Network Operations Report Indicators and analysis of the ATM Network Operations Performance EUROCONTROL 2009 European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 1-1 2. OVERALL ATM NETWORK INDICATORS... 2-1 2.1. Traffic... 2-1 2.2. ATFM s... 2-2 2.2.1. Daily ATFM Evolution... 2-2 2.2.2. Evolution of the Average ATFM per Flight... 2-3 2.3. Overall European ATM Network Capacity... 2-4 3. NETWORK INDICATORS... 3-1 3.1. ATFM s and other s... 3-1 3.2. Distribution of the Duration... 3-2 3.3. En-route and Airport Distribution... 3-3 3.3.1. Location of ATFM s... 3-3 3.3.2. En-route s... 3-3 3.3.3. Airport Causes... 3-4 3.4. Weekly Evolution of the ATFM Indicators... 3-5 4. ANALYSIS OF THE ATFM DELAY CAUSES... 4-1 4.1. Definitions... 4-1 4.2. Distribution of Causes... 4-1 4.3. Analysis per Cause... 4-2 4.3.1. ATC Causes... 4-2 4.3.2. Airport Causes... 4-2 4.3.3. Meteo Kinds... 4-2 4.3.4. Reasons for Other s... 4-3 5. ATFM DELAY LOCATIONS... 5-1 5.1. Overall Location... 5-1 5.2. Traffic and Average per Flight... 5-2 5.2.1. ATFM Total per FMP... 5-2 5.2.2. Average per Flight... 5-2 5.3. ATC causes Location... 5-3 5.4. Meteo causes Location... 5-3 5.5. Airport causes Location... 5-3 5.6. Other causes Location... 5-4 5.7. Management of Major events... 5-4 5.8. Significant Network Disturbances... 5-5 5.9. Geographical Representations... 5-7 6. MOST PENALISING LOCATIONS... 6-1 7. ACC CAPACITY ACHIEVEMENTS... 7-1 7.1. Capacity Enhancement at Network and Local Level... 7-1 7.2. Capacity Enhancement Initiatives... 7-1 7.2.1. Airspace Structure Improvements... 7-1 7.2.2. Availability of Additional Controllers... 7-2 i
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 7.2.3. Increased Declared Sector Monitoring Values... 7-2 7.2.4. Increased Sector Occupancy Times and Acceptance Rates... 7-3 7.2.5. Extended Availability of Optimum Sector Configurations... 7-3 7.2.6. Improved Air Traffic Flow & Capacity Management... 7-3 7.2.7. Implementation of New ATC Centres and ATM System Upgrades... 7-3 7.2.8. Improved Capacity Planning Resulting from Capacity Tools Development... 7-3 7.3. Network Management Activities... 7-3 7.4. Capacity Plans and Achievements at ACC Level... 7-3 7.5. Areas of Concern... 7-6 8. FLIGHT EFFICIENCY... 8-1 8.1. Introduction... 8-1 8.2. Flight Efficiency Plan Summary... 8-1 8.3. Coordination, Implementation and Monitoring... 8-2 8.4. Progress to Date... 8-2 8.4.1. Flight Efficiency Indicators... 8-2 8.5. Main Issues... 8-4 8.6. Impact of FUA Operations on Flight Efficiency... 8-4 9. AIRPORT CAPACITY AND EFFICIENCY ENHANCEMENT... 9-1 9.1. DMEAN Airport Activities... 9-1 9.1.1. Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE)... 9-2 9.1.1.1. ACE Projects... 9-2 9.1.1.2. PIATA+... 9-4 9.1.1.3. Training... 9-4 9.1.2. Analysis... 9-5 9.1.3. Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM)... 9-5 9.1.4. Contribution to Network Operations Plan (NOP)... 9-7 10. AIRSPACE USERS VIEW ON THE SUMMER SEASON... 10-1 10.1. The Flight Efficiency Plan (FEP)... 10-1 10.2. s... 10-1 10.3. Special Events... 10-2 10.4. Main Improvements... 10-2 10.5. Areas of Concern... 10-3 10.6. Conclusion... 10-3 11. PROSPECTS FOR 2009... 11-1 1. ANNEX I: ACC CAPACITY EVOLUTION...1 2. ALBANIA TIRANA ACC...3 3. ARMENIA YEREVAN ACC...4 4. AUSTRIA VIENNA ACC...5 5. AZERBAIJAN BAKU ACC...6 6. BELGIUM BRUSSELS ACC...7 7. BULGARIA SOFIA ACC...8 8. CROATIA ZAGREB ACC...9 9. CYPRUS NICOSIA ACC...10 ii
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 10. CZECH REPUBLIC PRAGUE ACC...11 11. DENMARK COPENHAGEN ACC...12 12. ESTONIA TALLINN ACC...13 13. EUROCONTROL MAASTRICHT ACC...14 14. FINLAND ROVANIEMI ACC...15 15. FINLAND TAMPERE ACC...16 16. FRANCE BORDEAUX ACC...17 17. FRANCE BREST ACC...18 18. FRANCE MARSEILLE ACC...19 19. FRANCE PARIS ACC...20 20. FRANCE REIMS ACC...21 21. FYROM SKOPJE ACC...22 22. GERMANY BREMEN ACC...23 23. GERMANY KARLSRUHE ACC...24 24. GERMANY LANGEN ACC...25 25. GERMANY MUNICH ACC...26 26. GREECE ATHENS ACC...27 27. GREECE MAKEDONIA ACC...28 28. HUNGARY BUDAPEST ACC...29 29. IRELAND DUBLIN ACC...30 30. IRELAND SHANNON ACC...31 31. ITALY BRINDISI ACC...32 32. ITALY MILAN ACC...33 33. ITALY PADOVA ACC...34 34. ITALY ROME ACC...35 35. LATVIA RIGA ACC...36 36. LITHUANIA VILNIUS ACC...37 37. MALTA MALTA ACC...38 38. MOLDOVA CHISINAU ACC...39 39. THE NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM ACC...40 40. NORWAY BODO ACC...41 41. NORWAY OSLO ACC...42 42. NORWAY STAVANGER ACC...43 43. POLAND WARSAW ACC...44 44. PORTUGAL LISBON ACC...45 iii
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 45. ROMANIA BUCHAREST ACC...46 46. SERBIA & MONTENEGRO BELGRADE ACC...47 47. SLOVAK REPUBLIC BRATISLAVA ACC...48 48. SLOVENIA LJUBLJANA ACC...49 49. SPAIN BARCELONA ACC...50 50. SPAIN CANARIAS ACC...51 51. SPAIN MADRID ACC...52 52. SPAIN PALMA ACC...53 53. SPAIN SEVILLA ACC...54 54. SWEDEN MALMO ACC...55 55. SWEDEN STOCKHOLM ACC...56 56. SWITZERLAND GENEVA ACC...57 57. SWITZERLAND ZURICH ACC...58 58. TURKEY ANKARA ACC...59 59. TURKEY ISTANBUL & IZMIR ACC...60 60. UKRAINE KHARKIV ACC...61 61. UKRAINE KYIV ACC...62 62. UKRAINE L VIV ACC...63 63. UKRAINE ODESA ACC...64 64. UKRAINE SIMFEROPOL ACC...65 65. UNITED KINGDOM LONDON ACC...66 66. UNITED KINGDOM LONDON TC...67 67. UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER ACC...68 68. UNITED KINGDOM SCOTTISH ACC...69 1. ANNEX II: AIRPORT STATISTICS...1 2. TURKEY ANTALYA AIRPORT AYT/LTAI...2 3. SPAIN - ALICANTE AIRPORT ALC/LEAL...3 4. NETHERLANDS - AMSTERDAM AIRPORT AMS/EHAM...4 5. GREECE - ATHENS AIRPORT ATH/LGAV...5 6. SPAIN - BARCELONA AIRPORT BCN/LEBL...6 7. BELGIUM - BRUSSELS AIRPORT BRU/EBBR...7 8. HUNGARY- BUDAPEST AIRPORT BUD/LHBP...8 9. DENMARK - COPENHAGEN AIRPORT CPH/EKCH...9 10. IRELAND - DUBLIN AIRPORT DUB/EIDW...10 11. GERMANY - DÜSSELDORF AIRPORT DUS/EDDL...11 iv
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 12. ITALY - FLORENCE AIRPORT FLR/LIRQ...12 13. GERMANY - FRANKFURT AIRPORT FRA/EDDF...13 14. SWITZERLAND - GENEVA AIRPORT GVA/LSGG...14 15. FINLAND - HELSINKI AIRPORT HEL/EFHK...15 16. GREECE - IRAKLION AIRPORT HER/LGIR...16 17. TURKEY ISTANBUL AIRPORT IST/LTBA...17 18. PORTUGAL LISBON AIRPORT LIS/LPPT...18 19. UNITED KINGDOM LONDON HEATHROW AIRPORT LHR/EGLL...19 20. SPAIN MADRID AIRPORT MAD/LEMD...20 21. ITALY MILAN MALPENSA AIRPORT MXP/LIMC...21 22. GERMANY MUNICH AIRPORT MUC/EDDM...22 23. NORWAY OSLO AIRPORT OSL/ENGM...23 24. SPAIN PALMA AIRPORT PMI/LEPA...24 25. FRANCE PARIS CDG AIRPORT CDG/LFPG...25 26. FRANCE PARIS ORLY AIRPORT ORY/LFPO...26 27. CZECH REPUBLIC PRAGUE AIRPORT PRG/LKPR...27 28. ITALY ROMA FIUMICINO AIRPORT FCO/LIRF...28 29. SWEDEN STOCKHOLM AIRPORT ARN/ESSA...29 30. GREECE THESSALONIKI AIRPORT SKG/LGTS...30 31. SPAIN VALENCIA AIRPORT VLC/LEVC...31 32. ITALY VENEZIA AIRPORT VCE/LIPZ...32 33. AUSTRIA VIENNA AIRPORT VIE/LOWW...33 34. POLAND WARSAW AIRPORT WAW/EPWA...34 35. SWITZERLAND ZURICH AIRPORT ZRH/LSZH...35 v
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - Table of Figures Figure 2-1 Yearly Traffic Evolution...2-1 Figure 2-2 Monthly Traffic Trend in...2-1 Figure 2-3 Daily ATFM Evolution...2-2 Figure 2-4 Average per Flight Evolution...2-3 Figure 2-5 Overall European ATM Network Capacity...2-4 Figure 2-6 Effective Capacity Evolution vs. 2007...2-4 Figure 2-7 ECAC Effective Capacity Evolution per Month 1999 -...2-5 Figure 3-1 Proportion of the ATFM on the Overall per Flight...3-1 Figure 3-2 Traffic Distribution according to the Duration...3-2 Figure 3-3 Average s per ed Traffic...3-2 Figure 3-4 En-route and Airport s...3-3 Figure 3-5 En-Route s...3-3 Figure 3-6 Major Causes for Airport s...3-4 Figure 3-7 Evolution of the Traffic in the CFMU Area...3-5 Figure 3-8 Evolution of the ATFM in the CFMU Area...3-5 Figure 4-1 Average Daily ATFM s...4-1 Figure 4-2 Average Daily ATFM Composition...4-1 Figure 4-3 Reasons for ATC s...4-2 Figure 4-4 Reasons for Airport s...4-2 Figure 4-5 Meteo Kinds...4-2 Figure 4-6 Reasons for Other s...4-3 Figure 5-1 ATFM s per FMP...5-1 Figure 5-2 ATFM Total per FMP...5-2 Figure 5-3 Daily Traffic and Average per Flight...5-2 Figure 5-4 Top-20 Contributors to ATC s...5-3 Figure 5-5 Top-10 Contributors to Meteo s...5-3 Figure 5-6 Top-10 Contributors to Airport s...5-3 Figure 5-7 Top-5 Contributors to other delays...5-4 Figure 5-8 Traffic Variation between 2007 and...5-7 Figure 5-9 Average ATFM per Flight...5-8 Figure 5-10 Average En-route ATFM per Flight...5-8 Figure 6-1 Accumulated Proportion of Total s...6-1 Figure 6-2 Top-20 ATFM Locations...6-1 Figure 7-1 Capacity Increase Planned by ANSPs for Summer...7-4 vi
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - Figure 7-2 ACC Capacity Offered Summer...7-5 Figure 11-1 Capacity Increased Planned by ANSPs...11-1 Figure 11-2 Summer Enroute Forecast...11-2 Figure 11-3 EUROCONTROL Short-Term Forecast...11-2 Table of Tables Table 6-1 Top-50 Reference Locations...6-3 Table 9-1 40 Most Constraining Airports...9-1 Table 9-2 ACE Project Stages and Airport Status...9-2 Table 9-3 Airport CDM Implementation...9-7 vii
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK viii
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - Acronyms AAS Advanced Airspace Scheme ACC Area Control Centre A-CDM Airports Collaborative Decision Making ACE Airside Capacity Enhancement ADEP Departure TMA ADES Destination TMA ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider AOE Airport Operations & Environment ARN (V6) ATS Route Network (Version 6) ASM Airspace Management ATC Air Traffic Control ATFCM Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management ATFM Air Traffic Flow Management ATM Air Traffic Management ATS Air Traffic Service ca. approximately CDR Conditional Route CEF Capacity Enhancement Function CFMU Central Flow Management Unit CRAM Conditional Route Availability Message DFL Division Flight Level DMAN Departure Manager DMEAN Dynamic Management of the European Airspace Network DOPs Directors Operations ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference ecoda Electronic Central Office of Analysis EUACA European Union Airport Coordinators Association FDPS Flight Data Processing System FMP Flow Management Position FUA Flexible Use of Airspace ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation IFPS Initial Flight Plan Processing System LCIP Local Convergence & Implementation Plan MTF Medium Term traffic Forecast NEVAC Network Estimation & Visualisation of ACC Capacity NM Nautical Miles NOP Network Operations Plan ix
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - OPSD PC PRC PIATA RAD RAI RNDSG RoCA SAAM STATFOR STF TACT TMA UAC Operations Division Provisional Council Performance Review Commission Performance Indicators Analysis Tool For Airports Route Availability Document Rate of Aircraft Interested (in using CDR) Route Network Development Sub-group Rate of CDR Availability System for traffic Assignment & Analysis at Macroscopic level Statistics & Forecasting Short Term traffic Forecast CFMU Tactical ATFM system Terminal Manoeuvring Area (Terminal Control Area) Upper Area control Centre x
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In April 2001, the Provisional Council endorsed an overall ATM network target to reduce progressively the enroute ATFM delay to a cost-optimum average of one minute per flight by Summer 2006, as a basis for the cooperative planning and provision of capacity (1.7 minutes including airport delay). This target was not associated with a traffic increase reference. At the 28th meeting of the Provisional Council, the target was reconfirmed for the medium term. The number of flights in Europe reached in an all time high (over 10 million flights), the peak day being Friday 27 June with 34476 flights. Compared to last year, delays related to Air Traffic Management again recorded a significant increase, and did not meet the target set by the Provisional Council for Summer. The forecast traffic variation for the year was 1.7% for low growth and 4.0% for baseline growth (source: medium-term STATFOR forecast, February ). The forecast total ECAC delay for the Summer season, derived from the baseline traffic growth forecast for en-route and airport was 2.3 minutes per flight, of which 1.4 minutes was attributed to en-route delay. However, traffic growth in was below the low scenario of the STATFOR medium-term forecast, with actual traffic increasing by only 1.0% for the Summer season (May to October) and by 0.5% for the whole year, when compared to the corresponding periods in 2007. Over the whole year, the average ATFM delay per flight was 2.3 minutes, of which 1.6 minutes was attributed to en-route delay. The total delay increased by 10.4% over 2007, significantly higher than expected given the weak traffic increase. For the Summer season, the average ATFM delay per flight was 2.8 minutes, of which 2.0 minutes was attributed to en-route delay. The sharp increase in delay coupled with lower than expected traffic growth is part of a worrying trend that has seen capacity increase at a rate lower than the demand over the past 3 years, and for the first time this year resulted in an effective decrease of European network ATM capacity that is estimated to be -2.0% for the Summer period and -4% for the whole year. This is mainly because critical ACCs did not have sufficient available controllers to open optimum sector configurations, in spite of efforts to implement flexible rostering and improved working practices. A number of system limitations and the postponement of major projects at some ACCs also contributed. During the year the delay locations moved slightly eastwards. A concentration of delay can be observed along the SE axis from Austria via Croatia to Greece and Cyprus (accounting for approximately 1/3 of overall delay). This situation was not foreseen in the initial forecasts for parts of the area. Warsaw ACC continued to generate high levels of delay. s due to special events (i.e. sporting events and ACC system upgrades) increased very significantly. Normally periods of low traffic growth provide an opportunity to reduce the capacity gap this has not been possible over the past year, and stringent efforts need to be made to ensure optimum staffing levels if delays are to be contained in future. xi
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK xii
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to provide the yearly evolution of the traffic in Europe, the delays derived from Air Traffic Flow Management, and the capacity offered by the Air Navigation Service Providers. The report is based on data available from EUROCONTROL in the framework of the flight planning and air traffic flow management performed by the Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU), and on information collected by the Airspace Network & Capacity Unit (ANC) for Area Control Centre (ACC) en-route operations and by the Airport Operations and Environment unit (AOE) for the 25 most constraining airports. The chapter on flight efficiency details improvements made and compares distance flown with the shortest routes available on the route network and the great circle route (shortest direct route). This chapter also discusses airspace utilisation, including the frequency of usage of conditional routes (CDR), and gives a brief analysis of the environmental impact. Central Flow Management Unit http://www.cfmu.eurocontrol.int Airspace & Navigation http://www.eurocontrol.int/airspace Capacity Enhancement http://www.eurocontrol.int/cef Airports http://www.eurocontrol.int/airports Dynamic Management of European ATM Network (DMEAN) http://www.eurocontrol.int/dmean 1-1
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1-2
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 2. OVERALL ATM NETWORK INDICATORS 2.1. Traffic [FLIGHTS] EVOLUTION OF THE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 29,000 28,000 27,000 26,000 25,000 24,000 23,000 22,000 21,000 20,000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Daily Traffic 23,197 24,238 25,244 26,286 27,676 27,818 YEAR-ON-YEAR TRAFFIC VARIATION 6% 4% 2% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 Variation 4.5% 4.1% 4.1% 5.3% 0.5% 30% 20% 10% 0% TRAFFIC VARIATION SINCE 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Variation 4.5% 8.8% 13.3% 19.3% 19.9% Figure 2-1 Yearly Traffic Evolution In contrast with previous years, recorded a very weak increase of 0.5% over 2007 in daily air traffic 1 within the ECAC area (see Figure 2-1). This is the lowest traffic variation through the reporting period, but for the second year in a row more than 10 million IFR GAT flights were recorded by EUROCONTROL CFMU. The average of 27,818 IFR GAT flights per day during is the maximum value recorded since the beginning of CFMU operations, and represents an accumulative variation of ca. 20% since 2003. Peak traffic demand in excess of 33,000 flights has been recorded on several days during, with 27 June as the busiest day ever (34,476 flights). However, the traffic evolution deteriorated significantly towards the end of, with November and December recording traffic demands below the equivalent months of two years ago (2006). 7.0% 5.0% 3.0% 1.0% -1.0% -3.0% -5.0% -7.0% 4.4% 3.4% Monthly Traffic Trend in 6.1% -0.5% 2.8% 1.9% 1.8% 0.5% 0.5% -1.8% -6.8% -6.2% JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Figure 2-2 Monthly Traffic Trend in 1 The daily traffic is the average number of flights entering daily in the CFMU area during the period. Only the flights for which a flight plan is received by the CFMU can be taken to compute the CFMU traffic. These flight plans are activated by messages sent by ATC. 2-1
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 2.2. ATFM s 2.2.1. Daily ATFM Evolution EVOLUTION OF THE AVERAGE DAILY ATFM DELAYS 70,000 YEAR-ON-YEAR DELAY VARIATION 20% [MINUTES] 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total 40,522 40,786 48,087 50,279 59,024 65,138 En Route 21,961 20,865 24,382 27,927 33,400 44,177 Airport 18,561 19,921 23,705 22,352 25,624 20,960 10% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 Variation 0.7% 17.9% 4.6% 17.4% 10.4% DELAY VARIATION SINCE 2003 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 Variation 0.7% 18.7% 24.1% 45.7% 60.7% Figure 2-3 Daily ATFM Evolution Figure 2-3 displays the total daily ATFM 2 over six years, as well as en-route and airport ATFM delay. The year recorded a 10.4% increase in daily ATFM delays. This, however, represents a significant deterioration in the delay situation given the very low traffic increase recorded. In, daily en-route delays increased by 32% while airport delays dropped by 18%, contrasting with the evolution recorded for previous calendar years. 2 Unless specified otherwise, the delays presented in this document correspond to ATFM delays, i.e. delays pertaining to ATFM regulations. ATFM delay is defined as the duration between the last Take- Off time requested by the Aircraft Operator and the Take-Off slot given by the CFMU. 2-2
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 2.2.2. Evolution of the Average ATFM per Flight EVOLUTION OF THE AVERAGE DAILY ATFM DELAY PER FLIGHT 2.5 20% DAILY DELAY PER FLIGHT VARIATION 2.0 10% [MINUTES] 1.5 1.0 0% -10% 2004 2005 2006 2007 0.5 Variation -3.7% 13.2% 0.4% 11.5% 9.8% 0.0 ATFM Per Flight En Route Per Flight Airport Per Flight 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.3 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 DELAY PER FLIGHT VARIATION SINCE 2003 40% 20% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 Variation -3.7% 9.0% 9.5% 22.1% 34.0% Figure 2-4 Average per Flight Evolution The average En-route delay per flight of 2.0 minutes for Summer was noticeably above the Provisional Council target value of 1 minute. Over the whole year, the average ATFM delay per flight was 2.3 minutes, out of which 1.6 minutes were attributed to En-route delay. The growth of ca. 10% in total average delay per flight during also represents an accumulative variation of 34% since 2003. On a per-flight basis, En-route delays during increased significantly whereas airport delays dropped down to the level of year 2004. EVOLUTION SUMMARY Between 2003 and, the following trends summarise the traffic and delay evolution: The traffic has increased by 19.9% (average of 27818 flights per day in ), The total delay has increased by 60.7% (65138 minutes per day), The total delay per flight has increased by 34% (2.3 minutes on average for all flights). 2-3
