Performance fabec air navigation service providers

Transcription

1 Performance 217 fabec air navigation service providers FABEC_report_217.indd :3

2 Contents Foreword: Focused on our mission 3 Traffic: Predictability in a volatile system 4 Safety: Sustainability first 6 Punctuality: Structural issues hit airline punctuality 8 Environment: Aircraft fly almost direct routes 1 Cost-efficiency: Traffic growth raises questions 12 Statistics 14 Acronyms and abbreviations 31

3 14 area control centres

4 5.99 million controlled flights 92.9% flights on time 96.8 % direct routings 88 airports 278 military training areas 17, employees 2-3

5 Foreword Focused on our mission Dear reader, Air traffic management (ATM) is the backbone of the European air transport industry. To ensure that our employees deliver the highest level of safety and punctuality as well as make air travel more environmentally friendly, the ATM system relies on the continuity of its procedures, the accuracy of its forecasts and the predictability of its traffic flows. However, the world around us is changing. The stability of the past decades is no longer guaranteed. Our operational environment has become volatile with increasingly unexpected variances in traffic flows. In this new environment, volatility is no longer just a single, local phenomenon it now affects the entire European air transport system. We need to understand far better the complexities and many dimensions that make up the current volatility challenge. The European Commission s Aviation Strategy is a key source of guidance in this area. It focuses on passengers, on citizens in general and on promoting the competitiveness of the European market. As infrastructure and service providers it is our task to meet the needs of airspace users to the fullest possible extent while providing the overall system with the robustness it requires to ensure that people and goods reach their destination safely and on time. But there are no simple solutions that will satisfy everyone. As with the construction of a motorway junction, the overall design needs to be agreed, the number of lanes identified, a traffic management system set up and bypasses planned. All these measures are aimed at optimising traffic flows within a defined budget. However, there will still be delays in rush hour traffic, in bad weather, at the beginning of school holidays and when accidents happen or construction work takes place. Additional traffic lanes cannot be conjured up out of thin air. Ultimately, the aviation industry needs to resolve the question as to how much delay is acceptable and at what price. In concrete terms, this means that legislation must also be created within an appropriate framework. Only a holistic and result-oriented approach that is in line with the European Commission s Aviation Strategy and encompasses all system partners airlines, airports, ATM can be successful. On top of this, strong political support is also required. This report makes two contributions to this goal. First, it summarises the contributions of FABEC s civil air navigation service providers (ANSPs) ANA Luxembourg, Belgocontrol, DFS, DSNA, LVNL, MUAC and skyguide to improving overall ATM provision in terms of safety, punctuality, environmental impact and cost-efficiency. It is also an attempt to link ATM provision to the overarching issue of Europe s Aviation Strategy. How can we ensure that passengers and goods arrive at their destination safely, on-time and in the least environmentally-damaging manner in the coming decades? Whatever is decided we the air navigation service providers of FABEC will do our utmost to make this happen. Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne (DSNA) Administration de la Navigation Aérienne (ANA) Belgocontrol DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH EUROCONTROL Maastricht UAC Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland (LVNL) skyguide swiss air navigation service provider ltd

6 Traffic Predictability in a volatile system In 217 air traffic controllers managed 5.99 million flights (+3.4 percent) safely and punctually through FABEC airspace. In terms of traffic volume this was an all-time high, topping the previous peak reached in 216. The number of arrivals at the 83 airports within the FABEC area grew by 1.9 percent in 217 over 216. This was the fourth consecutive year of an overarching positive trend in the aviation market. Local traffic figures differ from the FAB-wide average Despite this overall trend there are significant variations between traffic levels at control centres and individual sectors. Traffic demand has become volatile and the bandwidth of monthly growth for FABEC ANSPs varied between.9 and +7.7 percent. Growth rates at individual control centres and sectors were sometimes significantly higher. Some sectors especially in the core area have become saturated and are no longer able to cope with additional unpredicted demand. FABEC is home to the busiest European airports Amsterdam Schiphol, Paris Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt are now the busiest airports, in terms of aircraft movements, in Europe. For the first time London Heathrow which is not part of FABEC has been overtaken by the three continental hubs located in the FABEC area. When traffic at Munich airport is taken into account FABEC is now home to four of the five busiest airports within the Single European Sky area. On average, landings at airports in the FABEC area grew by 1.9 percent in 217 to million (216: 2.54 million). The overall airport traffic trend mirrored en-route traffic in that growth was recorded at almost all airports although there was a spread between weak to moderate growth in some cases and record highs in others. There were also some airports where traffic declined and others which operated at their peak levels and where no growth has been therefore possible under current legal or infrastructural conditions. Volatility of traffic is a system-wide issue Analyses show that traffic volatility has become a complex and multidimensional issue, severely impacting ATM. The underlying causes range from geopolitical conflicts, the impact of climate change, diverging route charges and new airspace user business models. Tactical aspects have also played a role in increasing volatility such as new individual flight planning priorities and unexpected and short-term changes in sector loads. 4-5

