allow the introduction and update of the information to all factors involved through the cooperative decision making mechanism in the flights planning and operation. In accordance with HG 536/2000, ROMATSA air traffic units will provide the air traffic services and related ATM activities, as follows: ACC BUCHAREST CDZ BUCHAREST - regional control service in the air space of the entire Flight Information Region (FIR) Bucharest; - flight information service in the air space of the entire Flight Information Region (FIR) Bucharest; Edition 01 June 27, /100

66 - alarming service, as well as air traffic capacities and flows management for the entire Flight Information Region (FIR) Bucharest; - responsibilities of the civil part in the civil/military coordination for the entire FIR Bucharest. APP Arad CDZ ARAD - approaching control service, as well as flight information service in TMA ARAD; - alarming service for the distributed responsibility area; - responsibilities of the civil part in the civil/military coordination for the distributed responsibility area. APP Bucharest CDZ BUCHAREST - approaching control service, as well as flight information service in TMA BUCHAREST; - alarming service for the distributed responsibility area; - responsibilities of the civil part in the civil/military coordination for the distributed responsibility area. APP Cluj CDZ BUCHAREST - approaching control service, as well as flight information service in TMA Cluj; - alarming service for the distributed responsibility area; - responsibilities of the civil part in the civil/military coordination for the distributed responsibility area. APP Constanţa CDZ CONSTANŢA - approaching control service, as well as flight information service in TMA Constanţa; - alarming service for the distributed responsibility area; - responsibilities of the civil part in the civil/military coordination for the distributed responsibility area. TWR Otopeni, Băneasa, Craiova, Arad, Timişoara, Oradea, Cluj-Napoca, Târgu Mureş, Baia Mare, Satu Mare, Sibiu, Bacău, Iaşi, Suceava, Constanţa and Tulcea: - aerodrome control service, as well as flight information service for the aerodrome control areas in question; - alarming service for the distributed responsibility area; - responsibilities of the civil part in the civil/military coordination for the distributed responsibility area. Contingency Room 1 operational in CDZ Bucharest Contingency Room 2 operational in external location of CDZ Bucharest SAR Coordination Centre operational in CDZ Bucharest Edition 01 June 27, /100

67 AIS and MET The new operational concept proposed for the operation of ROMATSA aeronautical and meteorological information services is defined as follows: - centralization of the aeronautical and meteorological information activities (MET+ARO+AIS) in a single operational entity, namely the ROMATSA Single Aeronautical Information Centre, to subsequently become the AIM National Centre; - utilization within central unit of two forms of providing the aeronautical and meteorological information services, namely: i. Aided Briefing on Otopeni, Timişoara and Constanţa airports, taking into consideration the importance of these airports from the strategic point of view (significant traffic, ICAO II or III operation category, reserve airports for international flights being located in areas with different climate conditions, their utilization by the military aviation, including NATO exercises). ii. Self-Briefing, on the other airports; - extensive use of some specialized applications, both for the remotely aided Briefing and for the Self-Briefing, for the access to PIB, flight meteo documentation (MET) and FPL presentation. The FPL presentation will be made directly or by Intranet to the local (Self) Briefing office of the CU or by any other telecommunication means available to the user, initially represented by phone and fax, and starting from 2010 by and Internet, as per the internal procedures and agreements concluded with the users; - utilization within the aided Briefing of some licensed multidisciplinary prepared staff able to perform both the aeronautical and meteorological information; - preparation of the necessary conditions for the implementation of FAB DANUBE in the field of the meteorological and aeronautical information services, including the take-over of AIS functions (NOTAM, AIP, MAP) from AACR and their inclusion within the structure of the new Single Aeronautical Information Centre; - Romania's alignment to ICAO and EUROCONTROL actions for AIS migration towards AIM and preparation of the technical and operational conditions for Romania's inclusion within SWIM at European level and application of SESAR requirements AIS: In the field of the aeronautical information services, AIS will be changed into AIM, in accordance with the stages, terms and objectives set in ICAO document Roadmap for the transition from AIS to AIM, edition ROMATSA activity with respect to AIS will be extended upon the take-over from AACR of AIS activities related to NOTAM, AIP and Maps. The traditional AIS activities, which will also include ARO/Briefing will be performed within the Single Aeronautical Information Centre (CU), while upon the AIS transition to AIM, the CU Single Aeronautical Information Centre will be changed into AIM National Centre. Edition 01 June 27, /100