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 2.3. Overall European ATM Network Capacity The capacity at European level is quantified using the "effective capacity" indicator of the Performance Review Commission (PRC), corresponding to the volume of traffic that could be accommodated with 1 minute per flight average enroute delay 3. The estimated evolution of capacity over the full year and the Summer season is illustrated on the following graphs. The effective capacity indicator decreased by - 4.0% (- 2.0% for the Summer season) over the whole European ATM network in. This takes into account all significant events, e.g. system failures, weather problems, industrial action, opening of new ATC centres, etc. Europe - Yearly Capacity & Traffic Demand Summer Traffic, & Capacity Evolution 30000 35000 6,0 Flights per day 25000 20000 15000 10000 Traffic 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Capacity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Movements per day 30000 Traffic 5,0 25000 Effective capacity 4,0 20000 3,0 15000 PC delay target 2,0 10000 5000 1,0 Average ER delay 0 0,0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Minutes delay per flight Figure 2-5 Overall European ATM Network Capacity The monthly evolution of effective capacity shown in the graph below indicates that the European ATM system capacity in was lower than in 2007, apart from during the months of April, June and November. 35 "Effective Capacity" Evolution v. 2007 50,0% 30 2007 40,0% "Effective Capacity" flights per day (thousands) 25 20 15 10 Variation 2007 v 30,0% 20,0% 10,0% "Effective Capacity" Variation 5 0,0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Effective Capacity 2007 26,7 27,3 27,5 27,9 28,3 26,7 27,0 29,0 29,3 28,6 26,9 24,7 Effective Capacity 24,1 24,8 25,0 28,1 27,5 27,5 26,8 26,7 28,2 28,1 27,1 24,0 Evolution (2007-) -9,8% -9,1% -9,2% 0,7% -3,0% 3,3% -0,6% -7,9% -3,7% -1,7% 0,8% -2,7% -10,0% Figure 2-6 Effective Capacity Evolution vs. 2007 3 This indicator, as described in PRR 5, Annex 6, takes into account both traffic and Enroute delay evolution. 2-4
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - The graph below shows the evolution of the effective capacity of the European ATM system since 1999. The effective capacity was at its highest level ever during the second half of 2007, but in dropped back to below 2007 levels. Between 1999 and, the traffic increased by 26%, the effective capacity increased by 46% and the total enroute ATFM delay reduced by - 55%. ECAC "Effective Capacity" Evolution Per Month 1999-29 "Effective Capacity" flights per day (thousands) 27 25 23 21 19 17 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Effective Capacity 24,1 24,8 25,0 28,1 27,5 27,5 26,8 26,7 28,2 28,1 27,1 24,0 2007 Effective Capacity 26,7 27,3 27,5 27,9 28,3 26,7 27,0 29,0 29,3 28,6 26,9 24,7 2006 Effective Capacity 25,6 25,8 24,7 25,7 27,6 26,9 25,1 27,5 28,4 28,3 28,9 26,4 2005 Effective Capacity 25,2 25,5 25,2 27,3 25,8 26,0 25,5 26,6 27,3 25,6 25,9 25,0 2004 Effective Capacity 22,2 22,9 25,3 25,8 25,5 25,9 24,7 25,4 26,4 25,8 27,3 26,7 2003 Effective Capacity 22,3 22,9 23,5 23,4 23,0 22,8 24,3 25,0 25,6 24,9 24,1 21,3 2002 Effective Capacity 19,7 19,3 20,7 24,0 22,8 22,0 21,5 22,2 23,0 23,0 21,5 20,6 2001 Effective Capacity 20,6 20,1 19,9 19,6 20,0 20,6 20,6 21,8 21,5 22,1 22,4 19,3 2000 Effective Capacity 18,9 19,7 19,6 19,2 20,0 20,0 20,1 21,4 21,2 20,9 20,6 18,5 1999 Effective Capacity 17,5 16,7 16,1 17,0 17,0 18,1 18,3 19,4 20,0 19,6 19,8 18,5 Figure 2-7 ECAC Effective Capacity Evolution per Month 1999 - For most of the year, enroute delays were higher than expected, mainly because insufficient controllers were available to open optimum sector configurations at a number of critical ACCs. This, combined with some serious system limitations, the postponement of major projects and some bad weather, led to the first reduction in the effective capacity since the indicator has been monitored. In, 17 ACCs (18 for the Summer season) generated enroute delays greater than 0.4 minutes per flight, compared to 14 ACCs (18 for the Summer season) in 2007. 5 ACCs (9 for the Summer season) generated enroute delays higher than 1 minute in, compared to 3 ACCs (7 for the Summer season) in 2007. 2-5
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2-6
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 3. NETWORK INDICATORS 3.1. ATFM s and other s The ATFM delay is the departure delay assigned by the CFMU and defined as the duration between the last take-off time requested for the flight and the take-off slot allocated by the CFMU. However, ATFM is not the only cause of the delays corresponding to passenger perception: some airport delays or delays which are attributable to operations of the Aircraft Operators are not taken into account in the ATFM delays. The "Overall " is computed, as the duration between the first Departure Time requested for a flight and the Actual Departure Time. 4 The diagram in Figure 3-1 shows the proportion of the ATFM delay within the overall delay. A portion of the "Other s" displayed in the diagrams might be attributed indirectly to the ATFM through the Reactionary s 5. Nevertheless, all delay values displayed and analysed in this report correspond only to the ATFM delays. The contribution of the ATFM delays to the overall delay used to remain around 25% during the first 4 reported years, with a peak at 29% in 1999, due inter-alia to the Kosovo operations. This contribution then gradually decreased until 2006. Years 2007 and witnessed a significant increase of the ATFM delay contribution, which reached almost 15% in. 25 20 PROPORTION OF THE ATFM DELAY ON THE OVERALL DELAY PER FLIGHT 35% 30% 25% [MINUTES] 15 10 5 20% 15% 10% 5% 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 0% Other 13.5 14.7 13.7 13.3 13.1 12.4 13.0 14.4 15.5 15.0 14.1 ATFM 3.7 6.0 4.3 3.8 2.7 1.9 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.4 Proportion ATFM 21.6% 29.0% 23.8% 22.0% 17.0% 13.2% 12.1% 12.2% 11.6% 13.0% 14.6% Figure 3-1 Proportion of the ATFM on the Overall per Flight 4 The evaluation of the overall delay is only done for flights with an ATC activation message for the departure of the flight. 5 Reactionary delays correspond to delays imposed to a connecting flight awaiting the arrival of another one which is itself delayed. 3-1
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 3.2. Distribution of the Duration In the first chart below, the flights delayed by ATFM regulations are grouped according to the duration of their delay. Five groups are displayed with their respective proportion. 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION ACCORDING TO THE DELAY DURATION During, around 12% of the flights were delayed. This proportion has increased slightly over the reporting period. The traffic with a delay higher than 30 minutes corresponds to a proportion of 2.0% in and is also larger than for previous years. 75% 70% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 ed more 60 min 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% ed 31 to 60 min 1.0% 1.0% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.6% ed 15 to 30 min 3.1% 3.1% 3.4% 3.5% 4.0% 4.3% ed less 15 min 5.2% 5.0% 5.2% 4.9% 5.3% 5.6% Undelayed Traffic 90.3% 90.7% 89.9% 90.1% 88.9% 88.1% Figure 3-2 Traffic Distribution according to the Duration With a daily traffic of 27,818 flights, about 560 flights were delayed by more than 30 minutes and 110 flights by more than one hour every day in. [MINUTES] AVERAGE DELAYS PER DELAYED TRAFFIC 35 30 25 20 15 10 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Av g. delay per 18.3 18.0 19.0 19.3 19.3 19.7 delay ed flight (all) Av g. delay per 29.9 29.4 30.4 29.7 29.3 29.6 highly delay ed flight (more than 15 min.) Figure 3-3 Average s per ed Traffic The second chart compares the average delay per delayed flight 6 with the average delay per highly delayed flight 7, where only flights with a delay higher than 15 minutes are considered. The average delay per delayed flight has been edging back towards the 19-20 minute value over the last few years. The delay evolution for the latter category is slightly more favourable than for the total delayed traffic, reflecting a good management of accidental causes typical of highly delayed flights. 6 The average delay per delayed flight is the total ATFM delay divided by the total number of delayed flights. 7 The average delay per highly delayed flight is the sum of all delays higher than 15 minutes divided by the number of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes. 3-2
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 3.3. En-route and Airport Distribution 3.3.1. Location of ATFM s ATFM delays are caused by regulations protecting either Airports 8 or En-route sectors. Figure 3-4 below shows that after several years with airport delays accounting for 45-50% of the total delays, this proportion dropped down to 32.2% in. This can partly be attributed to a different way of handling ATFM delays in London and Amsterdam, and to enroute ATFM protection. 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 DISTRIBUTION OF DAILY DELAY 44,177 20,960 33,400 25,624 27,927 22,352 24,382 23,705 20,865 19,921 21,961 18,561 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 En Route Airport PROPORTION OF AIRPORT DELAYS 49.3% 43.4% 48.8% 45.8% 44.5% 32.2% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Figure 3-4 En-route and Airport s 3.3.2. En-route s Staffing issues 9 and Weather are the delay reasons in the En-route domain showing the most dynamic variation throughout the reporting period (see Figure 3-5). 71.8% EN-ROUTE ATC CAPACITY 65.2% 60.1% 64.4% 56.4% 15% 10% OTHER MAJOR CAUSES FOR EN-ROUTE DELAYS 2004 2005 2006 2007 5% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 Weather 5.9% 10.3% 13.8% 12.7% 14.9% ATC Staffing 7.4% 8.4% 11.8% 12.1% 13.3% Special Event 0.1% 1.0% 1.1% 0.6% 5.2% Equipment (ATC) 8.0% 5.7% 3.9% 4.1% 4.1% M ilitary Activity 1.9 % 1.5% 1.8 % 2.4 % 1.8 % Figure 3-5 En-Route s 8 A regulation is considered as associated to an airport when its Reference Location is an aerodrome or a set of aerodromes. It is considered as Enroute otherwise. 9 Staffing Issues correspond only to unforeseen events in these diagrams, not to a systematic lack of staff which some ATSs have to face and which is included here in the ATC capacity reason. 3-3
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - The largest volume of ATC Capacity en-route delays was mainly observed in Warsaw, London, Madrid, Vienna and Cyprus. As in 2007, ATC Capacity, Weather, ATC Staffing and ATC Equipment show up in the top-5 causes of En-route delays in. Weather, still being the second cause, even shows a significant share increase compared to 2007. London, Amsterdam, Karlsruhe and Munich are the main originators of these delays. ATC Staffing issues affected FMPs throughout the SE Axis, as well as Copenhagen and Karlsruhe FMPs. 3.3.3. Airport Causes Weather, Aerodrome Capacity, ATC Capacity and ATC Staffing are still the main causes of Airport s (Figure 3-6). 50% MAJOR CAUSES FOR AIRPORT DELAYS 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 Weather 45.9% 43.2% 44.4% 41.8% 39.0% Aerodrome Capacity 30.9% 34.1% 30.6% 23.9% 23.5% ATC Capacity 10.4% 9.7% 12.1% 19.2% 11.6% Special Event 0.6% 1.6% 0.4% 1.3% 7.1% ATC Staffing 2.5% 2.0% 4.0% 4.7% 6.1% Figure 3-6 Major Causes for Airport s 3-4
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 3.4. Weekly Evolution of the ATFM Indicators Figure 3-7 shows the weekly evolution of the CFMU traffic between 2005 and. The traffic shown is the average daily traffic for each week. The year curve shows the highest weekly traffic demand with two noticeable peaks (above 31,600 flights a day) for weeks No.26 (last week of June) and 35 (last week of August). From week 36 onwards (beginning of September), the average daily traffic demand has been below the levels of year 2007 on several occasions, and even below 2006 levels in November and December. 32,000 EVOLUTION OF THE TRAFFIC IN THE CFMU AREA [AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC] 30,000 28,000 26,000 24,000 22,000 W02 W04 W06 W08 W10 W12 W14 W16 W18 W20 W22 W24 W26 W28 W30 W32 W34 W36 W38 W40 W42 W44 W46 W48 W50 [WEEK NUMBER] 2005 2006 2007 Figure 3-7 Evolution of the Traffic in the CFMU Area Figure 3-8 below shows the average delay per flight recorded by the CFMU. The year curve illustrates the steady growth in average delay per flight (almost 10% against 2007), particularly marked in February till mid of March and between the second half of July and end of September. The delay situation recovered tangibly in November and December. 4.5 EVOLUTION OF THE ATFM DELAY IN THE CFMU AREA [AVERAGE ATFM DELAY PER FLIGHT] 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 W02 W04 W06 W08 W10 W12 W14 W16 W18 W20 W22 W24 W26 W28 W30 W32 W34 W36 W38 W40 W42 W44 W46 W48 W50 [WEEK NUMBER] 2005 2006 2007 Figure 3-8 Evolution of the ATFM in the CFMU Area 3-5
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3-6
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT 4. ANALYSIS OF THE ATFM DELAY CAUSES 4.1. Definitions In order to improve the analysis of delay causes all ATFM delays have been grouped into one of the following 4 categories depending on the regulation code and ANM remark: ATC: s due to ATC reasons (en route or aerodrome) Airport: s due to airport infrastructure (not ATC-related) Meteo: s due to weather conditions Other: s due to other events not covered in the above categories (military activity, Special events) or network management (ATC routeing). 4.2. Distribution of Causes Average Daily ATFM s 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 65138 59024 2007 AIRPORT ATC METEO OTHER The average daily ATFM delays increased by 10.4%, from 59024 minutes in 2007 to 65138 minutes in. Figure 4-1 Average Daily ATFM s 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Average Daily ATFM per Repartition 38801 34942 14968 14712 7580 1535 6786 4839 12.8% 59.2% 25.4% 2.6% 10.4% 59.6% 22.6% 7.4% 2007 AIRPORT ATC METEO OTHER Overall, Airport delays decreased by 10%, ATC s increased by 11%, meteo delays decreased by 2%. Other delays (mainly special events) more than doubled. ATC delays remain the largest contributor, increasing its overall proportion slightly. Figure 4-2 Average Daily ATFM Composition 4-1
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT 4.3. Analysis per Cause 4.3.1. ATC Causes Reasons for ATC s in IND. A CTION (ATC) EQUIPM ENT (ATC) ATC STAFFING 1.2% 1.7% 4.3% 4.9% 8.9% 10.9% ATC delays accounted for 59.6% of all ATFCM delays. Within the ATC delays, ATC Capacity accounted for 42.1% of alldelays. ATC Staffing accounted for 10.9% of ATC delays. ATC CAPACITY 44.7% 42.1% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 2007 Figure 4-3 Reasons for ATC s 4.3.2. Airport Causes Reasons for Airport s in TECHNICAL FAILURE NEW SYS. PROC. INCR. SEC. LEVEL RUNWAY CONFIG IND. ACT. (NON-ATC) EQUIP. (NON-ATC) GROUND OPS ISSUE ACCIDENT/INCIDENT WORK IN PROGRESS ENVIRON. ISSUES AD CAPACITY 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% 0.6% 1.3 % 7.7% Airport delays accounted for 10.4% of all ATFCM delays. Within the Airport delays, Aerodrome Capacity makes up 73.9% of all Airport s and accounts for 7.7% of all delays in. 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% Figure 4-4 Reasons for Airport s 4.3.3. Meteo Kinds Reasons for Meteo s in HEAVY RAIN CEILING SNOW WEA THER (NON_DEFINED) FOG/LOW VISIBILITY 0.4% 0.8% 1.0 % 2.4% 4.9% Meteo delays accounted for 22.6% of all ATFCM delays. Within the Meteo delays, Thunderstorms & Wind make up 58.2% of this and contributes to 13.1% of all delays in. WIND 5.9% THUNDERSTORMS/CB 7.2% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% Figure 4-5 Meteo Kinds 4-2
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT 4.3.4. Reasons for Other s Reasons for Other s in SECTOR CONFIG SYSTEM MAINTENANCE OTHER ATC ROUTEING 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% Other delays accounted for 7.4% of all ATFCM delays. Within the Other delays, Special Events and Military Activity make up 96.4% of all Other s and accounts for 7.2% of all delays in. MILITARY ACTION 1.3 % SPECIAL EVENT 5.9% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% Figure 4-6 Reasons for Other s 4-3
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 4-4
NETWORK OPERATIIONS REPORT -- 5. ATFM DELAY LOCATIONS 5.1. Overall Location The regulations protecting ATC units in a specific Flow Management Position (FMP) area (including ATC sectors, TMAs, Airports) are grouped and the corresponding delays are combined. Figure 5-1 displays the distribution of the ATFM delays 10 for the year, according to the FMP areas. Only 15 FMPs, corresponding to the areas with the highest delays, are explicitly displayed. The other 40 FMPs are regrouped under the label "Others". ATFM DELAYS PER FMP - OTHERS 26% LONDON ALL FM P 11% LANGEN FM P 7% WIEN FMP 7% AM STERDAM FM P 2% COPENHAGEN FM P 6% M UNCHEN FM P 3% CYPRUS FM P 3% MAASTRICHT FMP 3% ZAGREB FM P 3% ZURICH FM P 4% ATHINAI FMP 4% PARIS FM P 5% M ADRID FM P 5% KARLSRUHE FM P 6% WARSAW FMP 5% Figure 5-1 ATFM s per FMP The distribution pattern (in terms of delay share and ranking) during is slightly different from the one of 2007, and presents the following noticeable differences: Copenhagen and Karlsruhe are now present in the top 15 most penalising FMPs, the strongest increases in delay share are observed in Langen and Vienna (from 5% to 7% each), in the opposite direction, Roma, Geneva and Milan don t show up anymore in the most penalising FMPs, significant drops in delay share are observed in London (from 13% to 11%), Madrid (9% to 5%), and Zurich (6% to 4%). A slightly higher delay concentration was observed in in comparison with 2007: the 'Others' category, gathering the FMPs not included in the 15 most critical areas, accounted for 26% of the total delays in against 28% in 2007. 10 Including all causes for both Enroute and airport regulations. 5-1
NETWORK OPERATIIONS REPORT -- 5.2. Traffic and Average per Flight 5.2.1. ATFM Total per FMP [MINUTES] 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 ATFM TOTAL DELAYS PER FMP - The daily ATFM delay of the 15 most congested FMP areas with a split airport / En-route during the period are shown in Figure 5-2. Note: The figures for London and Amsterdam are misleading due to a delay attribution problem. A significant proportion of the en-route delay should be classified as airport delay. Daily Airport Daily En Route Figure 5-2 ATFM Total per FMP 5.2.2. Average per Flight [FLIGHTS] 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 DAILY TRAFFIC AND AVERAGE DELAY PER FLIGHT 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 The delays are associated to the corresponding traffic in Figure 5-3. The resulting average delay per flight (i.e. the total ATFM delay divided by the number of flights entering in the FMP area) is also displayed. 1000 0 0.5 0.0 London records the largest daily traffic demand in but shows a moderate average delay per flight, whereas a number of other FMPs show high delays per flight despite much smaller daily traffic loads. Daily Traffic Av erage Per Flight Figure 5-3 Daily Traffic and Average per Flight 5-2