7 The impact on air traffic flows from conflicts in Ukraine and Syria leading to disruptions in traffic routes across the Middle East has meant that volatility has become a European ATM network issue. Consumer travel and tourism trends are changing dramatically: the popularity of holiday destinations such as Turkey, Egypt and Tunisia has fallen while the number of tourist flights from Central Europe and UK have also declined. In contrast, the south-west axis towards Spain and Portugal has noted an unexpectedly strong increase. Some airspaces are saturated In addition to traffic demand volatility a new phenomenon is limiting airspace availability. In some areas for example, in the Brussels sectors controlled by EUROCONTROL s Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC) or other sectors within the German upper airspace controlled by DFS s Karlsruhe control centre the available capacity to cope with additional traffic has either gone or is close to the limit. To resolve the problem and balance sector loads, additional traffic has had to be diverted laterally and vertically to neighboring control units. From a system point of view these measures could cause a snowball effect, limiting the capacity of neighboring control units. Sector saturation is not a new phenomenon. The traditional way to cope with this has been to split the sector into smaller control areas. Several years ago a horizontal sector split was often sufficient to solve the issue but today sectors are split horizontally and vertically. Today the upper airspace of Belgium, France, Germany, Luxemburg, the Netherlands and Switzerland is divided in vertical layers partially controlling only one flight level. Predictability is becoming key In times of saturation or when sectors are operating close to their capacity even small changes can lead to overloads which will require corrective measures such as rejections of flight plans. Some traffic forecasts have been widely inaccurate and the capacity levels planned have not matched the capacity levels required especially in terms of staffing levels. To avoid overload situations FABEC ANSPs have put in place several measures such as alternative routings and flow management procedures to distribute traffic horizontally and vertically beneath the control units. But this means airspace users might not be able to fly their individually preferred routes. Regulation has to take into account volatility Due to traffic volatility, a new, flexible approach is needed for the next regulatory period an approach that takes into account the interdependencies stemming from changes in the aviation market, the impact of uncontrollable factors such as geopolitics and the consequences of climate change. The current regulatory system is based on a five year planning cycle, a static corrective mechanism and a defective traffic forecasting system. This does not adequately address the volatility challenges facing the aviation industry today. Traffic: the ten year trend 5,741,646 IFR flights % 5,989,779 IFR flights Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal; FABEC Capacity Report 217/12

8 Safety Sustainability first The prime concern of ATM is safety. It is our mission and we know that every passenger travelling on the 16,5 flights that pass daily through our airspace depends on us and trusts us. Everything else we do ensuring punctuality or lowering the environmental footprint of aviation, for example will always be balanced within the priorities of our core mission. The volatility issues outlined earlier have meant a deterioration in capacity planning and punctuality; adverse weather phenomena such as severe thunderstorms close to airports have had an increasing impact on air traffic in the European core area. But any decision taken to solve the immediate problems on a tactical level by deciding to reroute a flight, for example, or on a strategic level by introducing new technologies and procedures will first have to be shown to be sustainably safe. A positive safety record In 217 our safety record was excellent. FABEC ANSPs report that the number of runway incursions and separation minima infringements remained low. Even so, we know we cannot take safety for granted. To stay safe in the air and on the ground a continuous cycle of excellence in safety performance is required. That is why we continuously invest in the proficiency of our employees, in advanced technologies and in state-ofthe-art safety management systems and standards. Safety is made by human beings Fatal-incident analysis of other safety-focused industries has shown that a sustainable level of safety can only be assured if the experience and the expertise of employees are placed at the core of the business. They provide the skills and knowledge. But achieving sustainable levels of safety also requires something more a dedicated safety culture driven by respect and openness. Based on this fundamental cultural understanding, safety can be continually improved. This means increasing our knowledge of human behavior, of the decision-making processes among controllers as well as analyzing influencing factors such as the impact of new technologies. This is the daily business of ANSPs. 6-7