68 In the field of the aeronautical information ROMATSA will provide the following services: - Single Aeronautical Information Centre, (AIM National Centre): NOTAM, AIP and production of aeronautical maps, provision of FPL, PIB, remote flight Meteo doc. upon request, ARO/ Aided Briefing on Otopeni, Timişoara and Constanţa airports, including verification and sending of ATS and ATFCM messages, - Self-Briefing offices in Băneasa, Craiova, Arad, Oradea, Cluj-Napoca, Târgu Mureş, Baia Mare, Satu Mare, Sibiu, Bacău, Iaşi, Suceava and Tulcea: provision of PIB and flight Meteo documents as Self-Briefing, FPL presentation MET: In the field of aeronautical meteorological services ROMATSA will further provide the aeronautical meteorological services by its structure of dedicated units, represented by: - National Centre for Aeronautical Meteorological: meteorological watch, forecasts and warnings for FIR Bucharest, meteorological forecasts and warnings for the aerodromes in Romania. - BMA Otopeni, Băneasa, Craiova, Arad, Timişoara, Oradea, Cluj-Napoca, Târgu Mureş, Baia Mare, Satu Mare, Sibiu, Bacău, Iaşi, Suceava, Constanţa and Tulcea: aerodrome meteorological watch, observations and warnings, meteorological information services as Self-Briefing or aided Briefing. HUMAN RESOURCES The provision of the air navigation services in a safe, efficient, continuous and sustained manner determines the load of the CTA staff in correlation with the air traffic volume, in the given conditions as to the: - non-uniform distribution of the traffic volume at the traffic units and - national regulations stipulating the obligation to operate in a pre-established timetable, ROMATSA being forced to maintain the active staff even at the units where there is no continuous activity. Edition 01 June 27, /100

69 7.1. Staff planning The determination of the labour demand takes into account the estimated traffic, the implementation of the Operational Concept and of the stages of ROMATSA development strategy, as well as the planning of the capacity and number of CTA that can retire in the following years. The staff planning was made till now by using the calculation formula from CAP 670 (UK), Part D, Appendix B. The staff needs will be updated on a yearly basis, depending on the traffic estimates, the possible modifications of the legislation regarding the condition and retirement of the CTA, the productivity indicators or other factors. Besides the above mentioned factors, the calculation of the necessary staff for each traffic unit is also affected by the specific conditions that may occur, such as: possible construction works at the airport runways, season fluctuations of the activity, performance of specific trainings. Edition 01 June 27, /100

70 Annex E - DANUBE FAB, Flight hours and KPIs (Source: Fab Progress Report 2010, V.1.0, EUROCONTROL) Edition 01 June 27, /100

71 Edition 01 June 27, /100

72 Edition 01 June 27, /100

73 Annex F - Extracts from State Safety Programme Romania Civil Aviation Safety Policy in Romania Civil aviation safety management is one of Romania s major responsibilities. To this end, Romania committs itself to develop, implement, maintain and constantly improve the safety management system strategies and processes in order to ensure that all the activities being carried out under its supervision will reach the highest safety performance level, complying at the same time with the national and international standards. All those certified/authorised civil aeronautical agents which fall under the aplicability area of this policy have to prove that their management system is an appropriate reflection of the Safety Management System approach. The expected results following the adoption of this approach are reflected in the improvement of safety management, safety practices, as well as safety reporting in the national civil aeronautical industry. In Romania, all management levels are responsible for providing the best safety performances, starting with the accountable manager. Romania committs itself to: 1. develop general rules and specific operational policies based on the safety management principles, as well as on a thorough analysis of the national civil aviation system; 2. consult all the interested parties within the national civil aeronautical industry on matters related to the process of drawing up and promoting new regulations in the field; 3. support the civil aviation safety management in Romania through an efficient communication and reporting system; 4. interact directly with service providers in order to identify solutions to safety problems; 5. make sure that the Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority has sufficient resources at its disposal and that the employees directly involved in activities which have an impact on safety are competent, have relevant experience and possess the necessary safety training; 6. conduct supervision activities considering performance and certification requirements maintenance, using safety analysis and prioritising resource allocation based on the identified risks; 7. respect and whenever possible, surpass the minimum safety level imposed by regulations and international standards requirements; 8. promote the principles and safety management beliefs and educate the civil aeronautical industry in their spirit; 9. supervise the appropriate safety management system implementation process in the civil aviation organisations; 10. make sure that all the activities under its supervision reach the highest safety standards; 11. establish measures that will enable the protection of safety data, of the Safety Information Collection and Processing System, as well as of the identity of persons who denounce Edition 01 June 27, /100