NETWORK OPERATIIONS REPORT -- 5.3. ATC causes Location 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 3211 2843 2436 2256 2101 1956 Top 20 Ref Loc for ATC s in 17 70 1717 1693 16 28 1541 146 6 1157 864 IND ACTION (ATC) ATC EQUIPM ENT ATC STAFFING ATC CAPACITY 841 765 696 558 558 549 0.0% WARSZAWA ACC RHEIN UAC WIEN ACC LONDON ACC MADRID ACC NICOSIA ACC ZAGREB ACC ATHINAI_CONTROL MAASTRICHT UAC PARIS ALL ACC COPENHAGEN_ACC ZURICH ACC REIMS U/ACC MACEDONIA ACC FRANKFURT ACC PRAGUE ACC GENEVA ACC LONDON TMA TC WIEN-SCHWECHAT DUBLIN Figure 5-4 Top-20 Contributors to ATC s There was a geographical shift of ATC delays towards the east-southeast combined with high delays in parts of core west area. Globally the most significant delays were due to ATC capacity and ATC staffing. The figures for London are somewhat exceptional due to two ATC equipment problems in July and September and an aircraft incident in January. 5.4. Meteo causes Location 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2540 2032 823 Top 10 Ref Loc for Meteo s in 719 714 610 492 489 HEAVY RAIN CEILING WIND WEATHER (NON DEFINED) THUNDERSTORM /CB FOG/LOW VISIBILITY 425 407 FRANKFURT/MAIN LONDON TMA TC MUNCHEN RHEIN UAC AMSTERDAM ACC(245) MUNCHEN ACC PARIS-CHARLES DE GAULLE ROMA/FIUMICINO WIEN ACC WIEN_SCHWECHAT Figure 5-5 Top-10 Contributors to Meteo s The major contributor for Meteo delays was Thunderstorms and CB activity, Germany was significantly affected by delays due to weather conditions. London TMA TC was mainly affected by Wind, fog and low visibility. Frankfurt airport experienced significant weather delays during the entire year. 5.5. Airport causes Location 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 696 695 538 Top 10 Ref Loc for Airport s in 416 395 302 296 279 257 IND ACT (NON ATC) ACCIDENT/INCIDENT GROUND OPS ISSUE WIP ENVIRON ISSUES AD CAPACITY 220 ISTANBUL/ATATURK AMSTERDAM ACC(245-) WIEN-SCHWECHAT MADRID/BARAJAS IRAKLION/NIKOS KAZANTZAKIS ROMA/FIUMICINO LONDON TMA TC BRUSSELS NATIONAL FRANKFURT/MAIN PALMA DE MALLORCA Figure 5-6 Top-10 Contributors to Airport s Istanbul experienced difficulties with Aerodrome capacity all year, Amsterdam had significant Environmental issues till the end of August, Vienna experienced aerodrome capacity delays throughout the year as did Madrid. 5-3
NETWORK OPERATIIONS REPORT -- 5.6. Other causes Location 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Top 5 Ref Loc for Other s in 1817 COPENHAGEN ACC 425 413 391 ROMA/FIUMICINO LONDON ACC ISTANBUL/ATATURK ATC ROUTING SPECIAL EVENTS M ILITARY ACTIVITY 298 MAASTRICHT UAC In there were significant delays due to special events. Copenhagen ACC can be attributed to new ATC system the first four months of the year. Roma Fiumicino WIP in January, February and March generated delays. London ACC Military activity was mainly found in DVR sectors distributed over the whole year. Figure 5-7 Top-5 Contributors to other delays 5.7. Management of Major events The major significant event during the summer of was the Euro Football competition that was held in Switzerland and Austria in June. CFMU was asked to ensure ATFCM support for the special event but also to ensure a new service allowing that the flights going to the relevant airports were aware of the need to have an airport slot and respect it. An airport arrival slot monitoring tool (AMON) was deployed by CFMU during the Euro Football competition. This was also used during the Monaco Grand Prix. The tool called AMON was developed by the CFMU, building from the existing FAAS-SAFA tool and adapted to enable a comparison between the flight plan that IFPS received and the airport slot. A protocol was set-up with the different airport slot coordinators to provide their slot allocations information. The operations started for the EURO cup on the first week of the month of June. During the event, the AMON compared, for a set of 10 airports, more than 30.000 arrival airports slots against the flight plan information received in IFPS. This matching was partially automated but still an important work from the IFPS supervisors was needed to ensure a qualitative filtering, especially for the airport of Geneva where any warning from AMON was systematically checked against the on-line database of Geneva General Aviation. The AMON service has been maintained operational H24 by the IFPS teams, all operational problems encountered were quickly solved and never affected the AMON service. Activity during the events (daily averages) For Monaco GP 6 days - 2 airports (operational trial in May ) 1. 325 airport slots and 314 actual flights 2. 106 alerts For Euro 25 days -10 airports 1. 1500 airport slots 2. 310 alerts A series of 5 coordination meetings were held between December 2007 and May with representatives from the respective ANSPs, National Airport Slot Coordinators, Airports and Aircraft Operators including 5-4
NETWORK OPERATIIONS REPORT -- General/Business Aviation, Adjacent ACCs/FMPs in order to prepare the necessary ATFCM measures for EURO. FMPs were briefed during the Spring FMP Regional Meetings and those most adjacent also attended the coordination meetings. AIMs were issued to cover complete listing of all documentation available, designated airports and highlighting specific procedures / points of contact. Secondees from AUSTROCONTROL and SKYGUIDE participated in the CFMU Ops room for the duration of their part of the competition. All EURO related measures were integrated into the NMC D-1 Network Plan and discussed at the 1400 utc e-conference and notified via Network News. The event was handled very effectively from a network perspective due to the advance planning and cooperation by all parties involved prior to and during the event. The implementation of the ATC system in Copenhagen ACC generated significant System maintenance delays during the first four months of the year. The new FDPS system in Maastricht was successfully introduced in December. Capacity was restored to normal values within 3 weeks of the implementation of the new system. The total delay during the month attributed to the special event measures necessary for the transition was less than 100000 minutes. This relatively low delay figure was achieved due to the early easing of the capacity restrictions and the agreed rerouting measures applied. A resectorisation and the new ATS implementation in the LZBB/LKAA/LHCC area in Spring, did not cause significant problems. Turkey upgraded their ATC system which caused extra delays in the category Special Events for the second half of the month of April. 5.8. Significant Network Disturbances On the 17/1/ at 13h00 UTC a British Airways B777 from Beijing (ZBAA) to Heathrow (EGLL) landed on the grass just short of the southern runway (27L). The disabled aircraft was removed three days later on Sunday 20th January. During the period from Thursday to Sunday the airport remained open. However there was serious disruption to traffic with high delays and a significant number of cancellations. Over the four days immediately following the incident the airport operated between 60% and 75% of normal arrival capacity. More than 600 flights were cancelled over the four day period. There was almost 70000 minutes of delays due to the reduced airport capacities, with average delays of almost 80 minutes per arrival on the 17/1. Normal operations had resumed by Monday 21/1. The tragic accident experienced by the company Spanair in Madrid on the 20 th of August and the subsequent closure of the airport did not significantly affect the delay situation. Exceptionally high delays (i.e. greater than 5 minutes average delay per flight) were recorded on a number of days during due to exceptional weather conditions and or severe capacity problems. These are summarised below. 5-5
NETWORK OPERATIIONS REPORT -- - 01/03/: 21299 flights and 152056 minutes of delay (average 7.13 min per flight). Bad weather conditions in Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Munchen due to strong wind and Capacities issues in Switzerland, Spain and Poland. - 26/07/08: 27557 flights and 196552 minutes of delay (average 7.13 min per flight). Capacity issues in Greece and Marseille, bad weather conditions in Munchen and Switzerland, Aerodrome capacity in Greece, Lisbon and Madrid. - 25/09/08: 32094 flights and 180963 minutes of delay (average 5.6 min per flight). ATC equipment issues in London, ATC capacity (Vienna and Cyprus) and staffing problem in Rhein. - 11/07/08: 33356 flights and 183338 minutes of delay (average 5.5 min per flight) delays were due to CB activities in Munchen and Frankfurt, ATC capacity in Poland and Madrid, ATC equipment in Dublin (Radar problems). - 27/07/08: 28484 flights and 152373 minutes of delay (average 5.3 min per flight) Capacity issues in Greece and Istanbul, bad weather in Croatia and Vienna and staffing problem in LEIB. - 20/07/08: 28705 flights and 153547 minutes of delay (average 5.3 min per flight) Capacity issues in Greece and Cyprus, ATC equipment in Istanbul ATC equipment (New ATC system transition and failure) and bad Weather in Munchen and Vienna. - 02/08/08: 28107 flights and 147851 minutes of delay (average 5.3 min per flight) Capacity issues in Greece and England, bad weather in Croatia and Vienna, staffing problems in LEIB. - 30/08/08: 28495 flights and 144186 minutes of delay (average 5.1 min per flight) ATC capacity was the main contributor for delays (Vienna and Warszawa). Staffing problems were in Rhein and Vienna. - 06/07/08: 28748 flights and 144635 minutes of delay (average 5 min per flight) Capacity issues in Greece and Marseille, Bad weather in Germany and Switzerland. - 31/08/08: 29635 flights and 148208 minutes of delay (average 5 min per flight) ATC capacity was the main contributor to delays (Greece and Poland), bad weather in England and Paris and Staffing problems in Vienna and Rhein. 5-6
NETWORK OPERATIIONS REPORT -- 5.9. Geographical Representations The following maps display the traffic variation between 2007 and, the average ATFM delay per flight, total and En-route, and in each FMP area. The traffic variation map (Figure 5-8) shows a traffic decrease in a number of western areas. A significant part of Central Europe recorded a moderate traffic growth in, whereas the highest traffic jumps were observed in Eastern countries. The traffic evolution shown for Bulgaria is due to the merging of Sofia and Varna ACCs. Traffic Variation between 2007 and EGCC (-5.8) EHMC (-18) Decreasing >=0%, <5% >=5%, <10% >=10%, <20% >20% EISN (-0.1) EGPX (0.9) ENSV (0.4) ENOS (4.9) EKDK (-2.4) ESOS (1.2) ESMM (6) EFES (3) EETT (12.2) EVRR (8.2) EYVC (22.4) EHAA (-3.4) EGTT (-1.9) LFFF (-0.8) EBBU (-1.5) Lower airspaces EDWW (1.2) EDFF (-0.5) EDMM (2.7) LPPO (6.8) GCCC (-0.5) LPPC (2.3) EGTT (-1.5) EDYY (-0.3) EPWW (14.8) UKBV (14.1) UKHV (12.7) EDUU (2.3) UKLV (14.7) LKAA (5.4) LFRR (-1.2) LFEE (0.3) LZBB (6.1) LUUU (17) EDMM (2.7) UKOV (13.2) LFFF (-0.8) LOVV (1.7) LHCC (0.9) LSAZ (1.4) LRBB (2.5) UKFV (4.3) LSAG (-1) LJLA (7.5) LIPP (-4.3) LFBB (0.5) LIMM (-5.8) LDZO (6.7) LYBA (7.9) LBWR (-24.9) LECM (-1.5) LBSR (68.4) LFMM (0) LWSS (1.8) LTAA (8.2) LAAA (4.1) LIBB (3.3) LTBB (6.6) LECB (5.1) LGMD (6.5) LIRR (-0.2) LECS (-3) LGGG (2.6) LCCC (12) LECP (-2.1) LMMM (3.6) Lower airspace Figure 5-8 Traffic Variation between 2007 and The maps displaying the average ATFM delays per flight (Figure 5-9 and Figure 5-10) allow us to immediately spot the most congested areas. A large number of FMPs recorded a moderate average delay per flight (below one minute). In, no FMP area was associated with a delay equal to or higher than 3 minutes per flight. This happened in previous years (or during summer periods) and the same delay categories have been kept to ease comparison with former editions of the document. 5-7
NETWORK OPERATIIONS REPORT -- Average ATFM delay per flight - ENBD (0.1) EGCC (0.2) EHMC (0) No delay >0, <1 min. >=1, <2 min. >=2, <3 min. >=3 min. EISN (0.1) ESOS (0.1) EFES (0.1) ENSV (0.1) ENOS (0.2) EETT (0) EGPX (0.2) ESMM (0.1) EVRR (0) EKDK (2.6) EYVC (0) EDWW (0.3) EHAA (1.1) EGTT (1.1) EBBU (0.6) EDFF (1.2) EDMM (0.4) LFFF (1) Lower airspaces LPPO (0) GCCC (0.5) LPPC (0.4) EGTT (0.6) EDYY (0.5) EPWW (2.1) UKBV (0) UKHV (0) EDUU (0.9) LKAA (0.5) UKLV (0) LFRR (0.1) LFEE (0.5) EDMM (0.4) LZBB (0.2) LUUU (0) UKOV (0) LFFF (1) LOVV (2.1) LHCC (0) LSAZ (1.1) LRBB (0) UKFV (0) LSAG (0.8) LJLA (0) LIPP (0.4) LFBB (0.1) LIMM (0.2) LDZO (2.1) LYBA (0) LBWR (0) LECM (1.1) LBSR (0) LFMM (0.3) LWSS (0) LTAA (0.5) LAAA (0.1) LECB (0.4) LIBB (0) LTBB (0.9) LGMD (1) LIRR (0.5) LECS (0.1) LGGG (2.4) LCCC (2.7) LECP (0.9) LMMM (0) Lower airspace Figure 5-9 Average ATFM per Flight Average En-route ATFM delay per flight - EGCC (0.1) EHMC (0) No En-route delay >0, <1 min. >=1, <2 min. >=2, <3 min. >=3 min. EISN (0.1) ESOS (0) EFES (0) ENSV (0.1) ENOS (0) EGPX (0.2) ESMM (0.1) EKDK (2.3) EETT (0) EVRR (0) EYVC (0) EDWW (0.2) EHAA (1.1) EGTT (0.8) EBBU (0.2) EDFF (0.3) EDMM (0.2) LFFF (0.5) Lower airspaces LPPO (0) GCCC (0.3) LPPC (0.2) EGTT (0.6) EDYY (0.5) EPWW (2) UKBV (0) UKHV (0) EDUU (0.9) LKAA (0.4) UKLV (0) LFEE (0.5) LZBB (0.2) LUUU (0) LFRR (0.1) EDMM (0.2) UKOV (0) LFFF (0.5) LOVV (1.4) LHCC (0) UKFV (0) LSAZ (0.8) LRBB (0) LSAG (0.5) LJLA (0) LFBB (0) LIPP (0.1) LIMM (0) LDZO (2.1) LYBA (0) LBWR (0) LECM (0.7) LBSR (0) LFMM (0.1) LWSS (0) LTAA (0.2) LAAA (0.1) LTBB (0) LIBB (0) LGMD (0.9) LECB (0.2) LIRR (0) LECS (0.1) LGGG (1.4) LCCC (2.7) LECP (0) LMMM (0) Lower airspace Figure 5-10 Average En-route ATFM per Flight 5-8
NETWORK OPERATIIONS REPORT -- 6. MOST PENALISING LOCATIONS During the year, the CFMU protected 1060 different locations (Enroute sectors, airports), applying around 130 ATFM regulations per day, but a small number of these locations represents a large proportion of the total ATFM delay, as illustrated by the following figure: 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ACCUMULATED PROPORTION OF TOTAL DELAYS - 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 [NUMBER OF LOCATIONS] Figure 6-1 Accumulated Proportion of Total s 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 3611 3363 3251 2989 2969 2860 2843 Top 20 ATFM Locations in 2207 2126 2109 1970 OTHER METEO AIRPORT ATC 1742 1718 1685 1525 1518 1391 1342 1217 1084 RHEIN UAC COPENHAGEN ACC WARSZAWA ACC LONDON ACC LONDON TMA TC WIEN ACC FRANKFURT/MAIN ZAGREB ACC MAASTRICHT UAC MADRID ACC NICOSIA ACC PARIS ALL ACC ATHINAI CONTROL ZURICH ACC AMSTERDAM ACC(245-) WIEN-SCHWECHAT ISTANBUL/ATATURK REIMS U/ACC ROMA/FIUMICINO FRANKFURT ACC Figure 6-2 Top-20 ATFM Locations The main locations with high ATC delay during are Rhein UAC, Copenhagen ACC, Warszawa, London ACC, London TMA TC, Wien and Frankfurt. - Rhein was mainly affected by ATC staffing and weather issues (CB, Thunderstorms). - Copenhagen experienced bad delays beginning of due to the implementation of their new ATC system. - Warszawa ATC capacity delays were due to lack of flexibility in the current ATM system and partially influenced by unpredictable out area traffic (e.g. Russia). - London ACC experienced delays In ATC capacity, staffing, equipment (TDLP failure) and also military activity the whole year. - London TMA TC was mainly affected by bad weather situation and ATC delays. 6-1
NETWORK OPERATIIONS REPORT -- - Istanbul remained the airport with the most important delays due to Aerodrome capacity. High delays in Amsterdam concerned Environmental issues and were distributed from January to August. Table 6-1 on next page shows the top-50 locations (both airport and en-route) that contributed to 55% of the total delays in. For each of these locations, the table details: the total delay in minutes, the delay per delayed flight, percentage of weather delay in the total, the proportion that each location contributes to the total delay and, the cumulative proportion of total delay. 6-2
NETWORK OPERATIIONS REPORT -- Reference Location FMP (minutes) per ed Flight Share of Weather in of Reference Location Proportion Total Accumulated Proportion Total EDDF LANGEN FMP 1,040,670 24.9 89.3% 4.4% 4.4% EGLL60NM LONDON ALL FMP 1,008,148 24.9 70.9% 4.2% 8.6% LOWW WIEN FMP 555,504 18.6 26.8% 2.3% 10.9% EHAA12345 AMSTERDAM FMP 532,534 18.3 47.5% 2.2% 13.2% LTBA ISTANBUL FMP 509,042 20.8 10.4% 2.1% 15.3% EKDKACUAUC COPENHAGEN FMP 468,107 16.1 0.0% 2.0% 17.3% LIRF ROMA FMP 445,394 17.1 41.3% 1.9% 19.1% EPWWD WARSAW FMP 350,665 19.0 0.3% 1.5% 20.6% LCCCE2S CYPRUS FMP 332,423 27.1 0.0% 1.4% 22.0% EDDM MUNCHEN FMP 316,212 26.2 95.0% 1.3% 23.3% EKDKLVUV COPENHAGEN FMP 314,370 15.5 0.2% 1.3% 24.6% LFPG PARIS FMP 288,457 17.0 62.3% 1.2% 25.8% LGMDW MAKEDONIA FMP 284,508 23.1 0.0% 1.2% 27.0% EGLC LONDON ALL FMP 281,590 20.2 30.0% 1.2% 28.2% EIDW DUBLIN FMP 248,296 25.4 6.3% 1.0% 29.3% LSZH ZURICH FMP 239,810 16.0 41.8% 1.0% 30.3% LFFFUJ PARIS FMP 234,824 16.5 6.3% 1.0% 31.3% LEMD MADRID FMP 219,235 14.4 22.9% 0.9% 32.2% EBMBBR BRUSSELS FMP 215,036 24.6 47.6% 0.9% 33.1% LECMDOM MADRID FMP 212,442 14.1 0.2% 0.9% 34.0% LOVVEAL1 WIEN FMP 210,157 21.2 18.9% 0.9% 34.8% LSAZM4 ZURICH FMP 207,222 17.4 12.0% 0.9% 35.7% LCCCWN CYPRUS FMP 207,004 24.1 0.0% 0.9% 36.6% LSAZM2 ZURICH FMP 202,743 16.1 15.6% 0.9% 37.4% EGTTDVR LONDON ALL FMP 199,143 17.8 8.2% 0.8% 38.3% LFPO PARIS FMP 184,400 30.1 35.3% 0.8% 39.0% EKCH COPENHAGEN FMP 177,224 18.9 27.2% 0.7% 39.8% LSGG/LFI GENEVE FMP 176,028 20.7 22.5% 0.7% 40.5% LOVVWHT WIEN FMP 175,196 21.1 25.2% 0.7% 41.3% EDUUERLT KARLSRUHE FMP 174,586 17.1 23.8% 0.7% 42.0% LGGGMIL ATHINAI FMP 173,187 28.6 0.0% 0.7% 42.7% LGGGKFPL ATHINAI FMP 172,246 28.3 0.0% 0.7% 43.4% LDZON ZAGREB FMP 166,748 20.0 20.8% 0.7% 44.1% EPWWBG WARSAW FMP 165,710 16.5 1.4% 0.7% 44.8% LTAI ANKARA FMP 165,320 27.5 2.0% 0.7% 45.5% EPWWG WARSAW FMP 160,539 19.1 0.7% 0.7% 46.2% LEPA PALMA FMP 156,423 20.2 23.2% 0.7% 46.9% LIPZ PADOVA FMP 153,694 24.3 7.3% 0.6% 47.5% EDDL LANGEN FMP 149,005 19.6 37.5% 0.6% 48.1% EDUUHVL KARLSRUHE FMP 148,188 15.9 10.2% 0.6% 48.7% LGIR ATHINAI FMP 146,205 34.1 0.0% 0.6% 49.4% EDYYLXL MAASTRICHT FMP 144,497 14.3 4.4% 0.6% 50.0% EDUUSAL KARLSRUHE FMP 141,954 14.9 9.0% 0.6% 50.6% LDZOS ZAGREB FMP 138,749 21.8 14.4% 0.6% 51.1% EDGGADL LANGEN FMP 137,358 24.1 6.2% 0.6% 51.7% EGTT18SFD LONDON ALL FMP 136,465 16.7 2.0% 0.6% 52.3% LFFFTE PARIS FMP 134,981 16.5 2.4% 0.6% 52.9% LDZOTA ZAGREB FMP 131,332 20.1 18.8% 0.6% 53.4% LGGGRDS ATHINAI FMP 131,316 28.9 0.0% 0.6% 54.0% LOVVWLU WIEN FMP 125,273 17.3 14.8% 0.5% 54.5% Table 6-1 Top-50 Reference Locations 6-3
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 6-4
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 7. ACC CAPACITY ACHIEVEMENTS 7.1. Capacity Enhancement at Network and Local Level At the 27 th meeting of the Provisional Council, the target of 1 minute per flight Summer enroute delay at European ATM network level was reconfirmed for the medium-term and a flight efficiency target, requiring a reduction in the European average route extension per flight of 2km per year was approved. Capacity enhancement measures implemented during included airspace structure development (route network & sectorisation), new or enhanced Air Traffic Management (ATM) systems and improved Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management (ATFCM). Nevertheless, there has been an effective decrease (-4%) in the European ATM system capacity during, mainly because critical ACCs did not have sufficient available controllers to open optimum sector configurations, in spite of efforts to implement flexible rostering and improved working practices. A number of system limitations and the postponement of major projects at some ACCs also contributed. The total ECAC delay forecast for Summer, based on the Medium-Term traffic Forecast (MTF Feb 08) and ANSP capacity plans (LCIP -2012), was 2.3 minutes for the baseline (medium) growth forecast, of which 1.4 minutes was attributed to enroute delay. Actual traffic growth was 0.8%, even lower than the low forecast of 1.7%. Nevertheless, because some critical ACCs did not fully realise their capacity plans, the total Summer delay was 2.6 minutes, of which 2.0 minutes was enroute, a worrying increase compared to Summer 2007, particularly considering the lower than expected traffic growth. The ATFCM process implemented by the CFMU helped to reduce the impact of remaining ACC capacity limitations. 7.2. Capacity Enhancement Initiatives 7.2.1. Airspace Structure Improvements 124 short-term airspace proposals were developed and implemented during the twelve months preceding the Summer season under the coordination of the EUROCONTROL Route Network Development Sub- Group (RNDSG). 88 of these proposals were implemented before the end of May, and a further 36 proposals were implemented before the end of August. The packages of proposals covered several hundred route network and sectorisation improvements. New sectors were created and sector configurations optimised. However, in some ACCs the optimum configuration could not be opened, because of a shortage of qualified air traffic controllers. The evaluation of the ATS route network improvements for the Summer indicates an improvement of approximately 10 000 nm per day resulting from pure airspace design actions. This represents potential savings of 22 000 tons of fuel per year or reduced emissions of 73 000 tons of CO2 per year. The airspace improvement proposals range from minor ATS route alignments and designation changes to large scale reorganisation of busy airspace. Proposals that will result in significant improvement such as: Austria/Czech Republic: Reorganisation of LANUX/OKF area. Austria/Slovenia/Croatia: Reorganisation of KFT/DOL/ZAG area. Croatia/Hungary/Serbia/Romania: Improved ARR/DEP options for flights to Arad (LRAR) and Timisoara (LRTR) airports. Czech Republic: 7-1