9 In this sense, safety incidents add value as they are an important source of detecting issues and identifying solutions to improving safety performance in real terms. This is why, over the past decades, FABEC ANSPs have implemented a range of dedicated incident analysis mechanisms such as safety panels, workshops and safety bulletins which facilitate a continuous learning process. FABEC has also organized meetings which have brought together social partners, management and safety experts to discuss day-to-day safety topics such as the reporting of occurrences and new challenges in cybersecurity and other areas. Target achievements on track Beside the provision of safety in daily operations, FABEC has agreed targets for safety indicators for the second reference period and aims to improve the safety management system. Targets to be reached by 219 have been set, taking into account factors such as the Effectiveness of Safety Management (EoSM), Just Culture and the use of Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology. New safety performance indicators have been introduced, such as the use of automated reporting tools and new levels of reporting. Consistency between safety indicators with targets and indicators without targets has been established. By the end of 217 all safety targets embedded in the FABEC Performance Plan were achieved or were on track. Separation minima infringements Runway incursions Separation minima infringements reported Runway incursions reported Separation minima infringements reported with an air traffic management contribution Runway incursions reported with an air traffic management contribution Source: FABEC ANSPs

10 Punctuality Structural issues hit airline punctuality After safety, punctuality is the most important indicator of how well the ATM sector is performing. The recent growth of air traffic proves that people choose to fly because they know the system is safe and they are confident in getting from point A to point B quickly and within the schedule published by the airline of their choice. Punctuality within the air cargo sector is even more advanced. E-commerce and just-in-time production methods depend on overnight deliveries which are the new standard in Europe. Punctuality has now reached a level unimaginable at the end of the 199s. But as the aviation system has been bumping up against its capacity limits in the last two years the number of delayed or cancelled flights has been rising. A passenger s bane Punctuality is of vital importance to passengers. The most reliable information on delay metrics is provided by the Central Office of Delay Analysis (CODA). The office collects flight-by-flight data from airlines, highlighting the cause and duration of delays to each flight, using the IATA delay coding system. In 217, 8 percent of flights landed on time compared to 81 percent in 216. The average departure delay per flight amounted to 12 minutes. When viewed over the medium term, the negative trend becomes obvious: in 212, 84 out of 1 flights departed on time and the average delay per flight came in at ten minutes. Delays are becoming the bane of passengers lives % 27.5 % 18.8 % 8.3 % Airline ATC Airport Weather Source: CODA/EUROCONTROL 8-9

11 The aviation system is becoming more sensitive At its core, the causes of the delay problem are structural; the so-called reactionary delay the knock-on effect of prior delays is by far the most common cause of delays (44.1 percent). A further indication of the increasing sensitivity of the aviation system is that the primary causes of delays have increased across the board. According to CODA, 45.4 percent of delays can be attributed to airlines percent are due to air traffic flow measures (ATFM). Climate change is also playing an increasing role: adverse weather led to 8.3 percent of all delays. These numbers show that aviation with its precisely scheduled processes and tight interplay between airlines, airports and ANSPs is becoming increasingly sensitive to even small disruptions. The slightest hitch, whether internal or external, can have dramatic knock-on effects. Internal indicators are deteriorating ATFM is the indicator used to assess the contribution to delay attributable to air traffic management. Unlike the figures from CODA, this metric does not show if an aircraft landed on time but simply shows if a flight were delayed by flow management measures imposed by air traffic control (ATC). This means it is possible for a flight to be delayed by ATC but still land on time. In 217, 92.9 percent of all flights (216: 94.1 percent) experienced no delays caused by ATC as measured by ATFM en-route delays. Nevertheless, 97.4 percent arrived at their destination airports within 15 minutes of their scheduled time. Consequently, the overall delay minutes caused by flow management measures increased by 11.5 percent (217: 69 seconds per flight; 216: 64 seconds per flight). FABEC missed the target of 25 seconds per flight. The principal causes of ATC delays are shortages in capacity (42.3 percent) and staffing (15.7 percent) both mainly due to a mismatch between unpredicted traffic and long-term staff and capacity planning. Furthermore, the impact of climate change is increasing and becoming more visible for passengers in terms of thunderstorms or airport closures as a result of snow on the runways. In 217, 22.9 percent of all delays were caused by adverse weather. The impact of industrial action decreased substantially, causing just 1 percent of the overall delay % with less than 15 minutes delay 92.9 % on time 2.6 % with more than 15 minutes delay Source: EUROCONTROL