74 deficiencies, encourage people to continuously provide essential information regarding safety risks and facilitate safety management data exchange between civil aviation institutions and civil aeronautical agents, while maintaining the confidentiality of the collected data; 12. set and measure safety performance in the case of the service providers, in accordance with targets and performance indicators clearly defined and submitted; 13. promulgate an enforcement policy which would emphasize the fact that the Safety Information Collection and Processing System which was implemented according to the Safety Management System and the National Civil Aviation Safety Programme requirements will be used as fundament for the enforcement activities only in those situations where flagrant errors are identified or when there exists a deliberate infringement of the legal provisions. The safety policy has to be understood, implemented and analyzed by all the persons who are carrying out civil aviation activities. National Enforcement Policy 1. Introduction The present enforcement policy is issued under the authority of the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure as state authority in civil aviation in Romania. 2. Principles The process of drawing up and implementing this policy is a result of a thorough national analysis of the activities which have an impact on safety and are carried out by authorised/certified civil aeronautical agents. The Safety Management Systems implementation process requires Romania to develop an approach based on a flexible enforcement application, considering the constantly evolving legal framework, while ensuring at the same time that the entry into force of the enforcement functions is carried out in a coherent, practical and impartial manner. In the case of safety management systems implementation and functioning, the flexible enforcement approach is based on two general principles. The first general principle is that of developing enforcement procedures that would allow service providers to analyze and settle events which refer to safety requirements deviations, in the internal context of the service provider s safety management system, and would also comply with the authority requirements. The deliberate infringement of the provisions stipulated in Romania s civil air Code, as well as of other safety regulations is investigated and furthermore, legally sanctioned, should the situation require it. The second general principle provides that sanctioning actions should not be based on information derived from safety data or from safety information collection and processing systems set up under a safety management system. Edition 01 June 27, /100

75 3. Scope The principles which represent the fundament for the enforcement policy as well as its associated procedures are applicable to the service providers who carry out their activities in compliance with the provisions of the following ICAO annexes : Annex 1 Personnel Licensing, Annex 6 Operation of Aircraft (Part 1 International commercial air transport / Aircraft, Part 3 International operations / Helicopters), Annex 8 Airworthiness of aircraft, Annex 11 Air traffic services and Annex 14 Aerodromes (Volume 1- Aerodromes design and operations) In this context, the term service provider can be defined as any civil aeronautical agent providing services in the civil aviation field. 4. Generic facts The service providers will implement, develop and maintain a safety management system tailored for the number, nature and complexity of the authorised operations which can be carried out in compliance with the provisions stipulated in its authorisation certificate, considering at the same time the risks that these operations might pose for safety. The Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority inspectors will maintain a permanent contact with the service providers with a view to developing an enforcement policy which would enhance the safety management system implementation. The infringement of safety regulations provisions by a service provider, who has a safety management system implemented, will lead to the use of specific monitoring procedures. These procedures allow the Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority inspectors responsible for the supervision of the service provider s activities to communicate with the person in charge with the safety management system. The main objective of this interaction is for both sides to agree on the proposed corrective actions as well as on the action plan through which a new infringement of the provisions would be avoided, while giving the service provider the necessary time for their implementation. This approach aims to support an efficient safety reporting process, the service provider s employees being able to denounce the deficiencies and the threats to safety, without being afraid they will be submitted to punitive actions. A service provider can, without having to identify responsibilities and without fearing punitive actions, analyze the events and the individual or organisational factors which led to their occurrence and implement corrective actions which will resolve the problems which were identified and will prevent their reappearance. 5. Corrective actions The Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority, represented by its inspector, responsible with the supervision of the service provider s activities, will assess the proposed corrective actions and/or the system which was implemented in order to prevent the occurrence of the events which led to the infringement of the safety regulations provisions. Should the proposed corrective actions be considered appropriate in such a way as to prevent the reappearance of legal provisions infringement situations, enhancing their better Edition 01 June 27, /100