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - Praha ACC - new DFL between MIDDLE and HIGH sectors (change to Summer DFL ); Praha ACC - new DFL between HIGH and TOP sectors. France: Bordeaux ACC, Brest ACC, Marseille ACC and Reims ACC sector reorganisations. France/Spain: MAMES area reorganisation. France/Switzerland: Improved arrivals to Bale/Mulhouse (LFSB) airport. Germany: Availability of night (23.30h - 02.30h) DCTs within Rhein UIR: Germany/Austria/Italy/Switzerland: Reorganisation of BZO area: UN606 dualisation; Improved utilisation of military training areas TSAs CH/East A9; New 12th sector in Padova ACC. Germany/Sweden/Poland: ATS routes reorganisation in Rönne (ROE) West and South Areas. Greece: Dualisation of ARR/DEP to/from Greek Ionian islands (LGKF, LGZA); Progressive improvement of CDR status of L/UL607, L/UL613, M/UM872, M/UM978 and P/UP50. Italy: New DFL between Milano ACC and Roma ACC from FL295 to FL315. Maastricht UAC/Netherlands/Germany: Implementation of new CDRs 1. Norway/Sweden/Finland: Lapland Axis (former Santa flights ) ATS route network improvements - implementation of permanently used ATS routes; Dualisation of ARR/DEP to/from Rovaniemi (EFRO) / Kitilla (EFKT) airports and better options for Enontekio (EFET) airport. Poland: ATS route network reorganisation. UK: Extension of availability of westbound CDR UL975; Better management of Solent traffic (Bournemouth and Southampton) to/from the north of London, enabling easier segregation of these flows and reducing complexity against Heathrow departures via CPT/SAM and Luton departures via SAM/MID; New categorisation of CDRs through the West End area. 7.2.2. Availability of Additional Controllers Additional control staff were available at Belgrade ACC, Bratislava ACC, Brussels ACC, Budapest ACC, Copenhagen ACC, the French ACCs, Lisbon ACC, Ljubljana ACC, Nicosia ACC, the Norwegian ACCs, Prague ACC, Rome ACC, Skopje ACC, the Spanish and Swedish ACCs, Tallinn ACC, the Turkish ACCs, Warsaw ACC and Zagreb ACC. 7.2.3. Increased Declared Sector Monitoring Values ANSPs continued to closely monitor sector capacities. Increases to sector monitoring values were declared to the CFMU during the Summer as a result of capacity enhancement initiatives at Tirana ACC and Zurich ACC. 7-2
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 7.2.4. Increased Sector Occupancy Times and Acceptance Rates ANSPs continued to monitor sector/traffic volume occupancy times/acceptance rates, resulting in higher sector loads before regulations were applied at Zagreb ACC and Warsaw ACC. Sector loads continue to be significantly higher than declared monitoring values at ACCs in the UK and at Maastricht UAC. 7.2.5. Extended Availability of Optimum Sector Configurations More effective resource utilisation through flexible staff rostering, combined with a dynamic and flexible sectorisation and configuration management, enabled extended operation of optimum opening schemes at Belgrade ACC, Bratislava ACC, Lisbon ACC, Maastricht UAC, Prague ACC, the Norwegian ACCs, the Spanish ACCs and ACCs in the UK. There was some improvement to opening schemes at other ACCs, but this continued to be limited by insufficient controllers (Nicosia ACC) and system limitations (Warsaw ACC). 7.2.6. Improved Air Traffic Flow & Capacity Management Improved ATFCM techniques were implemented in coordination with the CFMU at Bratislava ACC, the French ACCs, Lisbon ACC, Ljubljana ACC, Prague ACC, the Swiss ACCs and ACCs in the UK. 7.2.7. Implementation of New ATC Centres and ATM System Upgrades In Bulgaria the transfer to a single (Sofia) ACC and implementation of the new system took place without problems. The transfer to the new Copenhagen ACC during the Winter did not produce the expected capacity benefit due to lack of ATC staff, with a high level of delay continuing throughout the year. An upgraded Flight Data Processing System (FDPS) was implemented at Ljubljana ACC and the Greek ACCs and additional FDPS functionalities were implemented at Belgrade ACC. The ATM system was upgraded at Bremen ACC and all ACCs in Spain, Sweden and Turkey. Additional system functionalities were introduced at Prague ACC, Rome ACC and Riga ACC. Vilnius ACC and Zagreb ACC began to fully utilise their new system capabilities. At Maastricht UAC the new FDPS was successfully implemented in December. OLDI links were implemented by Poland with L viv ACC, by Italy with Tirana ACC and Belgrade ACC and by Bulgaria with adjacent ACCs. 7.2.8. Improved Capacity Planning Resulting from Capacity Tools Development Interactive NEVAC and SAAM training sessions were provided on request to ANSPs throughout the year, resulting in extensive use of the tools, and leading to further improvements in the capacity planning process. These interactive sessions play an important part in steering the development new functionalities, ensuring that these are in accordance with ANSPs requirements. 7.3. Network Management Activities ATFCM processes continued to improve and provided capacity benefit at Bordeaux ACC, Ljubljana ACC and the Swiss ACCs. The CFMU continued to hold regular teleconferences with ANSPs and the Aircraft Operators, (e.g. Southwest Axis), and to coordinate meetings to address various issues concerning the management of capacity across the European ATM network. 7.4. Capacity Plans and Achievements at ACC Level During Autumn 2007, detailed capacity plans were developed by ANSPs for each ACC and included in the LCIP -2012. EUROCONTROL held bilateral discussions with ANSPs with capacity constraints, and provided comprehensive information on the various traffic growth and distribution scenarios and the likely capacity requirements at ACC and sector group level throughout the planning period. 7-3
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - In addition, capacity enhancement and route efficiency continued to be discussed within the various EUROCONTROL working arrangements. The capacity plan for Europe was finalised by the Capacity Enhancement Function at the end of 2007 and transferred to the CFMU and the Directors ATS Operations (DOP) group for inclusion in the Summer Network Operations Plan (NOP). The capacity increases that were planned by States/ANSPs for the year are shown on the following map. Figure 7-1 Capacity Increase Planned by ANSPs for Summer The next map shows the capacity performance of the European ACCs, taking into account the achievement at each ACC of the optimum average enroute delay per flight i.e. the delay per ACC that is associated with the PC target delay of 1 minute at network level. 7-4
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - Figure 7-2 ACC Capacity Offered Summer Many ACCs increased their capacity, reduced delays or maintained them at optimum levels or close to zero, in the context of a traffic increase. These are: Ankara ACC, Barcelona ACC, Belgrade ACC, Bordeaux ACC, Bratislava ACC, Bremen ACC, Istanbul ACC, Lisbon ACC, Ljubljana ACC, Malta ACC, Marseille ACC, Oslo ACC, Padova ACC, Prestwick ACC, Rome ACC, Tirana ACC Madrid ACC, Prague ACC, the Swiss ACCs and Warsaw ACC increased their capacity and reduced delay, but there remains a significant capacity gap. Nicosia ACC increased capacity but delays increased significantly. London ACC, London TC, Maastricht UAC, Paris ACC and Reims ACC are operating at their capacity limit. A few ACCs experienced a slight increase in delay, which nevertheless remained close to the optimum; these are Canarias ACC and Malmo ACC. There was a reduction of performance at Amsterdam ACC (environmental), Copenhagen ACC (new ATM system/staffing), the Greek ACCs (staffing), Karlsruhe UAC (staffing), Langen ACC (staffing), Vienna ACC (staffing), and Zagreb ACC (staffing) compared to Summer 2007, resulting in increased delays. A number of ACCs continued to perform without generating delay with higher traffic than during the previous Summer. Included in this category are Baku ACC, Brindisi ACC, Bucharest ACC, Budapest ACC, Chisinau ACC, Riga ACC, Malta ACC, Palma ACC, Shannon ACC, Skopje ACC, Sofia ACC, Stockholm ACC, Tallinn ACC, the Finnish ACCs, all the Ukrainian ACCs, Vilnius ACC and Yerevan ACC. Evolution of traffic and delay and details of the capacity achievements at each ACC are provided in the annex to this report. 7-5
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 7.5. Areas of Concern Staffing issues had a significant impact on the capacity performance during Summer. The following ACCs were amongst the high delay producers and were particularly impacted by staffing issues: Athens ACC, Karlsruhe UAC, Makedonia ACC, Nicosia ACC, Vienna ACC, Zagreb ACC and Zurich ACC. Unexpected staffing issues create instability in the system and do not allow for appropriate network planning. The main delays were generated on the south east axis (Austria-Croatia-Greece-Cyprus). The delays on this axis represented 30% of the European enroute ATM delay and most of them were unexpected. ATC capacity was reported as the cause of 49% of the total delay (enroute + airport) during Summer, a slight decrease compared to Summer 2007 (50%). Categories that showed a decrease in Summer were weather (13% v 21%) and aerodrome capacity (9% v 11%). Increased delay was attributed to ATC staffing (12.5% v 9.3%) and ATC equipment (6% v 3%). s due to special events remained at a similar level as during Summer 2007. 7-6
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 8. FLIGHT EFFICIENCY 8.1. Introduction The evolution of Summer traffic, capacity, enroute delays and flight efficiency between 1999 and is as follows: Traffic growth: 26% Capacity growth: 46% Average enroute delay reduction: 55% Routes are only 3.46% longer than great circle route Although the capacity increase over the past decade has been higher than the traffic growth, it has been less in the past two years and ATM is facing increasing pressure from two areas concerning reduction of distance flown: the airspace users continue to press for additional network efficiencies and the environmental challenge has generated public and political pressure for flight efficiency measures. As a result of the high increase in fuel prices over the Summer, IATA requested the EUROCONTROL Agency to initiate all the appropriate measures to improve flight efficiency and to reduce on the largest possible extent the impact of these high oil costs on the airline industry. In August, IATA, CANSO and EUROCONTROL launched the Flight Efficiency Plan (FEP). This builds on the solid foundations of current work undertaken by the Air Navigation Service Providers, States, Airports and EUROCONTROL to improve European airspace design and network management and is in line with the common objective of a Single European Sky. The implementation of the improvements foreseen in the Flight Efficiency Plan is expected to bring benefits evaluated by EUROCONTROL at approximately 470,000 tons of fuel, 1,555,000 tons of CO 2 and 390M each year. 8.2. Flight Efficiency Plan Summary The Flight Efficiency Plan was developed to ensure urgent action and commitment to implement operational measures that can lead to fuel savings in the short term, opening the way to a long and solid partnership between the organisations involved, to continuously improve and optimise the European Air Traffic Management network. The Flight Efficiency Plan promotes the accelerated implementation of measures already approved by the EUROCONTROL Provisional Council, included in the Dynamic Management of the European Airspace Network Programme (DMEAN), the Airspace Action Plan, the Airspace Management Improvement Initiative, the Terminal Airspace Improvement Initiative and the Airport Programme. The five action points of the Flight Efficiency Plan are: 1. Enhancing European en-route airspace design through annual improvements of European ATS route network, high priority being given to: Implementation of a coherent package of annual improvements and of shorter routes; Improving efficiency for the most penalised city pairs; Implementation of additional conditional routes (CDR) for main traffic flows; Supporting initial implementation of free route airspace. 2. Improving airspace utilisation and route network availability through: 8-1
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - Actively support and involve aircraft operators and the computer flight plan service providers in flight plan quality improvements; Gradually applying route availability restrictions only where and when required; Improving the utilisation of civil/military airspace structures. 3. Efficient TMA design and utilisation through: Implementing advanced navigation capabilities; Implementing Continuous Descent Approaches (CDAs), improved arrival/departure routes, optimised departure profiles, etc. 4. Optimising airport operations, through: Implementation of Airport Collaborative Decision Making. 5. Improving awareness of performance 8.3. Coordination, Implementation and Monitoring The coordination of the actions foreseen in the Flight Efficiency Plan is ensured through existing EUROCONTROL working arrangements, with assistance from Airports Council International (ACI) Europe and IATA. Regular reports on the implementation progress will be made to the Air Navigation Services Board (ANSB) and to the EUROCONTROL Provisional Council, as this is already requested for the Airspace Action Plan. A European Airline Operations Group, with technical and operational support provided by EUROCONTROL, has been created to assess and review European ATM network operational shortcomings and other airline operational requirements related to local and network ATM flight efficiency and capacity performance. 8.4. Progress to Date The measures included in the Flight Efficiency Plan and that were already in process of being implemented are beginning to show tangible results. Between January and January 2009, flight efficiency due to airspace design has improved by approximately 6% and this came mainly as a result of route network improvements implemented in preparation for the Summer season. Simultaneously, flight efficiency in flight planning improved by 8% and this was mainly due to airspace design improvements, increased CDR availability and enhanced awareness by the aircraft operators on opportunities offered by the European ATS route network. The short, medium and longer term improvements for the European ATS route network are not developed in isolation. The implementation of the Flight Efficiency Plan is coherent with the agreed Airspace Action Plan that takes into consideration a longer term view of the evolution of the European ATS route network. The Flight Efficiency Plan takes also into consideration a balanced approach between capacity and flight efficiency and safeguards safety and military requirements. There is a fully coherent approach with the capacity planning support provided to ANSPs. Even though priority has generally been given to the development of airspace structures that maximise network capacity, many flight efficient routes have been proposed, designed, validated and made available for flight planning. Estimated fuel savings over the past 10 years are in the order of 250M. 8.4.1. Flight Efficiency Indicators Five Key Performance Indicators (KPI) are monitored, to give an indication on how both the structure of the route network and its use are evolving with respect to distance flown these are described below. Flight extension due to route network design (1 KPI) 8-2
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - RTE-DES - This KPI is calculated by measuring the difference between the shortest route length (from TMA exit and entry points) and the great circle distance. For this KPI the RAD is not be taken into account and all the CDR routes are considered as being open. Flight extension due to route network utilisation (3 KPIs) RTE-RAD This KPI is calculated by measuring the difference between the shortest plannable route length (from TMA exit and entry points) and the great circle distance. For this KPI the RAD is taken into account and all the CDR routes are considered as being open. RTE-CDR This KPI is calculated by measuring the difference between the shortest plannable route length (from TMA exit and entry points) and the great circle distance. For this KPI the RAD is taken into account and all the CDR routes are considered to be unavailable. RTE-FPL This KPI is calculated by measuring the difference between the route from the last filed flight plan for each flight (from Terminal Airspace exit and entry points) and the great circle distance. Flight extension due to ATC intervention (1 KPI) RTE-ATC This KPI is calculated by measuring the difference between the actual route length, based on radar data, (from Terminal Airspace exit and entry points) and the great circle distance. The route extension due to airspace design decreased from 3.65% to 3.46% between January and January 2009. The graph below shows the evolution of all the flight efficiency indicators between January and January 2009, and shows the clear impact of the implementation of airspace projects at each AIRAC cycle. Route Efficiency KPI per AIRAC cycle 5.50% 5.16% 5.11% 5.07% 5.05% 5.06% 5.08% 5.00% 5.03% 4.98% 5.03% 4.99% 4.95% 4.97% 4.87% Route Extension 4.50% 4.00% 4.41% 4.36% 4.34% 4.32% 4.09% 4.05% 4.02% 3.99% 3.97% 4.00% 4.29% 4.31% 4.28% 4.21% 4.28% 4.28% 4.26% 4.24% 4.28% 4.28% 4.25% 4.20% 3.97% 3.91% 4.41% 4.43% 4.46% 4.39% 4.25% 4.22% 4.22% 4.22% 4.17% 4.11% 4.14% 4.10% 4.35% 4.06% 4.07% RTE-DES RTE-RAD RTE-CDR RTE-FPL RTE-ATC 3.50% 3.65% 3.62% 3.59% 3.58% 3.54% 3.56% 3.52% 3.48% 3.50% 3.49% 3.48% 3.54% 3.46% 3.00% 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 AIRAC The impact of the RAD on the route efficiency increased immediately after the Summer season, as well as the impact of military activity showing that additional efforts are required to simplify the RAD and for more efficient use of civil/military airspace structures. The magnitude of this increase is exaggerated because of the change to the overall traffic pattern immediately following the Summer season, and because the effect of the RAD and CDR is more evident when there is a reduction in the improvements due to airspace design (airspace design improvements are deliberately engineered to provide benefit before the Summer season). 8-3