12 Environment Aircraft fly almost direct routes The impact and reduction of aviation s environmental footprint is being targeted in terms of horizontal flight efficiency in the current European regulatory scheme. This approach is based on the principle that the provision of shorter routes correlates directly to a reduction in fuel burn and related emissions. This principle has been expressed in the European regulation obliging air navigation service providers to improve the average horizontal en-route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory, known as the KEA. KEA compares the length of the actual trajectory with the achieved distance of the great circle distance between the origin and the destination airport. Close to the optimum Analysis of radar data shows that FABEC ANSPs have consistently provided almost optimal horizontal flight profiles to airspace users. In 217, horizontal flight profiles were close to the optimum as actual trajectories converged at percent (216: percent) of the great circle distance. This is an excellent value, which allows for only marginal improvements in the future. Controllers have been providing the shortest routings on average to airspace users since the start of the second reference period in 214. And this has been achieved despite the strong growth in traffic and the often unexpected and volatile 1-11

13 variations in volume. Flying remains the most direct mode of transport. The formal target was however missed by.9 percentage points. Indicator provides limited significance This excellent result has, however, to be assessed in light of the limited statistical significance of the indicator itself. Firstly, military activities, weather and aircraft separation requirements can all require controllers to deviate aircraft from the shortest route. A radius of 4 nautical miles around airports in FABEC States is not included in this measurement as these terminal areas have special operational needs to guarantee safety and local legal requirements such as noise abatement. Secondly, sometimes airspace users actually want to fly longer routes. This could be due to wind conditions or financial considerations cost savings might be gained by overflying cheaper charging zones, for instance. Thirdly, the indicator measures horizontal flight efficiency only. In fact, vertical flight profiles, especially during arrivals and departures, also play a significant role in aviation s environmental footprint. Unfortunately no valid methodology to measure vertical flight efficiency is currently available. Based on these considerations the development of indicators targeting more precisely the environmental footprint is desired. Deficits in flight planning outweigh other issues Due to operational, technical and economic restrictions, airspace users regularly do not file the most efficient flight plans. In daily operations, this inefficiency can be eliminated by controllers providing direct routings known as tactical directs offered flexibly by controllers during the flight. These tactical directs are at first glance very beneficial for airspace users as their flight paths will be shorter. This means that they will save flight time and burn less fuel. As controllers frequently provide this service, savings add up to a huge amount although the individual saving might be only a few kilometres in each case. However, from a network perspective this additional service is proving to be contra productive when traffic is growing, when demand is volatile or when control sectors are being overloaded. Practical experience shows that the predictability of traffic flows deteriorates as aircraft expected to follow the direct routings in the flight plan fly through different sectors than those originally planned.