76 compliance, the deviations analysis will be concluded without taking administrative measures. Should the corrective actions or the systems which were implemented be considered inappropriate, the Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority will maintain the dialogue with the services supplier in order to find a satisfactory solution to the problems, before taking administrative measures. Nevertheless, should the service provider refuse to identify the problems and apply appropriate corrective actions, the Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority will consider imposing sanctions or administrative measures related to the certification documents. 6. Procedures application Cases of civil aviation regulations infringement can show up due to different reasons, starting from simple misunderstandings of the legal provisions to those situations of indifference to aviation safety. The Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority has at its disposal different enforcement procedures, depending on the circumstances, with a view to supporting an efficient safety obligations approach, these obligations deriving from Romania s civil air Code provisions. The outcome following the usage of these procedures can be highlighted in the actions described below: - counselling; - recurrent training; - administrative measures (authorisation modification, suspension or revocation); - applying contraventional sanctions according to the law in vigour. 7. Enforcement actions impartiality The enforcement actions decisions must not be influenced by: - personal conflicts; - aspects which refer to: sex, gender, religion, political beliefs; - social, political or financial status of the persons involved in the event. 8. Answer proportionality The enforcement actions decision have to be proportional to the type and nature of the infringements which were identified as well as to the risks to safety, being based on two principles: - The Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority will take administrative measures against those who will constantly and deliberatley operate outside the limits of civil aviation regulations; - The Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority will support the creation of a safety culture among service providers personnel, especially among those who committ themselves to fixing the deficiencies in the safety field. Edition 01 June 27, /100

77 9. Logical justice and responsibility The enforcement actions decisions have to: - be correct and follow the normal track; - be transparent for all the persons involved; - consider the case circumstances as well as the services suppliers attitude/actions when the enforcement action is proposed; - be consistent with actions/decisions adopted in the case of similar past circumstances; - be subject to internal or external reviews. 10. Exceptions The enforcement policy is not applicable in those cases where there are no proofs leading to the existence of a deliberate effort undertaken to hide the deviations. This policy is not applicable in those situations where the service supplier does not succeed in ensuring trust in the risk management and in the perils identification means. The enforcement policy is not applicable to those service providers who constantly infringe the legal safety provisions. The classification of an organisation in the above mentioned terms takes place if similar deviations from the legal safety provisions were identified in the past as well. In this case, contraventional sanctions (or other administrative measures), set through specific procedures, will be imposed. National civil aviation safety promotion A. Internal civil aviation safety information distribution, disclosure and dissemination. i. The main national managing authorities in civil aviation are the following: 1. The state authority in civil aviation Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure; 2. Flight Safety National Supervisory Authority Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority; 3. Accidents/Serious incidents national investigation authority Civil Aviation Safety Investigation and Analysis Centre. ii. Internal training courses, as well as courses delivered by recognized international organizations, are provided to all the employees from the main national managing authorities in civil aviation who carry out activities which have a direct impact on the civil aviation safety. iii. The individual training programme for the employees within the main national managing authorities in civil aviation who carry out activities which have a direct impact on the civil aviation safety, is shaped around issues which are related to the State Safety Programme and Safety Management System Edition 01 June 27, /100