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - A positive evolution is noted for the flight planning indicator, which decreased from 5.16% to 4.87%, along a similar path as the airspace design indicator. Overall, the actions foreseen in the Flight Efficiency Plan are progressing well and are evident from the following: Almost 190 packages of route network improvements, already prepared by the RNDSG for gradual implementation prior to Summer 2009 - estimated daily savings of 11000 NM. A catalogue of route network proposals prepared and under discussion for each of the 50 most penalised city pairs. Initial implementation of free route like airspace initiatives - implementation foreseen prior to Summer 2009 in Sweden, Portugal and Italy and after Summer 2009 in UK, Ireland, Maastricht UAC and Germany Improvements to flight planning - CFMU will soon provide support to aircraft operators by indicating more efficient routing options Reducing route restrictions - 80 airspace improvement proposals to reduce route restrictions, with implementation expected prior to Summer 2009. Efficient TMA design and utilisation - Improvements expected for at least 20 TMAs across Europe. 8.5. Main Issues There is already good progress in implementing the actions foreseen in the Flight Efficiency Plan. Nevertheless, work must concentrate more on: The development and implementation of dynamic and flexible airspace design solutions to support improvements for the most penalised 50 city pairs, many of which are confined to only one State; A more open approach to solutions involving ATS delegation or civil/military use of airspace; A more flexible approach towards airspace utilisation, concerning primarily the RAD applicability; More rapid expansion of night direct routes initiatives across the European airspace. 8.6. Impact of FUA Operations on Flight Efficiency The statistical assessment of FUA operations is based on flight planned and actual traffic data in all ECAC States over the years 2007 and (Monday to Friday). The figures for show a significant improvement over those for 2007. Deeper analysis will give more details as to why this is the case, but it seems as if the increased awareness provided by the ASM Improvements Initiative and the DMEAN flight planning workshops has contributed to these improvements. Figures indicate that the number of published CDR 2 and 1/2 increased from 432 in January 2007 to 503 in December, an increase of about 16%. The average CDR availability according to the CRAM/AIP of CDR 2 and 1/2 was virtually identical in 2007 and (64.8 versus 64.7), and yet the number of flights filing to take advantage of an available CDR increased from 73.1% in 2007 to 75.3% in ; an increase of 2.2 %, resulting in additional savings in the form of reduced route length. Looking at the figures on a year by year basis, we see a significant improvement in Flight Economy Realised (FER) from 2.456.236 to 3.473.852 NM. 8-4
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - The average daily number of flights that flight-planned to use available CDR increased from 564 flights in 2007 to 660 flights in, an increase of 17%, and although these 660 flights account for not more than 3% of average daily traffic in the CFMU area in, they contributed with 43 423 tones of saved fuel and 136 782 tonnes less CO2 released to the atmosphere in. The majority of CDRs not flight-planned offer savings of less than 20 NM, and whilst it is acknowledged that shorter CDRs may offer only marginal savings per flight, the potential overall saving of both fuel and CO 2 emissions is considerable. Airspace users are encouraged to make full use of all available CDRs 1 and 2. 8-5
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 8-6
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 9. AIRPORT CAPACITY AND EFFICIENCY ENHANCEMENT 9.1. DMEAN Airport Activities Three major activities are underway within the context of airports support to DMEAN: Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE), Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM) and Analysis. Work during has focussed on the 40 airports identified as the most constraining to the network in terms of ATFM delay. Table 9-1 summarizes these activities. Country Airport Analysis ACE A-CDM Austria Vienna (ongoing) (ongoing) (ongoing) Belgium Brussels (complete) (ongoing / almost completed) Czech Republic Prague (complete) (complete) (ongoing) Hungary Budapest (final report) (final report) (on hold) Denmark Copenhagen Cannes France Paris CDG (ongoing) Paris Le Bourget Paris Orly Germany Dusseldorf Frankfurt (ongoing) (ongoing) Munich (ongoing) (completed) Athens (ongoing) Greece Iraklion (ongoing) (ongoing) (ongoing) Kos Rhodes Thessaloniki Ireland Dublin (ongoing) Florence Milan Linate Italy Milan Malpensa (delayed) (delayed) (ongoing) Rome Fiumicino (ongoing) (ongoing) (ongoing) Venezia Verona Villafranca Netherlands Amsterdam Schiphol (ongoing) Poland Warsaw (ongoing) (ongoing) (ongoing) Portugal Lisbon (on hold) Alicante Barcelona (ongoing) Spain Ibiza Madrid Barajas (ongoing) Madrid Torrejon Palma (Mallorca) (ongoing) Switzerland Geneva (ongoing / almost completed) Zurich (ongoing) (ongoing) (ongoing) Turkey Antalya (ongoing) (ongoing) (ongoing) Istanbul (ongoing) (ongoing) (ongoing) UK London City London Gatwick London Heathrow (ongoing) Table 9-1 40 Most Constraining Airports 9-1
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 9.1.1. Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) The Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) project aims to provide airport stakeholders with proven solutions in order to release latent airside capacity in the short term. ACE has continued to support airports by: Identifying the operational practices to be assessed. Providing technical solutions based upon those in use at European airports with successful records of sustained high intensity runway operations, and Supplying guidance on methods for continuous improvement of local operations based upon Best Practices in areas such as ATC procedures, infrastructure changes and general efficiency enablers. Experience in actual and future capacity enhancement activities, including low visibility conditions and approach procedures, has been shared. There are 10 stages to an ACE project from setting initial capacity enhancement targets to completing the project and ensuring ongoing communication. Table 9-2 presents each of these steps, and identifies, for each of the airports that are currently undergoing (or have undergone) an ACE exercise, the stage of the project that they are at in January 2009. STAGE DESCRIPTION AIRPORT 1 Set targets for increasing capacity 2 Identify data requirements GENEVA 3 Use capacity analysis model ZURICH 4 Analyse data establish Baseline 5 Hold Forums VALENCIA 6 Establish Action Plan ANTALYA, HERAKLION 7 Develop Awareness Campaign WARSAW 8 Perform 2nd data collection 9 Assess improvements- repeat exercise ROME FIUMICINO 10 Ensure internal communications PRAGUE, MILANO MALPENSA, ISTANBUL, VIENNA, BUDAPEST Table 9-2 ACE Project Stages and Airport Status Further information on each of the steps in the ACE project can be found at the ACE Web site: http://www.eurocontrol.int/airports/public/standard_page/apr2_projects_ace_2.html#intr 9.1.1.1. ACE Projects A significant amount of work was undertaken during, not only at airports but also the investigation of reducing runway occupancy times (ROT) in low visibility conditions; also, the effect of landside elements of the airport processes which may have an impact on airside capacity and consequent delays. 9-2
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - Airports VIENNA o A final ACE report has been sent and is waiting for comments and sign-off. BUDAPEST o A final ACE report has been sent is waiting for sign-off. ROME FIUMICINO o A final report is being written following an ACE exercise. An action plan has been compiled and is waiting for implementation. HERAKLION o Following an ACE exercise, the HCAA has been presented with a list of recommendations. The final report will be released at the end of. ISTANBUL o Following an ACE exercise, 15 recommendations have been made for the Action Plan. A final report will be delivered by the end of. WARSAW o The ACE exercise is halfway through and has reached the stage where it is the intention is to publish an awareness leaflet in March / April 2009. o It was agreed at the original Steering Group that a targeted Analysis meeting would be held to discuss delays at Warsaw airport. It is proposed to hold this meeting in early 2009; EUROCONTROL will liaise with PANSA to confirm a date. o For the second data collection exercise, it will be very useful for local staff to undertake the analysis and modelling (with support form EUROCONTROL). PANSA have agreed to send staff to EUROCONTROL for training in February 2009. o Data collection for Phase 2 will take place in June 2009 ANTALYA o Antalya is halfway through the ACE exercise; the next steps are development of an awareness campaign and transformation of the list of recommendations into an action plan. GENEVA o Geneva has just commenced an ACE exercise with an airport operational study and data collection training of the data collectors has been completed. VALENCIA o In the context of the EUROCONTROL-AENA Action Plan, Valencia airport has been selected as the pilot airport for the introduction of the ACE method at the Spanish airports (Madrid Barajas, Barcelona and Palma de Mallorca). ZURICH o ACE project commenced in February, with a delay analysis conducted in July. Local data collectors were trained in October and data collection commenced immediately. 9-3
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - Reduction of Runway Occupancy Times (ROT) in Low visibility conditions To facilitate the identification of methods and development of guidelines leading to reduction of runway occupancy times in low visibility conditions and other adverse weather conditions, a review of low visibility procedures in use at a number of selected airports throughout the European region was carried out (London Heathrow, London Gatwick, Brussels, Amsterdam, Munich and Athens). The attention is focused on best practices (BP) currently employed by the selected airports. Identification of Landside elements that may affect airside capacity and delays In order to assess the impact of landside elements on airport airside capacity and delay it is necessary to identify the processes concerned with airport operations which take place prior to an aircraft s departure and after its arrival. These processes are divided into either airside or landside areas at an airport. The main area of research focussed on the landside internal processes following the analysis of the IATA delay codes and the airports most affected by them. 9.1.1.2. PIATA+ PIATA+ is a stand-alone tool software tool developed specially for the ACE exercises. PIATA+ allows a complete statistical analysis of the data collected at airports, either manually or through an automated data collection system or tool. PIATA+ is a modelling tool that calculates the maximum throughput for a modeled runway configuration scenario and also explores alternative scenarios through analysing the impact of specific efficiency indicators. PIATA+ has been used since 2005 and it has been validated at 10 airports. In, PIATA+ has been used for the analysis and modelling of the scenarios at Antalya, Valencia, Warsaw and Heraklion. At the end of the year, a new PIATA+ enhancement process had been launched. This enhancement is focused on the user-friendliness of the tool, an improvement of the modelling options and a better performance of the current capabilities (reduction of loading times and better error handling). The new version is planned to be delivered by mid-2009. In parallel with PIATA+ usage at airports and enhancement, a 5 day PIATA+ Training Course is being prepared in collaboration with IANS Luxembourg. This course will take place for the first time in October 2009. 9.1.1.3. Training Training on-site at airports undergoing an ACE project, the ACE courses at IANS and the Peers-to-Peers workshops continued successfully during. Their importance lies in creating a culture to foster the reduction of delays in an environment where the demand surpasses the available airport capacity. Both ACE Courses at the EUROCONTROL Institute for Air Navigation Services (IANS) in May and September were rated very highly by participants. On-site training on both data collection and use of the Performance Indicator and Analysis Tool (PIATA + ) was undertaken by our modelling expert at each of the airports where the ACE team facilitated capacity enhancement exercises. 9-4
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 9.1.2. Analysis Prime attention has been given to the 40 airports which have become a constraint for the European network and cause significant reactionary delays. This process has already been initiated, and a high level time plan for further advancement has been produced. In particular the following are being addressed: Historical evaluation of delays from 2000 onwards. Actual reason(s) for delays. In the context of the most constraining airports and with a view to performing analysis on reasons for delays, the following issues are considered as a minimum: What is meant by ATC/Aerodrome delays (the capacity declaration should reflect ATC/Aerodrome limits)? Who is involved in the capacity declaration process and is there a buy-in from all the stakeholders? What are the reasons for additional traffic over and above the capacity declaration? How is extra traffic such as General Aviation accommodated? How many off-slot operations are experienced and how these are dealt with? Is there an efficient slot monitoring committee? Specific delay analysis meetings were held at Frankfurt, Munich, Milan Malpensa, Zurich, Rome Fiumicino, Brussels, Geneva and London Heathrow airports. Detailed data-analysing schedules, actual demand and regulations were used to facilitate discussions and a number of issues identified for further study and /or action. Following the completion of these initial delay analysis exercises, an initial report identifying the main causes of delay is produced. This report will use general examples to highlight the issues, whilst local delay analysis reports (and more importantly action plans) will be produced for each individual airport. In the first instance, a set of high-level indicators have been produced as part of an Airport datasheet. Annex 1 provides a half-page summary of some of the key indicators for each of the top 40 airports. At this stage, some of the airports have missing data, indicating the stage at which each airport is at within the Analysis exercise. Over time, the datasheets will be completed, and regularly updated, for all airports that contribute to ATFM related delays within the ECAC region. At the last Airport Operations Team (AOT/24) meeting there was recognition for the need to establish a delay analysis and reduction Task Force with a view to further analysing and reducing/mitigating delays at airports. The ACE team worked on the establishment of that task force which will hold its first meeting in April. The task force is composed of the following participants: Vienna, Warsaw, Zurich, Rome, Munich, Prague, EUACA, CFMU, and ecoda. 9.1.3. Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM) Airport Collaborative Decision Making is the concept which aims at improving operational efficiency at airports by reducing delays, improving the predictability of events during the progress of a flight and optimising the utilisation of resources. 9-5
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - With Airport CDM the network is served also with more accurate take-off information to derive Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) slots. When more airports implement Airport CDM, the network will be able to utilise available slots more efficiently and reduce buffer capacity. A recent study from the EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre (Airport CDM Network Impact assessment Oct 08) measured what the affect would be on the network if 42 airports were to implement Airport CDM, assuming the same levels of benefits that Munich Airport has achieved. The study concluded that, following a wider implementation of Airport CDM, the impact will be an increase of sector capacity up to 4%. This enables reduction of ATFM regulations and consequently a decrease in delays, more efficient ATFCM scenarios, increased flight efficiency, better traffic distribution as well as more freedom of choice for airlines. The decision making by the Airport CDM Partners is facilitated by the sharing of accurate and timely information and by adapted operational procedures, automatic processes and user friendly tools. EUROCONTROL Airport CDM team is responsible for ensuring standardisation and dissemination of best practice of Airport CDM implementation at European airports. The concept is an integral part of both the DMEAN and SESAR programs. Table 9-3 gives the status of the Airport CDM implementation activities at airports during, based upon the three key stages of a gap analysis, the implementation status and data exchange with the CFMU. Airport CDM Gap Analysis Completed Status Vienna Airport CDM conceptual Vienna phase finished Q1, implementation to start Q12009 Budapest On hold Istanbul Gap analysis report presented Feb09 Paris CDG N/A Implementation continues Prague Zurich Cost Benefit Analysis completed and fully accepted by all partners. CDM implementation started Q1/ Implementation continues Milan Malpensa Implementation continues. Reorganising project Brussels N/A CDM Implemented and DMAN / CDM integration trials completed MoU signed Q3 Antalya Gap Analysis Q12009 Amsterdam Schiphol CDM project initiated Palma CDM Gap Analysis to be presented Q12009 Rome Fiumicino Gap Analysis presented CDM fully implemented and Munich N/A considered part of daily operations Lyon Gap Analysis report presented Q12009 Helsinki No MoU signed Q12009, project to start Q12009 Lisbon No Restarting project Q12009 Data Exchange between Airport and CFMU FUM & DPI trials planned Q42009 FUM & DPI trials underway FUM & DPI live exchange planned Q12009 Operational enhancements to data exchange continues 9-6
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - Frankfurt Heathrow Airport CDM Gap Analysis Completed ongoing Status Kick-off Implementation started Q2, MoU is signed CDM implementation ongoing Warsaw CDM Gap Analysis report presented Q4, MoU signed Q12009 Dublin Gap Analysis presented Q2 Oslo No Implementation to start Q12009 MoU to be signed Athens CDM Implementation continues. DMAN installed and trialing Iraklion CDM project initiated Q4 Thessaloniki No Stockholm Re-activation of project Table 9-3 Airport CDM Implementation Data Exchange between Airport and CFMU FUM / DPI trials planned to commence 9.1.4. Contribution to Network Operations Plan (NOP) The last data collection campaign (NOP Winter -2009) managed to obtain data from 28 airports out of the 30 addressed. This represents a good improvement in terms of collaboration of airports to this process. The plan is to expand the number of airports covered in the Summer 2009 NOP cycle to 40 airports. Obtaining airport data remains a difficult issue. Therefore increasing the awareness of the NOP benefits to airport operations would be advisable in the near future. 9-7
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 9-8
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 10. AIRSPACE USERS VIEW ON THE SUMMER SEASON This chapter provides a consolidated view from the airlines, taken from material provided to EUROCONTROL by the IATA, IACA and ERA airline user groups at the end of the Summer season. Oil prices reached levels during Summer that could not have been forecast, rising to over USD145 a barrel at one point, with every increase of 1 dollar adding USD 1.6 billion to world-wide industry costs. This increase could only partially be passed on in ticket prices, with the remainder having to be absorbed into operating costs, leading to a high number of airline failures and mergers. The high fuel price combined with a deepening global recession led to a significant down-turn in the travel market and a sharp reduction in both holiday flights and in the number of business seats filled, with little prospect of an early recovery. This increases the impetus to improve efficiency across the board in airline ground operating costs and in flight efficiency. 10.1. The Flight Efficiency Plan (FEP) The FEP is a joint IATA/CANSO/EUROCONTROL initiative that brings visibility to a number of key initiatives that were already in place and agreed within various working arrangements. Covering letters sent to the ECAC members, ANSPs and airlines encouraged the action to be shared at all levels in their organisations. In particular, senior management of airline operations were requested to ensure that flight planning systems could react flexibly to changes in airspace availability. This has already resulted in a number of companies upgrading their systems while others are investigating the feasibility of so doing. Efforts have been in place for many years to reduce costs, but these were largely based on eliminating or reducing delays. However, the increase in the fuel price has meant that the efficient cost of a flight is greatly influenced by distance flown. With punctuality not necessarily the main driver, airlines may opt to accept a delay rather than increased distance. Airlines do however, recognise that there is a trade-off between capacity and efficiency. 10.2. s s rose to excessively high levels, particularly considering the reduced traffic. In trying to understand the available statistical data from a user s perspective, there are indications that ATFM problems are more widespread across ECAC rather than confined to a limited number of States. The delay per cause highlights the lack of ATC capacity (almost 50% of all delay) with ATC staffing remaining significant. In 1988 we experienced significant problems related to capacity and staffing: 20 years later we are subject to exactly the same problems. There needs to be a strict definition of "staffing delays", consistent across each State when applying this as a reason. The reason for the lack of staff should be clearly identified, and there should be full transparency of plans to resolve this issue. In addition, greater clarity of where the line is drawn between capacity and staffing would provide more visibility of airspace structure issues which may be easier to solve. The airline industry faces many difficulties at the moment but at the very least it should not expect an increase in ATFM delay at a time of zero or decreasing traffic growth. 10-1