14 Cost-efficiency The challenges of traffic growth At first glance the significant growth in traffic in recent years has been encouraging from a financial policy perspective. More flights mean more service units and thus increased revenues. But financial statements show that total en-route and terminal costs are well below the specifications of the FABEC Performance Plan. High sales and lower costs generally are considered an ideal business result. However, this is too shortsighted a view. Cost-cutting measures were initiated in 212 to adjust ANSP costs to the lower and declining traffic volume at that time. Today, it is clear that this strategic orientation no longer corresponds to the current reality of the air transport market. In fact, it has led to additional overall costs. More traffic, more costs The cost structure of ANSP services is characterised by a very high proportion of staff costs at around 7 percent. To cope with increasing demand ANSPs are primarily investing in air traffic controller recruitment and training alongside investments in forward-looking technologies. To put it simply: when there are more flights, more air traffic controllers are needed to control them. In addition, technical systems must be continuously updated to keep pace with rapid developments in digitisation. New risks such as cybersecurity must also be mitigated. Since last year, it has become apparent that previous cost-cutting measures have led to a sharp drop in operational service quality. FABEC ANSPs are no longer able to provide sufficient capacity. As a result, diversions and delays have increased. This means that airspace users have significantly higher costs due to increased fuel consumption. The cost savings achieved by reducing ATC charges have been exhausted; the effect has led to increased overall costs for airlines. Significant cost reduction, significant increase in performance Real unit costs (215) for the en-route segment fell by 11.1 percent from 215 to 217, while the reduction in the terminal segment was 4.5 percent. This compares to an increase of +1.4 percent in service units for en-route services and +6.1 percent for terminal services during the same period. Costs and services rendered therefore have 12-13

15 diverged diametrically. However, the services provided are only partially covered financially, as revenues are legally capped. Based on the rules of the current regulatory system ANSPs have to pay a penalty as FABEC partners did not achieve their common capacity target. Business cycles do not match The solution to this problem is made considerably more difficult by the different periodicity of the business cycles of ANSPs and airlines. While airlines can quickly adapt to prevailing market conditions by adjusting their fleets or opening/cutting connections, ANSPs are far less flexible due to the longer development phases required for ATM systems and the time required to train additional air traffic controllers. Similar to the road transport system, resources and capacities are planned in the long term or take time to implement. It takes four to five years to fully train an air traffic controller, depending on the type of operation. Complex technical systems can take up to 15 years to implement. Furthermore, ANSPs are legally bound to comply with the five-year FABEC Performance Plan. This means that flexibility has been abandoned in favour of a long-term planned economy component that is based on inaccurate traffic forecasts. A first step to improve this situation might be for airspace users to share, on an annual basis, their upcoming plans for city-pair services. Cost savings outbalanced by cost of delay The contradictory relationship between deliberately-reduced ATM capacity and the sharp rise in demand becomes clear when pressure to reduce navigation charges based on performance targets set for a 5 span from 215 to 219 are set against actual accured costs as a result of increased delay and fuel consumption by airlines. This is typically expressed in terms of ATFM en-route delay. The medium-term trend shows that air navigation service costs to airspace users were reduced but costs incurred as a result of a deterioration in service quality rose. What is particularly striking is the rapid change that coincided with the sudden increase in traffic in 216; since then, it has become clear staffing and systems have been underfunded when taking into account daily operational traffic loads. Cost development of en-route traffic M 266 M 27 M 249 M 341 M 545 M 599 M M M M M M Actual Real Costs Actual ATFM Delay Cost Source: FABEC ANSPs

16 Statistics Our objective is to offer the reader a fair and transparent overview of the performance provided by FABEC ANSPs both with regard to trends and the actual performance. For this reason, the data provided in this brochure is based on official resources. However, due to the complexity of the analysed data and statistical effects (i.e. scaling, trends etc.), some information provided might require further explanations. The FABEC ANSPs will be happy to answer any questions you might have. Traffic Traffic Evolution IFR flights 6,, 5,741,646 5,338,485 5,364,263 5,597,274 5,493,32 5,431,865 5,512,253 5,612,328 5,791,229 5,989,779 5,, 4,, 3,, 2,, % 1,, Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal IFR Traffic Evolution since RP1 7,, Airport movements Arrivals 2,8, 6,, 2,4, 5,, 2,, 4,, 1,6, 3,, 2,, % 1,2, 8, % 1,, 4, Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal 14-15

17 Safety Separation Minima Infringements (SMI) Source: FABEC ANSPs SMI reported SMI reported with ATM contribution Runway Incursions (RI) Source: FABEC ANSPs RI reported 143 RI reported with ATM contribution Usage of Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology Airspace infringements 1% 75% % % 3 % Separation minima infringements Runway incursions ATM-specific occurrences Source: FABEC ANSPs Source: FABEC ANSPs