78 implementation and is comprised of initial/recurrent training courses, on the job training, as well as specific training provided by civil aeronautical agents which already have or implement safety management systems. iv. The training courses which have to be undertaken by the employees within the main national managing authorities in civil aviation who carry out activities which have a direct impact on the civil aviation safety, are assigned following the provisions of the training procedures drawn up and approved in each organization, these procedures being part of the national safety training programme. v. The assessment of the above-mentioned training courses efficiency is an important part of the audit related to the National Civil Aviation Safety Programme implementation and functioning. vi. Information dissemination as well as internal communication on matters regarding civil aviation safety are processes which are carried out either through printed copies of the information bulletins and the safety reports drawn up and published by the State Safety Action Group, or electronically, by editing the information contained in these documents on the web page, etc; B. External civil aviation safety information distribution, disclosure and dissemination i. Meetings are frequently held with a view to analysing variuous issues related to civil aviation safety, the main objective of these meetings being that of ensuring an efficient communication in the national civil aeronautical industry. ii. The Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority organizes training courses for the personnel from the civil aviation organizations, publishing at the same time guidance materials regarding the Safety Management System implementation and functioning requirements, in order to ensure a good understanding and standardization of the Safety Management System implementation process in the civil aviation organizations iii. The training courses which have to be undertaken by the civil aviation agents personnel are an important condition in the process of accepting the Safety Management System which was implemented in the organisation. iv. The assessment of the efficiency of the training courses provided to those employees who carry out activities which have a direct impact on civil aviation safety, is made through an analysis of the results following the safety audits conducted by the Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority inspectors, through which the civil aeronautical agents are evaluated. v. Considering the importance of national aeronautical industry safety information disclosure and dissemination, the Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority will draw up and publish safety policies, information bulletins and procedures on its own web page. Edition 01 June 27, /100

79 Annex G - Outcome of stakeholder consultation Appendix G1 - The meeting agenda NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLANS STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION MEETING 5 May 2011 (10h00-16h00) ROMATSA headquarters Item Subject Material Welcome remarks Approval of agenda 3. Presentation of the Draft Performance Plans Main topics: Approachfor the EU-wide targets for ANS by the end of RP1 Contribution of each accountable entity Analysis of sensitivity Discussions regarding the National Performance Plans Next steps Slides to be provided at the meeting Draft Performance Plan for stakeholder consultation sent to participants on 14 April Any other business Edition 01 June 27, /100

80 Appendix G2 - Invitation Edition 01 June 27, /100

81 Appendix G3 - The guest list LIST OF CONTACT POINTS: List of airspace users associations were invited to stakeholder consultation meeting on performance plans Bucharest, 5 May 2011 IACA International Air Carrier Association 228 Avenue Louise /Bte 7 B-1050 Brussels Belgium Contact: Guy Battistella, (guy.battistella@iaca.be) Director Finance Tel: , Fax: Website: < IATA International Air Transport Association 33, Route de l'aéroport 1215 Geneva 15 Airport Switzerland Contact (1): Laurie O'TOOLE (otoolel@iata.org) Assistant Director Airport & ATC Charges Tel , Fax Contact (2): Hemant Mistry (mistryh@iata.org) Assistant Director Airport & ATC Charges Tel: , Fax , Mob Website: < AEA Association of European Airlines Avenue Louise 350, Bte BRUSSELS BELGIUM Contact : Vincent De Vroey (vincent.de.vroey@aea.be) Tel: , Fax: Website: ERAA The European Regions Airline Association European Regions Airline Association The Baker Suite Fairoaks Airport Chobham, Woking Surrey Edition 01 June 27, /100

82 United Kingdom GU24 8HX Contact(1): Nick Mower Contact(2): Simon McNamara Tel : +44 (0) , Fax: +44 (0) Website : < ELFAA European Low Fares Airline Association Avenue des Arts, 46 P.O. box: 1000 BRUSSELS BELGIUM Contact: John Hanlon (john.hanlon@elfaa.com) Tel: +32 (0) , Fax: +32 (0) Website: < > EBAA European Business Aviation Association Avenue de Tervuren 13 a-b Box BRUSSELS BELGIUM Contact: Pedro VICENTE AZUA (pedrovazua@ebaa.org) Chief Operating Officer Tel: Phone: , Fax: Website: < IAOPA International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Contact: Martin Robinson (martin@aopa.co.uk) 50a Cambridge Street London, SW1V 4QQ United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) , Fax: +44 (0) COMPANIA NAŢIONALĂ AEROPORTURI BUCUREŞTI ("Bucharest Airports" National Company) Contact: Tudor JIDAV Calea Bucurestilor nr. 224 E Otopeni, Ilfov County Postal code Romania Airport Information: , Fax: contact@bucharestairports.ro web-site: MINISTY OF TRANSPORT, ROMANIAN CIVIL AVIATION Contact: Cătălin RADU Bd. Dinicu Golescu, nr. 38, Sector 1 Edition 01 June 27, /100