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 10.3. Special Events Military Activity / Industrial Action The closure of large parts of the Bay of Biscay to accommodate missile firing once again caused severe disruption on several days and highlighted the need for greater network planning prior to the event to minimise delays and additional mileage. The rigidity of the RAD under such conditions forced some aircraft to groundstop for several hours due to the lack of available options. Industrial action throughout France in June was compounded by French military activity in the CBA1 area which reduced capacity through Dover, at a time when delays to avoid French airspace were significant elsewhere. Industrial action in Italy and Greece caused some disruption and a dispute affecting ATC staff at Ibiza during August delayed a number of weekend departures. Weather Weather disrupted operations during the height of the Summer with thunderstorm activity affecting many enroute sectors whilst heavy rain delayed flights at many airfields. ATC Equipment Problems with Dublin radar, the implementation of the new system in Denmark and the NATS failure in July caused disruption. Sporting Events The biggest challenge of the Summer was the Champions League Final: this was held in Moscow but both finalists were from the UK, requiring significant collaboration between ANSPs, the CFMU and the airlines. A number of ATC issues on the day affecting aircraft in flight highlighted the importance of creating a coordinated ATFM plan and sticking to it. The Euro football competition affecting Austria and Switzerland had little impact despite the many additional flights and central location. 10.4. Main Improvements South-West axis It has been a satisfactory season for the South-West axis in spite of traffic increases in a number of sectors at peak times. Operations to the Canaries, Morocco and Portugal have been good (apart from some arrival delays into the Canaries. The reduction in the numbers of scenarios applied at the weekend was appreciated, although the regular application of level-caps in Brest and Madrid airspace forced aircraft to operate at nonoptimal flight levels with a corresponding increase in fuel burn. Although operationally this has been a good axis, it is important not to forget that the ultimate aim is the best choice of route for each flight. The target is flight efficiency, not only the elimination of delays. With sufficient rerouteing, delays could almost disappear but at a significant extra cost in fuel and CO 2 emissions. 10-2
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 10.5. Areas of Concern North-East axis Great efforts are needed to ensure that the major problems in critical sectors in Maastricht, Germany and Austria are not repeated in 2009. Solutions must be found to minimise delay affecting major traffic flows in key sectors rather than offloading traffic (and delay) on to unprepared sectors elsewhere in the network. Vienna airport remains a bottleneck and at Düsseldorf airport unregulated start-up delays in the morning and departure regulations in the evening caused significant delay. The move to the new ACC in Copenhagen caused a lot of problems, with delays and rerouteing on a daily basis causing significant mileage increase. Although the problems in Poland are recognised, there should be a review of routes to bypass critical sectors and optimise the use of ATFCM procedures and processes. South-East axis The axis running through Croatia, Greece, Turkey and Cyprus has not performed well, with significant delays affecting key sectors. There is a need to openly define the problems and properly address them. RAD Apart from the southwest axis, there has been a marked increase in the use of RAD restrictions and shortnotice regulations which, whilst accepted during Summer, will be deeply unpopular if they remain in place or are increased for 2009. The increasingly complex RAD, the application of level-cap scenarios and the use of regulations have increased the workload of airline operations staff. 10.6. Conclusion The current challenges facing all sectors of aviation can only be conquered if there is universal understanding of the issues as they affect each component. For the airline industry, the immediate key concerns during were the high fuel price, fluctuating currency markets and the economic well-being of the travelling public. Over the next few years the industry will face further economic pressures including renewing fleets at a time of tighter credit, European environmental legislation and the cost of aircraft equipage to meet the SESAR requirements. The airline user groups fully support the flight efficiency initiatives proposed and are aware of the potential savings given the possibility to flight-plan on the most efficient routes. Studies have highlighted the numbers of direct segments being offered to aircraft during night hours and through restricted military areas during the day. Whilst changes in ATM service provision under SES legislation are to be welcomed, there is a concern that too much emphasis is being placed on the need to reduce delay to achieve various regulatory target levels. It is imperative that the aircraft operator be given the choice of whether to accept a delay, or take a longer route or level cap - only the airline is in the position to determine the extra costs they will bear as a result. Unfortunately, with so many external pressures on the airspace users, there may have appeared to be less of a willingness to participate in some of the collaborative activities such as the regular e-conferences held by the 10-3
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - CFMU. The airline industry has to accept that it must be fully involved in the collaborative planning process to help those providing an ATM service deliver both capacity and efficiency to the benefit of all. It has become increasingly difficult to forecast traffic evolution because of the uncertain economic situation. Although there may be a reduction of traffic in the short term, traffic growth will certainly resume at some point and it is essential to implement the many improvements that are in the process of development. 10-4
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - 11. PROSPECTS FOR 2009 Although overall traffic is expected to reduce in 2009, the significant shortage of qualified controllers across Europe will continue to prevent the opening of optimum sector configurations at peak times. This is likely to continue to cause high delays in many areas, because the peak hours demand will remain high, even where total traffic has reduced. In conjunction with the postponed implementation of new systems at Karlsruhe UAC, London ACC, Nicosia ACC and Warsaw ACC, these factors are likely to generate increased delay in 2009 and 2010. The lack of available controllers is particularly worrying during this period of global economic recession, when Air Navigation Service Providers are not only reluctant to invest, but in some cases are actively cutting back on recruitment of controllers. Past experience shows that traffic growth will certainly resume at some point and that it is likely to be at an accelerated rate. If controllers are not available to staff the sectors when required, the capacity gap will continue to widen, with little prospect of closure for many years. The map below shows the capacity increases planned by ANSPs for Summer, as detailed in the Summer 2009 Network Operations Plan. Figure 11-1 Capacity Increased Planned by ANSPs 11-1
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT - The map below gives the updated delay forecast, made in January 2009, applying the ACC capacity plans to a zero traffic growth scenario. The delay forecast will be further updated in April 2009, following the release of the STATFOR 2009 Medium-term Traffic Forecast (MTF). Figure 11-2 Summer Enroute Forecast The map below shows the STATFOR Short-Term Traffic Forecast (STF Feb. 09) per State for 2009. Figure 11-3 EUROCONTROL Short-Term Forecast 11-2
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 1. ANNEX I: ACC CAPACITY EVOLUTION The following annex provides a detailed analysis of ATC capacity evolution in for ACCs in ECAC States for which data is available. Statistics source is the CFMU unless otherwise indicated. The analysis covers: Traffic & The chart and data table provide comprehensive information concerning the evolution of traffic and delay from 2004 to (where data is available). It includes the following values: Peak day traffic is the number of flight entries to the ACC on the peak day of the year. Summer & Yearly Traffic is the daily average number of flight entries during the Summer season (May to October inclusive) or over the whole year (January to December). Summer & Yearly Enroute delay is the average enroute delay per flight (including weather and special events e.g. industrial action), attributed to the ACC during the Summer season (May to October inclusive) or over the whole year (January to December). Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution gives the percentage difference between the total traffic (number of flight entries) in compared to 2007, for Summer and the full year. Enroute gives the number of minutes per flight of enroute delay attributed to all causes and also excluding delays attributed to weather and special events. Values are provided for the Summer and the full year. Optimum delay per ACC is the delay associated with the capacity required to meet the expected demand at the ACC and to achieve the European enroute average delay target of 1 minute per flight. It is calculated according to the expected demand and the cost of provision of additional capacity at each ACC. Capacity Baseline: 1. ACCESS or Reverse CASA was used to measure the capacity actually offered by the ACC during the reference period (14-27 July ). This is calculated from actual delay (Reverse CASA) or from projected delay (ACCESS). Projected delay is obtained by increasing the traffic and creating a regulation scheme for the studied ACC using traffic volume capacities and configuration data (sector opening schemes) provided by ANSPs. 2. NEVAC measures the potential capacity of the ACC, i.e. that which could have been made available at the ACC during the reference period, if all existing sectors had been open and fully staffed. This potential capacity is calculated from the maximum configuration and traffic volume capacities, as recorded in the CFMU database by ANSPs. Planned capacity increase for Summer is the percentage value provided by ANSPs in the LCIP -2012 capacity plan, or as updated in the Summer Network Operations Plan. This figure represents the ANSP commitment to increasing ACC capacity for Summer, compared to Summer 2007. ACC ANNEX 1
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution Capacity enhancement: planned enablers This information is taken from the local capacity plan in the LCIP, including any updates in the Summer NOP. An indication is given as to whether each measure was implemented as planned. ACC capacity achievement This provides an analysis of the observed performance and of the achievement of the planned capacity increase. ACC performance has been assessed by analysing traffic and delay statistics for each ACC and the evolution of the capacity baseline. Where relevant, other significant factors were also taken into account, such as industrial action or planned major events that resulted in a temporary reduction in capacity. Allocation of and reasons for Enroute delay The table lists the reference locations (sectors) causing most of the ACC delay, the number of minutes of enroute delay attributed to each location and the percentage of the total ACC enroute delay. The graph shows the total ATFM enroute delay generated by each ACC, broken down into the 5 most significant reasons for the delay in compared to 2007. Note: The scale on all graphs varies from ACC to ACC - graphs should not be directly compared. ACC ANNEX 2
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 2. ALBANIA TIRANA ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LAAAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 490 531 531 640 626 Summer Traffic 358 399 415 487 494 Yearly Traffic 286 318 327 389 405 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 4.1% 0.1 0.1 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 1.5% 0.1 0.1 0.3-0.4 No 48 (2%) The average en-route delay per flight increased from zero in 2007 to 0.1 minutes per flight in. Capacity Plan +7% Achieved Comments ATS route network improvements Introduction of radar service for Terminal airspace Increased sector capacities New Voice Communications System Extended hours for radar service 4 additional controllers OLDI with Brindisi Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 39 and a maximum configuration of 3 sectors was opened. Declared sector capacities range from 10 to 27 flights per hour. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute No No Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LAAAHI2 7,068 min 59% LAAAHIGH 2,346 min 19% LAAAHI1 1,757 min 15% LAAAALL 876 min 7% 7,000 min 6,000 min 5,000 min 4,000 min 3,000 min 2,000 min 1,000 min 0 min 2007 En route ATC Capacity En route ATC Staffing En route Equipment (ATC) ACC ANNEX 3
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 3. ARMENIA YEREVAN ACC Traffic & UDDD Yerevan ACC traffic 6,000 5,000 4,000 Flights 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Jan-05 Apr-05 Jul-05 Oct-05 Jan-06 Apr-06 Jul-06 Oct-06 Jan-07 Apr-07 Jul-07 Oct-07 Jan-08 Apr-08 Jul-08 Oct-08 Jan-09 Month - Year Realisation of Capacity Plan Source: STATFOR Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year + 9.9% 0.0 0.0 Summer + 10.7% 0.0 0.0 0 No 25 (0%) Traffic figures provided by Armenia for the State (i.e. not only the ACC) Capacity Plan : Sufficient Capacity to meet demand Comments Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic and capacity baseline evolution, it is assessed that the capacity offered was more than enough to meet demand. ACC ANNEX 4
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 4. AUSTRIA VIENNA ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LOVVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 2185 2450 2501 2702 2841 Summer Traffic 1874 2126 2201 2390 2424 Yearly Traffic 1637 1820 1897 2072 2108 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,8 0,3 0,5 1,3 2,1 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,5 0,2 0,3 0,8 1,4 2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 1.7% 1.4 1.4 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 1.4 % 2.1 1.7 0.4 162 (1%) The average en-route delay per flight increased from 1.3 minutes in Summer 2007 to 2.1 minutes in Summer. Capacity Plan +5% Achieved Comments Additional controllers envisaged No Unexpected loss of controllers LAU + (vertical extension of Local Approach Units up to FL165) Minor ATS route adaptations Improved operational procedures No Sector configuration management Minor Dynamic Vertical Sectorisation No Postponed to 2009 Summer performance assessment It is assessed that the planned capacity increase was only partly achieved, as demonstrated by the traffic, delay and capacity baseline evolution. This was mainly due to a shortage of controllers, resulting in a maximum of 10 sectors being open during the Summer season, except in June when 14 were opened for EURO. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LOVVEAL1 210,157 min 20% LOVVWHT 175,196 min 17% LOVVWLU 125,273 min 12% LOVVWES 96,122 min 9% LOVVSHT 94,206 min 9% 800,000 min 700,000 min 600,000 min 500,000 min 400,000 min 300,000 min 200,000 min 100,000 min 0 min 2007 En route ATC Capacity En route ATC Staffing En route Weather En route Equipment (ATC) ACC ANNEX 5
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 5. AZERBAIJAN BAKU ACC Traffic & 120000 Azerbaijan: Baku FIR Total Traffic 100000 Total Flights 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 year 77907 85362 88364 93018 105403 summer 40238 43021 44744 47309 53941 Year Realisation of Capacity Plan Data Source: Azerbaijan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year + 13% 0.0 0.0 Summer + 14% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 40 (0%) Capacity Plan - Sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments ATS route network optimisation - an on-going process in cooperation with neighbouring States. Resectorisation of airspace structure No Planned in 2009-2011 Installation of new automated ATC systems in Baku, Ganja and Nakhchivan. Preparation phase is launched. Partially Preparation phase is in progress Summer performance assessment It is assessed that the capacity offered was more than enough to meet demand. ACC ANNEX 6
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 6. BELGIUM BRUSSELS ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EBBUACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1795 1921 2098 2077 2036 Summer Traffic 1429 1602 1668 1733 1712 Yearly Traffic 1359 1502 1556 1630 1606 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,2 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year -1.5% 0.2 0.2 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer -1.2% 0.0 0.0 0.1 No 131 (+ 2%) The average en-route delay per flight remained at the same level as in 2007. Capacity Plan +0% Achieved Comments Additional staff availability ATS route network improvements Optimum use of sector configurations Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and capacity baseline evolution, it is assessed that the capacity offered was enough to meet the demand. The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS. The NEVAC measured baseline, representing the potential capacity of the ACC if the optimum sector configuration was open, was 150. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 123 and the peak 3 hour demand was 110. A maximum configuration of 7 sectors was opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute No Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER EBBUHLC 34,936 min 34% EBBUEEC 31,131 min 31% EBBUNWC 29,299 min 29% EBBUWSC 1,726 min 2% EBBUESC 1,599 min 2% 80,000 min 70,000 min 60,000 min 50,000 min 40,000 min 30,000 min 20,000 min 10,000 min 0 min 2007 En route Equipment (ATC) En route ATC Staffing En route ATC Capacity En route Other En route Weather ACC ANNEX 7