18 Punctuality FABEC level Average arrival ATFM-delay per flight Minutes Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal All causes ATM-related Average en-route ATFM-delay per flight Minutes Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal All causes ATM-related En-route ATFM-delay Arrival ATFM-delay Minutes per year 6,4, Minutes per year 3,2, 5,6, 4,8, % 2,8, 2,4, 4,, 3,2, 2,, 1,6, % 2,4, 1,2, 1,6, 8, % 8, 4, % Delay overall Delay ATM-related Delay overall Delay ATM-related Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal 16-17

19 ATM-related ATFM-arrival delay Minutes 1, 7, 4, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Amsterdam Berlin Brussels Cologne Düsseldorf Frankfurt Geneva Hamburg Lyon Munich Nice Paris-CDG Paris-Orly Stuttgart Zurich Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal Causes of ATFM delay 217 in % (en-route) Causes of ATFM delay 217 in % (arrival) Others 1.3% Industrial action (ATC): 1.% Industrial action (ATC):.7% Other factors: 32.% Weather: 22.9% Weather: 53.8% ATM-related: 65.8% ATM-related: 13.5% Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal Share of controlled flights with en-route ATFM delay Share of controlled flights with en-route ATFM delay greater than 15 min per flight 7.1% 2.6% 3.1% 1.5% Source: EUROCONTROL PRU

20 Punctuality ACC level En-route delay all causes in total minutes Minutes 1,7, 1,6, 1,5, 1,4, 1,3, 1,2, 1,1, 1,, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Amsterdam Bordeaux Bremen Brest Brussels Geneva Karlsruhe Langen Maastricht Marseille Munich Paris Reims Zurich Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal En-route delay ATM-related in total minutes Minutes 1,7, 1,6, 1,5, 1,4, 1,3, 1,2, 1,1, 1,, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Amsterdam Bordeaux Bremen Brest Brussels Geneva Karlsruhe Langen Maastricht Marseille Munich Paris Reims Zurich Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal Average en-route ATFM delay per controlled flight (min./fl.) all causes Minutes per flight Amsterdam Bordeaux Bremen Brest Brussels Geneva Karlsruhe Langen Maastricht Marseille Munich Paris Reims Zurich Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal

21 Delay development: All causes - FABEC Total Minutes 7,2, 6,4, 5,6, 4,8, 4,, 3,2, Delay development: ATM responsibility - FABEC Total Minutes 7,2, 6,4, 5,6, 4,8, 4,, 3,2, 2,4, 1,6, % 2,4, 1,6, % 8, 8, Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal Traffic and punctuality: En-route trends per ATC centre Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal Amsterdam Traffic and delay 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, % Minutes (x.) 1,7 1, Bordeaux Traffic and delay 1,5, 9, 75, 6, 45, 3, 15, % Minutes (x.) 1,7 1,

22 Traffic and punctuality: En-route trends per ATC centre Bremen Traffic and delay 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, % Minutes (x.) 1,7 1, Brest Traffic and delay 1,5, 9, 75, 6, 45, 3, 15, % Minutes (x.) 1,7 1, Brussels Traffic and delay 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, % Minutes (x.) 1,7 1,

23 Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal Geneva Traffic and delay 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, % Minutes (x.) 1,7 1, Karlsruhe Traffic and delay 2,1, 1,8, 1,5, 1,2, 9, 6, 3, % Minutes (x.) 1,7 1, Langen Traffic and delay 1,4, 1,2, 1,, 8, 6, 4, 2, % Minutes (x.) 1,7 1,

24 Traffic and punctuality: En-route trends per ATC centre Maastricht Traffic and delay 2,1, 1,8, 1,5, 1,2, 9, 6, 3, % Minutes (x.) 1,7 1, Marseille Traffic and delay 1,4, 1,2, 1,, 8, 6, 4, 2, % Minutes (x.) 1,7 1, Munich Traffic and delay 1,4, 1,2, 1,, 8, 6, 4, 2, % Minutes (x.) 1,7 1,