83 Tel: ) Fax: +40 (021) TAROM, ROMANIAN AIR TRANSPORT Contact: Gabriela BORDEA 224F Calea Bucureştilor, 2end floor Henri Coandă International Airport, departures Terminal Tel: +40 (021) Fax: +40 (021) web-site: Edition 01 June 27, /100

84 Appendix G4 - Minutes of meeting CONSULTATION DRAFT PERFORMANCE PLANS 05 May 2010 ROMATSA Headquarters Bucharest, Romania MINUTES OF THE MEETING LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FROM Stakeholders: Mr. Emil George DOBROVOLSCHI VP Flight Operations TAROM Mr. Dragos MUNTEANU Safety & Quality Manager - TAROM Mr. Martin CAMUS Manager Procurement &Logistics - EMIRATES Mr. Wolfgang SCHEEL Senior Manager - LUFTHANSA Mr. Cesar RAFFO Manager User Charges IATA Geneva FROM Republic of Bulgaria: Mr. Stoino Georgiev Deputy Director General - DGCAA Mr. Kalin RAYCHEV Specialist Certification and ANS Dept. DGCAA Mr. Angel RACHEV Deputy Director General on Operations - BULATSA Mr. Vencislav MARKOV Director Finance - BULATSA Ms. Nella SHISHKOVA Specialist Planning and Analysis Department BULATSA Mr. Ivan ILIEV Expert Strategy and Planning - BULATSA FROM Romania: Ms. Claudia VÎRLAN Director General CAA Mr. Ovidiu TRĂICHIOIU Air Transport Director CAA Ms. Gabriela MOISA Commercial Dept. - CAA Mr. Sorin CEPOI Head of Performance Analysis Dept. - CAA Ms. Mihaela GEORGESCU Regulation Standardization and Safety Dept. - CAA Mr. Adrian SERBAN Director General - ROMATSA Mr. Bogdan DONCIU Counsellor of the Ministry of Transports and Infrastructure - Deputy Director General on Operations ROMATSA Ms. Silivia POPEANGA Director Finance and Planning- ROMATSA Mr. Aleodor FRANCU Director Development, Profit Centers Mr. Adrian PETRESCU Head of Charges Dept. - ROMATSA Mr. Mihai DUMITRACHE Expert Charges Dept. -ROMATSA Ms. Aura MARCULESCU Head of SES Dept. - ROMATSA Edition 01 June 27, /100

85 Mr. Miron TUDORAN ATM Expert - ROMATSA Mr. Alexandru KRAMER Programme Coordination Unit ROMATSA Mr. Razvan IONESCU Counsellor / General Directorate for Infrastructure and Air Transport / Romanian Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure The following Agenda was agreed for discussions between parties: Agenda Item 1: Welcome remarks Agenda Item 2: Approval of agenda. Agenda Item 3: Presentation of the Draft Performance Plans Main topics: Approach for the EU-wide targets for ANS by the end of RP1; Contribution of each accountable entity Analysis of sensitivity. Agenda Item 4: Next steps Agenda item 1 and 2 The meeting was opened by Mr. Bogdan DONCIU Deputy Director General on Operations (Counsellor of the Ministry of Transports and Infrastructure). Mrs. Claudia VIRLAN, Director General Romanian CAA and Mr. Stoino GHEORGHIEV, Deputy Director general DGCAA, Republic of Bulgaria welcome the participants from their States and the representatives from IATA and AEA. Ms. Claudia VIRLAN made the presentation of the agenda and proposed to start with the presentation of the Performance Plan of the Republic of Bulgaria followed by discussions and afterwards, the presentation of the Performance Plan of Romania followed by discussions Agenda item 3 - Presentation of the Performance Plans 3.1. Presentation of the Bulgarian Performance Plan Bulgarian NSA and Bulatsa representatives presented the Bulgarian Performance Plan. Questions regarding Bulgarian Performance Plan: After the presentation of the Bulgarian Performance Plan the following questions have been raised: Q1: Mr. Raffo asked which are the actions taken by the Bulgarian NSA in case the capacity targets are not fulfilled. Mr. Iliev answered that corrective action plans will be implemented in case capacity targets are not fulfilled, but they don t consider that penalties are needed to be established. Only in case of deviations from the targets, they will take into consideration penalties, as last possible measures. Mr. Donciu mentioned that both Romania and Bulgaria made significant investments for the accommodation of the demanding traffic, so we consider that, for the next period, no capacity problems are to be expected that could pose problems to the fulfilment of capacity targets. Anyway, IATA point of view will be acknowledged. Q2: Determined unit rate is based on BULATSAs service units forecast and not on STATFOR forecast. Edition 01 June 27, /100