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 7. BULGARIA SOFIA ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LBSRACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 940 1031 1036 1162 1948 Summer Traffic 718 797 793 898 1556 Yearly Traffic 552 609 619 705 1187 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 68%* 0.0 0.0 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 73%* 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 129 The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero, at the same level as in 2007. *The apparent traffic increase of 73% takes into account the relocation of Varna ACC into one single ACC in Sofia (February ). As the area of responsibility was increased, it should not be directly compared to 2007 level. Capacity Plan - Sufficient capacity to meet demand Achieved Comments SATCAS v2 implementation Implementation of single ACC Radar sharing and OLDI links with adjacent ACCs Summer performance assessment It is assessed that the capacity offered was more than enough to meet demand. A maximum 5 sector configuration was opened and the peak 1 hour demand was 109 during the measured period. The capacity baseline was measured by ACCESS and reflects the delivered capacity in the ACC. The maximum potential capacity of the ACC (all sectors opened) was estimated with NEVAC to be 187. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Total ER % of Total ACC ER Location LBSRVAA5 1,427 min 100% 1,200 min 1,000 min 800 min 600 min 2007 400 min 200 min 0 min En route Special Event En route Other ACC ANNEX 8
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 8. CROATIA ZAGREB ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LDZOACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1254 1380 1372 1607 1676 Summer Traffic 909 1048 1075 1246 1305 Yearly Traffic 704 818 829 974 1039 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 3,6 1,8 1,1 3,3 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 2,4 1,6 0,7 2,1 4,0 3,5 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity ACC Capacity Baseline gap? (% difference v 2007) Year + 6.6% 2.1 1.6 Summer + 4.8% 3.3 2.7 0.3-0.4 90 (-1%) The average en-route delay per flight increased from 1.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2007 to 3.3 minutes per flight in Summer. Capacity Plan +10% Achieved Comments Consolidation of operations and additional functionalities of CroATMS 3-7 additional controllers 13 additional controllers Sector configurations changes Limited impact on capacity 7% sector capacity increase Sector capacities reduced during the month of August due to over-deliveries Improved sector opening times No Application of sector occupancy techniques Limited application Optimisation of ATS route network SYSCO with Budapest ACC No Implementation postponed to 2011 7 sector configuration max No Maximum 6 sector configuration Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic and delay evolution, it is assessed that the capacity decreased by 1% in. The capacity gap increased during Summer. A maximum configuration of 6 sectors was opened, indicating that staffing was a serious issue during the Summer. Sector capacities had to be reduced during the month of August due to over-deliveries. Lack of adequate co-ordination between CFMU and ACCs on South-East axis contributed to the delays. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute 600,000 min Reference Total ER % of Total 2007 500,000 min Location ACC ER LDZON 166,748 400,000 min 21% min 300,000 min LDZOS 138,749 200,000 min 17% min 100,000 min LDZOTA 131,332 16% 0 min min En route ATC Capacity En route Weather En route Equipment (ATC) En route ATC Staffing En route Military Activity LDZOULA 108,330 13% min LDZOULW 75,361 min 9% M arch 2009 ACC ANNEX 9
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 9. CYPRUS NICOSIA ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 LCCCACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 3,5 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 793 809 864 923 1050 Summer Traffic 609 618 641 718 806 Yearly Traffic 562 568 590 660 739 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,7 1,2 1,1 1,8 3,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,5 0,9 0,8 1,5 2,7 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 12.3% 2.7 2.2 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 12.3% 3.0 3.0 0.5 51 (6%) The average en-route delay per flight increased from 1.8 minutes in Summer 2007 to 3.0 minutes in Summer, considerably higher than the optimum for the ACC. Capacity Plan +5% Achieved Comments Increased sector opening hours Additional staff (radar and APP) Maximum of 3 sectors Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and capacity baseline evolution, it is assessed that the offered capacity increased according to the plan (+6%), but there nevertheless remains a significant capacity gap. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LCCCE2S 332,423 min 46% LCCCWN 207,004 min 29% LCCCSWN 91,557 min 13% LCCCE1 58,154 min 8% LCCCES 24,391 min 3% 700,000 min 600,000 min 500,000 min 400,000 min 300,000 min 200,000 min 100,000 min 0 min 2007 En route ATC Capacity En route Equipment (ATC) En route ATC Staffing En route Military Activity ACC ANNEX 10
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 10. CZECH REPUBLIC PRAGUE ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 LKAAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1885 1997 2035 2147 2245 Summer Traffic 1661 1740 1791 1894 2000 Yearly Traffic 1452 1565 1597 1690 1782 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 1,3 1,2 1,3 1,0 0,6 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,7 0,4 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 5.4% 0.4 0.4 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 5.6% 0.6 0.5 0.3 136 (+9%) The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 1.0 minutes in Summer 2007 to 0.6 minutes in Summer. Capacity Plan +5% Achieved Comments Improved flow and capacity management techniques Adaptation of sector opening times depending on available staff Improved ATS route network & sectorisation Additional controllers Benefits from 2007 re-sectorisation Improvements of system functionalities On-going Summer performance assessment It is assessed that a capacity increase of 9% was achieved, higher than planned, as demonstrated by the traffic, delay and capacity baseline evolution. The capacity baseline was measured with Reverse CASA, indicating the capacity actually offered. The capacity gap was reduced compared to Summer 2007. A maximum 8 sector configuration was opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LKAAWL 98,809 min 34% LKAANEH 54,525 min 19% LKAANEHT 34,615 min 12% LKAASEL 27,829 min 10% LKAASWM 23,306 min 8% 400,000 min 350,000 min 300,000 min 250,000 min 200,000 min 150,000 min 100,000 min 50,000 min 0 min 2007 En route ATC Capacity En route Weather En route ATC Staffing En route Military Activity ACC ANNEX 11
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 11. DENMARK COPENHAGEN ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EKDKACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1694 1630 1720 1783 1760 Summer Traffic 1428 1427 1496 1561 1561 Yearly Traffic 1370 1378 1430 1493 1457 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,0 0,6 0,1 1,8 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,0 0,3 0,1 2,3 2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) Year - 2.4% 2.3 1.1 All Without weather Capacity ACC Capacity Baseline Optimum reasons & special events gap? (% difference v 2007) Summer 0% 1.8 1.8 0.2 103 (-15%) The average en-route delay per flight increased from 0.1 minutes in Summer 2007 to 1.8 minutes in Summer. Capacity Plan +0 % Achieved Comments New ATM System Gradual increase of number of controllers Still in progress Sector configurations adapted to traffic demand No Due to lack of staff Summer performance assessment Due to lack of staff, a maximum of 3 (E) + 2 (W) sectors were opened. The sector capacities were gradually increased during the year, but the full benefit of the new ATM system is still dependant on the staffing situation. Therefore the result for is not representative for which capacity the new system can deliver. The capacity baseline for Copenhagen TMA is 83 flights/h, which is sufficient to cope with the traffic demand (peak 1 hour at 61 flights). Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER EKDKACUAUC 468,107 min 38% EKDKLVUV 314,370 min 26% EKDKBDEI 106,203 min 9% EKDKACCW 87,450 min 7% EKDKNS 84,849 min 7% 700,000 min 600,000 min 500,000 min 400,000 min 300,000 min 200,000 min 100,000 min 0 min 2007 En route Special Event En route ATC Staffing En route ATC Capacity En route Military Activity En route Other ACC ANNEX 12
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 12. ESTONIA TALLINN ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EETTACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 329 452 482 529 Summer Traffic 260 373 421 468 Yearly Traffic 237 332 386 433 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 12.2% 0.0 0.0 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 11.2% 0.0 0.0 0.1 No 54 (0%) Average enroute ATFM delay remained at zero, as in Summer 2007. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Additional staff and controller rating Adaptation of sector opening times Availability of additional sectors Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured using ACCESS. The peak 1 hour demand was 43 flights, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet the high traffic increase, with spare capacity remaining in the system. During the measured period a maximum configuration of two sectors was opened. No No Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER EETTALL 2,567 min 87% *INTO 375 min 13% 2,000 min 1,800 min 1,600 min 1,400 min 1,200 min 1,000 min 800 min 600 min 400 min 200 min 2007 0 min En route Other En route ATC Capacity ACC ANNEX 13
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 13. EUROCONTROL MAASTRICHT ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EDYYUAC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 4388 4713 4982 5165 5245 Summer Traffic 4006 4286 4552 4729 4752 Yearly Traffic 3713 3975 4209 4412 4397 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,8 0,2 0,3 0,9 0,6 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,6 0,1 0,3 0,6 0,5 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year - 0.3% 0.5 0.4 Summer + 0.5% 0.6 0.6 0.5 At limit 306 (+5%) The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 0.9 minutes in Summer 2007 to 0.6 minutes in Summer. The average enroute delay per delayed flight slightly increased from 15.4 minutes in Summer 2007 to 15.7 minutes in Summer. Capacity Plan +2% Achieved Comments Phased exploitation and further development of N-FDPS Implemented in November Improved efficiency and flexibility of rosters enabled by new roster and break planner tools MPP improved by increased availability of controllers Tactical Capacity Management (TCM), Pre-tactical Cell and Central Supervisory Suite (CSS) On-going Benefits from DMEAN implementation programme Increased benefit from AGDL applications through progressively Only 2% of flights in MUAC airspace No higher equipage rate and new applications equipped Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and capacity baseline evolution, it is assessed that the planned capacity increase was exceeded. The capacity baseline was measured with Reverse CASA at 306. During the same period, the peak 1 hour demand was 333 and the peak 3 hour demand was 304. Maximum sector configurations opened were: Brussels group - 6 sectors, DECO group - 5 sectors and Hannover group - 7 sectors. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Total ER % of Total 60,000 min Location ACC ER 50,000 min EDYYLXL 144,497 min 19% 40,000 min EDYYMNS 104,914 min 13% 30,000 min EDYYESHI 62,183 min 8% 20,000 min EDYYWSL 58,277 min 7% 10,000 min EDYYHAM 40,752 min 5% 0 min En route Equipment (ATC) En route ATC Staffing En route ATC Capacity En route Other En route Special Event 2007 ACC ANNEX 14
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 14. FINLAND ROVANIEMI ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EFPSACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 250 200 150 100 50 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 165 169 198 192 163 Summer Traffic 82 82 86 80 81 Yearly Traffic 92 91 96 92 92 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events 0.0 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year - 0.4% 0.0 Summer + 1.8% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 25 (0%) Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero minutes, as in Summer 2007. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Comments Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed during the Summer season (July/August). The high season for Rovaniemi ACC is January to March. A maximum configuration of 1 sector was open. ACC ANNEX 15
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 15. FINLAND TAMPERE ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EFESACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 635 652 630 613 632 Summer Traffic 469 492 467 454 475 Yearly Traffic 481 495 475 460 474 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,3 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year + 3.0% 0.0 0.0 Summer + 4.7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 56 (0%) As in Summer 2007, the average enroute delay per flight in Summer was zero. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Comments Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured using ACCESS/NEVAC during June/July. The high season for Tampere ACC is March/April. A maximum configuration of 5 sectors was opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Total ER % of Total Location ACC ER EFESC15 505 min 65% EFESC12 179 min 23% EFESC45 75 min 10% EFPS67 21 min 3% 2,500 min 2,000 min 1,500 min 1,000 min 500 min 0 min 2007 En route Equipment (ATC) En route Industrial Action (ATC) En route ATC Capacity En route ATC Staffing ACC ANNEX 16
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 16. FRANCE BORDEAUX ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LFBBALL - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 2580 2604 2784 3031 3066 Summer Traffic 2232 2271 2428 2589 2627 Yearly Traffic 2005 2056 2178 2313 2324 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 0.5% 0.0 0.0 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 1.5% 0.1 0.1 No 0.3-0.4 191 (3%) Average enroute delay per flight remained around 0.1 minutes in Summer, the same as during Summer 2007. Capacity Plan +5% Achieved Comments Improved Airspace Management and ATFCM Procedures Staff deployment / Flexible rostering Re-design of sector H Maximum of 20 sectors Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and baseline evolution, it is assessed that the planned capacity increase was achieved. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Total ER % of Total 60,000 min Location ACC ER 50,000 min LFBBUSUD 5,522 min 15% 40,000 min LFBBP123 4,217 min 11% 30,000 min LFBBR2 3,436 min 9% 20,000 min LFBBZX4 3,406 min 9% 10,000 min LFBBX4 3,216 min 9% 0 min En route Industrial Action (ATC) En route ATC Capacity En route Weather En route Equipment (ATC) En route Other 2007 ACC ANNEX 17
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 17. FRANCE BREST ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LFRRACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 3073 3089 3154 3472 3537 Summer Traffic 2420 2502 2618 2824 2793 Yearly Traffic 2158 2243 2320 2491 2461 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,2 0,8 0,2 0,2 0,1 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,5 0,5 0,2 0,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year - 1.2% 0.1 0.1 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer - 1.1% 0.1 0.1 0.2 No 214 (6%) Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.2 minutes per flight in 2007 to 0.1 minutes per flight in. Capacity Plan +5% Achieved Comments Improved airspace management and ATFM procedures Staff redeployment / flexible rostering Maximum of 17 sectors Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and capacity baseline evolution, it is assessed that the planned capacity increase of 5% was slightly exceeded. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Total ER % of Total 140,000 min 120,000 min Location ACC ER 100,000 min LFRRZX 18,898 min 22% 80,000 min LFRRFNORD 9,076 min 11% 60,000 min LFRRAS 8,004 min 9% 40,000 min LFRRJHU 6,419 min 7% 20,000 min LFRRZIU 6,390 min 7% 0 min 2007 En route ATC Capacity En route Industrial Action (ATC) En route Other En route Weather ACC ANNEX 18
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 18. FRANCE MARSEILLE ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LFMMACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 3374 3455 3589 3893 4018 Summer Traffic 2780 2885 3006 3261 3285 Yearly Traffic 2461 2557 2661 2870 2868 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,2 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year - 0.1% 0.1 0.1 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 0.7% 0.2 0.1 0.1 No 250 (0%) Average enroute delay per flight increased from zero in Summer 2007 to 0.2 minutes per flight in Summer. Capacity Plan +5% Achieved Comments Improved airspace management and ATFM procedures Staff redeployment / flexible rostering Provence project (MTL for October ) Reorganisation of Nice TMA SBAM Project New DFL for Y sectors Reorganisation of interface with LECB (MAMES) Maximum of 28 sectors (if required) Summer performance assessment It is assessed that the capacity offered was sufficient to meet the demand. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute On-going Further refinements are envisaged Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LFMMDSUP 20,423 min 18% LFMMFF 16,721 min 15% LFMMF3 7,376 min 7% LFMMB2 5,270 min 5% 80,000 min 70,000 min 60,000 min 50,000 min 40,000 min 30,000 min 20,000 min 10,000 min 2007 LFMMDINF 5,253 min 5% 0 min En route ATC Capacity En route Equipment (ATC) En route Industrial Action (ATC) En route ATC Staffing En route Weather ACC ANNEX 19
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 19. FRANCE PARIS ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LFFFALL - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 3891 3967 4030 4272 4192 Summer Traffic 3398 3434 3528 3657 3628 Yearly Traffic 3222 3259 3358 3477 3449 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,5 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year - 0.8% 0.5 0.5 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer - 0.8% 0.4 0.4 0.2-0.3 At limit 259 (0%) Average enroute delay per flight stayed around 0.4 minutes per flight in Summer, at the same level as in Summer 2007. Capacity Plan +3% Achieved Comments Improved airspace management and ATFM procedures Staff redeployment / flexible rostering Maximum of 24 sectors Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and capacity baseline evolution, it is assessed that the capacity remained at the same level as in 2007. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute 450,000 min Reference Total ER % of Total 400,000 min Location ACC ER 350,000 min 300,000 min LFFFUJ 234,824 min 37% 250,000 min LFFFTE 134,981 min 21% 200,000 min LFFFAOML 49,302 min 8% 150,000 min 100,000 min OMAKO 34,050 min 5% 50,000 min LFFFTP 29,568 min 5% 0 min En route ATC Capacity En route Industrial Action (ATC) En route Weather En route Military Activity En route Equipment (ATC) 2007 ACC ANNEX 20
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 20. FRANCE REIMS ACC Traffic & LFEEACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays IFR flights (Daily Average) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 2548 2589 2787 2927 3035 Summer Traffic 2298 2341 2493 2626 2680 Yearly Traffic 2121 2181 2306 2451 2459 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 1,1 0,7 0,4 0,8 0,8 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,7 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,5 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 0.3% 0.5 0.5 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 2.0% 0.8 0.7 0.5 At limit 177 (4%) Average enroute delay per flight stayed around 0.8 minutes per flight in Summer, at the same level as in Summer 2007. Capacity Plan +5% Achieved Comments Improved airspace management and ATFM procedures Staff redeployment / flexible rostering UN/UB (resectorisation of UN/XN) Maximum of 14 sectors Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and capacity baseline evolution, it is assessed that the planned capacity increase was met. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LFEEUHL 64,923 min 13% LFEE2F 56,264 min 11% LFEEXEKE 50,680 min 10% LFEEXHKH 48,820 min 10% 350,000 min 300,000 min 250,000 min 200,000 min 150,000 min 100,000 min 50,000 min 2007 LFEEURXR 29,224 min 6% 0 min En route ATC Capacity En route Equipment (ATC) En route Weather En route Military Activity En route ATC Staffing ACC ANNEX 21