25 Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal Paris Traffic and delay 1,4, 1,2, 1,, 8, 6, 4, 2, % Minutes (x.) 1,7 1, Reims Traffic and delay 1,5, 9, 75, 6, 45, 3, 15, % Minutes (x.) 1,7 1, Zurich Traffic and delay 1,5, 9, 75, 6, 45, 3, 15, % Minutes (x.) 1,7 1,

26 Traffic and punctuality: Arrivals trends Amsterdam Arrivals 28, 24, 2, 16, 12, 8, 4, % Minutes (x.) 1, Berlin-Tegel Arrivals 14, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, % Minutes (x.) 1, Brussels Arrivals 14, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, % Minutes (x.) 1,

27 Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal Cologne Arrivals 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, % Minutes (x.) 1, Düsseldorf Arrivals 15, 9, 75, 6, 45, 3, 15, % Minutes (x.) 1, Frankfurt Arrivals 28, 24, 2, 16, 12, 8, 4, % Minutes (x.) 1,

28 Traffic and punctuality: Arrivals trends Geneva Arrivals 15, 9, 75, 6, 45, 3, 15, % Minutes (x.) 1, Hamburg Arrivals 84, 72, 6, 48, 36, 24, 12, % Minutes (x.) 1, Lyon Arrivals 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, % Minutes (x.) 1,

29 Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal Munich Arrivals 21, 18, 15, 12, 9, 6, 3, % Minutes (x.) 1, Nice Arrivals 84, 72, 6, 42, 36, 24, 12, % Minutes (x.) 1, Paris CDG Arrivals 28, 24, 2, 16, 12, 8, 4, % Minutes (x.) 1,

30 Traffic and punctuality: Arrivals trends Source: EUROCONTROL PRU Portal Paris Orly Arrivals 28, 24, 2, 16, 12, 8, 4, % Minutes (x.) 1, Stuttgart Arrivals 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, % Minutes (x.) 1, Zurich Arrivals 14, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, % Minutes (x.) 1,

31 Finance En-Route ATM/CNS Provision Costs in 216 price 3,,, 2,5,, 2,,, 1,5,, 1,,, 5,, Source: FABEC ANSPs Actual Estimate En-Route Unit Costs in 216 price (ATM/CNS Provision Costs per controlled IFR Flight-hours) Source: FABEC ANSPs Actual Estimate

32 Finance Service Units En-Route Service Units Terminal 5,, 5,, 4,, 4,, 3,, 3,, 2,, 2,, 1,, 1,, Source: FABEC ANSPs Actual Service Units Performance Plan Service Units Actual Service Units Performance Plan Service Units Real Costs En-Route 2,5, Real Costs Terminal 6,, 2,, 5,, 1,5, 4,, 1,, 3,, 5, 2,, Source: FABEC ANSPs Actual Real Costs Performance Plan Real Costs 1,, Actual Service Units Performance Plan Real Costs 3-31

33 Acronyms and abbreviations ACC Area Control Centre AI Airspace Infringement ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider ATC Air Traffic Control ATFM Air Traffic Flow Management ATM Air Traffic Management ATM related delay Delay which ANSPs can influence, like capacity or staffing, but excluding weather etc. EC European Commission ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation IFR Instrument Flight Rules KEA Indicator for flight-efficiency KPA Key Performance Area KPI Key Performance Indicator MME Military Mission Effectiveness PRU Performance Review Unit (EUROCONTROL) RAT Risk Analysis Tool RI Runway Incursion SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research Programme SMI Separation Minimum Infringement TWR Tower

34 Points of contact FAB Europe Central Communication Cell Roland Beran roland.beran@fabec.eu Administration de la Navigation Aérienne (ANA) ter@airport.etat.lu Luxembourg Belgocontrol press@belgocontrol.be Belgium DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH (DFS) andrea.schaefer@dfs.de Germany Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne (DSNA) francois.richard-bole@aviation-civile.gouv.fr France EUROCONTROL Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC) muac.info@eurocontrol.int Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland (LVNL) communications@lvnl.nl Netherlands skyguide raimund.fridrich@skyguide.ch Switzerland FABEC Performance 217 Editor: FABEC ANSPs/COMCELL Data: PRU or explicitly mentioned Design: Publium SA, Trelex Status: May 218