86 Mr. Rachev confirmed that the forecast used for the determined unit rate is a national forecast and not STATFOR and justified it by the last years experiences which revealed considerable differences between the STATFOR forecast and real figures, STATFOR forecast being too optimistic. Mr. Scheel considered the forecast used in the Bulgarian Performance Plan as a non realistic one, as there are no reasons to believe the traffic will decrease in Without additional justifications the forecast could not be acceptable. Mr. Rachev gave some explanations about the considerations taken into account for the forecast used (e.g. approximately 2% decrease in the average MTOW of overflying traffic, new airspace structure which led to a 2.5% reduction of the average distance overlflown, continuous decrease of the Far East traffic) which results in a less than proportional service units growth in comparison with the traffic growth, and mentioned that more details and additional explanations will be included in the Performance Plan. Q3: Mr. Raffo considered the Plan is including too many information/data which are not final and subject for further modifications. For example it is not clear which figures include the national changes of the VAT legislation and which are not. What is the situation regarding Search and Rescue? Mr. Rachev said that all the information/data included in the Performance Plan are the latest ones. The investment part is including the VAT and the cost base does not include VAT. There will be some decrease of the unit rate to reflect the VAT exclusion, but the full effect of the change is not yet assessed. Mr. Scheel considered the text from page 6 of the Bulgarian Performance Plan is creating issues and the interpretation can not be accomplished. The reduction generated by the VAT exclusion is not reflected by the figures (operating costs and capital costs) and these should be recalculated. Mr. Rachev mentioned that since middle of 2010 a special working group, who represents all the Ministries, is preparing the general conditions for Search and Rescue and the needed steps. Consequently the figures/expenses needed for the Search&Rescue will be communicated to the stakeholders. Q4: Mr. Raffo considered that the Final Performance Plan shall include detailed explanations regarding return on equity in order to provide a qualitative analysis. Mr. Rachev agreed the proposal Presentation of the Romanian Performance Plan The Romanian Performance Plan was presented by Mr. Sorin CEPOI, Romanian CAA. Questions regarding the Romanian Performance Plan Q1: Mr. Raffo asked why the cost efficiency is not in line with EU-wide targets. Mr. Petrescu informed the participants that the figures are obtained using costs estimations for the reference period according to the Business Plan. Mr. Donciu offered explanations regarding the most important reasons for the differences between costefficiency EU-wide percentage reduction target and Romanian cost-efficiency percentage reduction target reflected by the determined unit rate during the Reference Period which include the reduction of the number of ACCs costs and the costs of relocation. Also, Mr. Donciu emphasized that the 3.5% reduction target is an EU-wide target and not a State-specific target and that Romanian determined unit rate for the Reference Period 1 is in line and lower than the EU-wide target. Mr. Raffo mentioned that Romatsa staff costs have increased in the last years and the increasing of the costs is also noticed for RP1, although they expected a decrease of these costs and there should be at least a 3,5% reduction of determined unit rate. Edition 01 June 27, /100

87 Mr. Petrescu informed the participants that the relocation costs, costs for trainees and inflation are the main reasons why the staff costs are increasing during 2013 and Mr. Francu mentioned the history of the relocation process which started in 2007 and the necessity of finalizing it in order to increase ROMATSA s productivity and to reduce the costs. Mr. Camus confirmed the agreement for improving KPAs made in the past but considered the staff cost reduction is still not appearing. Mr. Rachev presented the Bulgarian experience regarding the relocation and mentioned that the benefits in costs reduction will be seen later. Mr. Donciu added the need to maintain an adequate level of salary for controllers in order to avoid their migration and mentioned the costs of training new staff due to fact that the average age of controllers is 55 years. Mr. Scheel and Mr. Camus appreciated that the cost-efficiency target is not acceptable and no clear explanations regarding the basis of the figures have been included in the Performance Plan. The determined unit rate should decrease with more than 3,5% per annum. Mr. Raffo mentioned the necessity of establishing a relation between PPP indicator and the salary level. Mr. Francu described the actual situation of economy and provided examples regarding EUROSTAT estimation regarding the product prices in comparison to other EU countries. Mr Petrescu reminded that EUROSTAT recommended the use of PPP only for comparison of GDP data between states and not for specific industries. Mr. Petrescu also mentioned that, due to the fact that PPP are constructed over a basket of goods and services, a Romanian citizen, after having satisfied his basic needs (housing, food, clothing) is bound to purchase additional goods and services (e.g. a car or a holiday abroad) at prices usually higher than those in Western Europe. Q2: Mr. Raffo requested explanations regarding depreciation Mr. Petrescu explained the figures and their increase as a result of the re-evaluation of the assets of ROMATSA done be an independent authorised expert, selected through a tender procedure. Following this, the value of the assets increased by about 30%. The process was done to reflect the fair value of the assets at and the results of the restatement was audited, together with all the financial statements of ROMATSA for 2010, by the independent audit company KPMG. Mr. Rafo considered that, due to the fact that ROMATSA has adjusted in the past the value of its assets with the inflation, the costs of capital should reflect the euro interest rate and not the Romanian interest rate. Mr. Petrescu explained that the annual adjustments of the value of the assets was done until 2007 in a period when Romania was experiencing high inflation and when the cost base was expressed in Euro. In that period the return on equity reflected the euro interest rates on the Romanian market and the rate used was comparable with the rates used by some EMU states. From 2008 the cost base is expressed in national currency and the special provisions for states experiencing high inflation no longer apply to Romania. The cost of capital applied to equity therefore reflects the interest rate of the Romanian currency. Mr. Petrescu mentioned that transparent balance sheets will be provided after their approval, and that the cost-base that will be presented in June will reflect an exact calculation of the cost of capital according to the balance sheet. Ms. VÎRLAN mentioned that the Romanian National Performance Plan will be updated to reflect the last figures of the cost-base (the elaboration of the national cost-base is Romatsa s responsibility) and that the updated Romanian National Performance Plan will then be resent for consultation. IATA representatives mentioned that they will send written comments following this consultation meeting and there may be further questions. Ms. VÎRLAN mentioned that the Minutes of the meeting will be circulated to the participants for agreement in a few days, and thanked all participants, considering that the meeting was a good and useful exercise for the improvement of the performance plans, following the discussions and comments received. Edition 01 June 27, /100

88 Summary of decisions: Done in Bucharest on 5 May 2011 in 4 identical originals - one for each undersigned party For BULGARIA: Mr. Stoino Georgiev Deputy Director General - DGCAA For ROMANIA: Ms. Claudia VÎRLAN Director General CAA Mr. Angel RACHEV Deputy Director General on Operations BULATSA Mr. Adrian SERBAN Director General ROMATSA Mr. Razvan IONESCU Counsellor / General Directorate for Infrastructure and Air Transport / Romanian Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure For IATA Mr. Emil George DOBROVOLSCHI VP Flight Operations TAROM For AEA Mr. Martin CAMUS Manager Procurement &Logistics EMIRATES Mr. Dragos MUNTEANU Safety & Quality Manager - TAROM Mr. Wolfgang SCHEEL Senior Manager LUFTHANSA Mr. Cesar RAFFO Manager User Charges IATA Geneva Edition 01 June 27, /100

89 Appendix G5 - Observations and comments IATA representatives Edition 01 June 27, /100

90 Edition 01 June 27, /100

91 Edition 01 June 27, /100

92 Edition 01 June 27, /100

93 Edition 01 June 27, /100