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 21. FYROM SKOPJE ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LWSSACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 559 568 615 595 597 Summer Traffic 368 390 425 447 457 Yearly Traffic 278 294 315 330 336 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year + 1.9% 0.0 0.0 Summer + 2.2 % 0.0 0.0 0.1 No 59 (0%) The delays remained at zero during Summer. Capacity Plan +0% Achieved Comments Controller ratings Airspace structure developments Maximum configuration of 3 sectors Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with NEVAC to be 59, at the same level as last year. The NEVAC capacity baseline reflects the maximum potential capacity of the ACC. The delivered capacity, calculated with ACCESS, was 46. This was sufficient to accommodate the traffic demand, with an average peak 1 hour of 36 during the measured period. A maximum 2 sector configuration was opened. ACC ANNEX 22
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 22. GERMANY BREMEN ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EDWWACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1244 1277 1689 2292 2369 Summer Traffic 998 1011 1054 1862 1900 Yearly Traffic 929 949 1001 1741 1762 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 1.2% 0.2 0.1 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 2.0% 0.2 0.2 0.1 No 159 (1 %) The average ATFM delay en-route per movement remained close to zero minutes, as in Summer 2007. Capacity Plan +5% Achieved Comments Consolidation of operations of Bremen ACC following The relocation was completed relocation of Berlin North and Additional feeder position successfully on 16.12.2006. for Berlin APP Upgrade of P1/ATCAS system (PSS) Sector family The realisation was completed EDWW South successfully on 04.10. The realisation is planned for Planed closure of Berlin Tempelhof airport the 31.10.. Summer performance assessment The capacity delivered in was in line with the traffic demand evolution, and sufficient to maintain a very low level of delays. A maximum configuration of 12 en-route sectors and 6 APP (Berlin, Hamburg, Hannover) sectors was available. Only 11 en-route sectors were opened during the whole year. The ALEL sector was always combined. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER EDWWDSTC 26,455 min 27% EDWWHAN 17,410 min 17% EDWWEMSC 13,245 min 13% EDWWHAMC 10,844 min 11% EDWWHRZ 9,740 min 10% 60,000 min 50,000 min 40,000 min 30,000 min 20,000 min 10,000 min 0 min En route Equipment (ATC) En route ATC Staffing En route ATC Capacity En route Other En route Special Event 2007 ACC ANNEX 23
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 23. GERMANY KARLSRUHE ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 EDUUUAC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 2960 4343 4594 4676 4867 Summer Traffic 2730 3923 4115 4324 4413 Yearly Traffic 2467 3350 3712 3924 4015 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,4 1,3 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,9 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 2.3% 0.9 0.7 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer 1.3 1.1 0.1-0.2 + 2.0% 274 (-6 %) The Average ATFM delay enroute per movement increased significantly from 0.4 during Summer 2007 to 1.4 during Summer. There is also a high increase to 1.0 when delay due to weather is excluded. The main reasons are staffing problems. Capacity Plan 0% Achieved Comments No measures were planned Summer performance assessment A maximum configuration of 24 sectors was opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER EDUUERLT 174,586 min 13% EDUUHVL 148,188 min 11% EDUUSAL 141,954 min 11% EDUUWURT 121,339 min 9% EDUUFUL 100,750 min 8% 600,000 min 500,000 min 400,000 min 300,000 min 200,000 min 100,000 min 0 min En route ATC Staffing En route ATC Capacity En route Weather En route Military Activity En route Aerodrome Capacity 2007 ACC ANNEX 24
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 24. GERMANY LANGEN ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EDGGALL - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 4001 4142 4578 4365 4425 Summer Traffic 3511 3611 3737 3808 3811 Yearly Traffic 3313 3406 3505 3597 3578 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,5 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,2 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,3 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year - 0.5% 0.3 0.3 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 0.1% 0.5 0.4 0.1-0.2 267 (-3 %) The average ATFM en-route per movement increased slightly from 0.2 minutes in Summer 2007 to 0.4 minutes in Summer, without weather, remaining close to the optimum. Capacity Plan +3% Restructure of route network and sectorisation in South/Eastern airspace of Langen ACC Achieved Comments The restructure was completed successfully on 18.02.. Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic and delay evolution, it is assessed that the offered capacity decreased in. The delays were mainly due to ATC Staffing (39%), ATC Capacity (30%) and Weather (22%). A maximum configuration of 24 En-route sectors (including 3 sectors with predominantly military traffic) and 10 APP (Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Köln/Bonn and Stuttgart) sectors were opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER EDGGADL 137,358 min 35% EDGGGEHE 38,853 min 10% EDGGMGB 31,061 min 8% EDGGKIRU 23,965 min 6% EDGGHMM 21,570 min 5% 180,000 min 160,000 min 140,000 min 120,000 min 100,000 min 80,000 min 60,000 min 40,000 min 20,000 min 0 min En route ATC Staffing En route ATC Capacity En route Weather En route Equipment (ATC) En route ATC Routeing 2007 ACC ANNEX 25
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 25. GERMANY MUNICH ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EDMMACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 3256 3649 4635 4788 4914 Summer Traffic 2896 3289 4018 4315 4440 Yearly Traffic 2607 2940 3522 3915 4022 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,2 0,2 0,3 0,3 0,3 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,2 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 2.7% 0.2 0.1 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 2.9% 0.3 0.1 0.1 No 320 (0 %) The average ATFM delay enroute per movement in Summer was close to optimum, remaining at the same level as in Summer 2007: 0.3 minutes, reducing to 0.1 minutes when delay due to weather is excluded. A high proportion of the delay at Munich ACC is due to weather. Capacity Plan +1% Achieved Comments Restructure of sector families North/South Summer 2007 performance assessment No The restructure is postponed to 2009 and 2011. Considering the traffic, delay and baseline evolution, it is assessed that the capacity plan was achieved. A maximum configuration of 21 en-route sectors and 4 APP (Munich) sectors was opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER EDMMALPT 29,583 min 9% EDMMRDEG 29,094 min 9% EDMMKPTH 26,270 min 8% EDMMDONUT 25,729 min 8% EDMMCHILH 22,391 min 7% 250,000 min 200,000 min 150,000 min 100,000 min 50,000 min 0 min 2007 En route Weather En route ATC Capacity En route ATC Staffing En route Equipment (ATC) En route Other ACC ANNEX 26
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 26. GREECE ATHENS ACC Traffic & 2500 LGGGACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2,5 IFR flights (Daily Average) 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1764 1740 1900 1968 2087 Summer Traffic 1332 1325 1380 1483 1515 Yearly Traffic 1070 1059 1090 1171 1201 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,0 0,3 1,0 2,3 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,6 1,4 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 2.6% 1.4 1.4 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 2.2% 2.3 2.3 0.2 95 (0%) Average enroute delay per flight increased from 1.0 minutes per flight in Summer 2007 to 2.3 minutes per flight in Summer, rising significantly above the optimum. Capacity Plan +4% Achieved Comments Max conf 8 sectors No Maximum 7 sectors opened Upgrade of Planner position On-going Will be done in Dec Improved ATS route network and airspace management Improved civil/military coordination Recruitment & training of additional controllers On-going Availability of additional controllers Availability of new sectorisation No On-going assessment of new sectorisation FDPS upgrades Additional CFMU messages On-going Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and baseline evolution, it is assessed that the capacity plan was not achieved, and that the capacity offered was no more than during Summer 2007. A maximum 7 sector configuration was opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute No Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LGGGMIL 173,187 min 28% LGGGKFPL 172,246 min 27% LGGGRDS 131,316 min 21% LGGGMLST 60,926 min 10% 600,000 min 500,000 min 400,000 min 300,000 min 200,000 min 100,000 min 2007 LGGGSTKA 24,896 min 4% 0 min En route ATC Capacity En route ATC Staffing En route Equipment (ATC) En route Industrial Action (ATC) En route Military Activity ACC ANNEX 27
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 27. GREECE MAKEDONIA ACC Traffic & 1600 LGMDACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2,0 IFR flights (Daily Average) 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1262 1231 1329 1420 1461 Summer Traffic 876 974 1011 1121 1177 Yearly Traffic 658 739 766 858 914 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,4 1,5 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,9 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 6.6% 0.9 0.9 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 5.0% 1.5 1.5 0.3 72 (-3%) Average enroute delay per flight increased from 0.4 minutes per flight in Summer 2007 to 1.5 minutes per flight in Summer, rising significantly above the optimum. Capacity Plan +4% Achieved Comments Max conf 4 sectors Partially Upgrade of Planner position On-going Will be done in Dec Improved ATS route network and airspace management Improved civil/military coordination Recruitment and training of controllers On-going Availability of additional controllers Availability of new sectorisation No On-going assessment of new sectorisation FDPS upgrades Additional CFMU messages On-going Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and baseline evolution, it is assessed that the capacity plan was not achieved, and that the capacity offered was lower than during Summer 2007. A maximum configuration of 4 sectors was opened for limited periods of time. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute No Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LGMDW 284,508 min 90% LGMDE 23,309 min 7% LGMDEU 6,451 min 2% LGMDWU 1,342 min 0% 300,000 min 250,000 min 200,000 min 150,000 min 100,000 min 50,000 min 2007 LGMDEL 791 min 0% 0 min En route ATC Capacity En route Equipment (ATC) En route ATC Staffing En route Not regulated/not specified ACC ANNEX 28
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 28. HUNGARY BUDAPEST ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LHCCACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1939 2183 2235 2340 2372 Summer Traffic 1608 1795 1858 1903 1922 Yearly Traffic 1326 1476 1553 1588 1602 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Year + 0.9% 0.0 Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? Summer +1.0% 0.0 0.0 0.1 No The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes in Summer, as in Summer 2007. Capacity Plan +2% Achieved Comments Optimisation of airspace structure Ongoing Recruitment and training of controllers Ongoing 0.0 ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) ACC: 161 (0%) TMA: 40 (0%) Further improvements to Terminal airspace No Unnecessary due decrease of traffic 9 sectors available if required Achieved Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baselines were measured with ACCESS/NEVAC. During the measured period, a maximum 7 sector configuration was open in the ACC, the peak 1 hour demand was 144 and the peak 3 hour demand was 131, indicating that there is spare capacity in the system. In the TMA, the P1H demand was 29, the P3H demand was 25 and 3 sector were open. ACC ANNEX 29
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 29. IRELAND DUBLIN ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EIDWACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 646 670 720 758 758 Summer Traffic 569 586 618 668 661 Yearly Traffic 526 539 567 622 620 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 1,9 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,4 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 1,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,3 2,0 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year - 0.4% 0.3 0.3 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer - 1.0% 0.4 0.4 0.3 No 46 (-19%) Average enroute delay per flight increased from 0 minutes in Summer 2007 to 0.4 minutes per flight in Summer, slightly above the optimum. Capacity Plan +5% Achieved Comments Improved route network at Manchester interface Introduction of Departure Controller No Planned Q2 2009 FAB with UK/NATS Summer performance assessment The capacity baseline was calculated with Reverse CASA to be 46, representing the delivered capacity. A maximum 2 sector configuration was opened. The peak 1 hour demand was 51 and the peak 3 hour demand was 43. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER EIDWCTA 61,842 min 80% EIDWCT 10,551 min 14% EIDWCTN 5,319 min 7% 50,000 min 45,000 min 40,000 min 35,000 min 30,000 min 25,000 min 20,000 min 15,000 min 10,000 min 5,000 min 0 min En route Equipment (ATC) En route ATC Staffing En route ATC Capacity En route Other En route Not regulated/not specified 2007 ACC ANNEX 30
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 30. IRELAND SHANNON ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EISNACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1139 1425 1451 1537 1578 Summer Traffic 934 1225 1247 1333 1324 Yearly Traffic 857 1101 1146 1205 1204 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year - 0.1% 0.1 0.0 Summer - 0.7% 0.1 0.1 0.3 No 109 (2%) Average enroute delay per flight increased from zero minutes in Summer 2007, to 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer. Capacity Plan +5% Achieved Comments Extra sectors as required FAB with UK/NATS Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and baseline evolution, it is assessed that the capacity offered was slightly below the plan. A maximum 7 sector configuration was opened. The ACCESS measured baseline of 109 indicates the capacity available during the measured period, when the peak 1 hour demand was 105, and the peak 3 hour demand was 96. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER EISNCLA 6,854 min 31% EISNDEL 4,530 min 20% EISNLSS 4,156 min 19% EISNACN 1,775 min 8% EISNLOW 1,730 min 8% 16,000 min 14,000 min 12,000 min 10,000 min 8,000 min 6,000 min 4,000 min 2,000 min 0 min 2007 En route Equipment (ATC) En route Special Event En route ATC Capacity En route ATC Staffing ACC ANNEX 31
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 31. ITALY BRINDISI ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LIBBACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1288 1210 1175 1316 1480 Summer Traffic 911 901 933 1005 1058 Yearly Traffic 758 752 778 837 865 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year + 3.4% 0.0 0.0 Summer + 5.3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 117 (0%) Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero, the same as during Summer 2007. Capacity Plan +3% Achieved Comments Revised sector loads and sector optimisation Route network improvements VDL Mode 2 On-going process Improved Mode S infrastructure On-going process DMEAN MACCARESE PSR/SSR in Brindisi MRT Availability of OLDI links with Tirana ACC and Belgrade On-going Automation with Bari APP and Lametia APP On-going Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and baseline evolution, it is assessed that the capacity offered was in line with the increase in demand. The ACC capacity baseline of 117 (measured with NEVAC) reflects the potential capacity of the ACC the peak hour demand during Summer remained below this level, demonstrating that there is spare capacity in the system. A maximum 6 sector configuration was opened. ACC ANNEX 32
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 32. ITALY MILAN ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LIMMACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 2072 2176 2296 2331 2306 Summer Traffic 1768 1829 1931 2031 1923 Yearly Traffic 1645 1703 1786 1893 1783 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,2 0,3 0,3 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Without weather & special events Year - 5.8% 0.0 0.0 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer - 5.3% 0.0 0.0 0.3-0.4 No 164 (1%) Average enroute delay per flight stayed at zero in Summer. Even though the area of responsibility was increased (2 extra flight levels) in June, there was a reduction of traffic following Alitalia crisis. Capacity Plan +3% Achieved Comments Revised sector loads and sector optimisation DMEAN actions Improvement of Mode S infrastructure On-going Military CBA with Switzerland On-going AMAN at Milan Malpensa Completed 1 st phase VDL Mode 2 On-going Change of DFL between Roma and Milano ACC (new DFL 315) In June Summer performance assessment A maximum of 17 sectors were opened. Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LIMMW3 1,879 min 33% LIMMCTA 1,269 min 22% LIMMANE 950 min 16% LIMMES2 664 min 12% LIMMADEST 525 min 9% 16,000 min 14,000 min 12,000 min 10,000 min 8,000 min 6,000 min 4,000 min 2,000 min 0 min 2007 En route Weather En route Industrial Action (ATC) En route ATC Capacity ACC ANNEX 33
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 33. ITALY PADOVA ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LIPPACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 2130 2337 2354 2584 2779 Summer Traffic 1794 1922 2005 2190 2107 Yearly Traffic 1548 1639 1715 1879 1799 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,6 0,6 0,4 0,6 0,2 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,4 0,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Year - 4.3% 0.1 Without weather & special events 0.1 Optimum Capacity ACC Capacity Baseline gap? (% difference v 2007) Summer - 3.8% 0.2 0.1 0.4-0.5 No 176 (11%) Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.6 minutes in Summer 2007 to 0.2 minutes in Summer, well below the optimum. Capacity Plan +5% Achieved Comments Revised sector loads and sector optimisation Improved Mode S infrastructure On-going DMEAN actions Military CBA with Switzerland On-going Improved Garda CTR & R49 area On-going Implementation of 12 th sector Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and capacity baseline evolution, it is assessed that the planned capacity increase was exceeded. A maximum 12 sector configuration was opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LIPPNTT 17,499 min 29% LIPPST 13,589 min 23% LIPPSU 7,521 min 13% LIPPNTS 4,569 min 8% LIPPSL 3,664 min 6% 200,000 min 180,000 min 160,000 min 140,000 min 120,000 min 100,000 min 80,000 min 60,000 min 40,000 min 20,000 min 0 min En route ATC Capacity En route Weather En route Industrial Action (ATC) En route Not regulated/not specified 2007 ACC ANNEX 34
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 34. ITALY ROME ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LIRRACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 3126 3348 3425 3677 3773 Summer Traffic 2613 2738 2827 3093 3110 Yearly Traffic 2309 2413 2478 2705 2700 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,2 0,2 0,3 0,1 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year - 0.2% 0.0 0.0 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 0.6% 0.0 0.0 0.1-0.2 No 236 (1%) Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.1 minutes in Summer 2007, to zero minute in Summer. Capacity Plan +3 % Achieved Comments Revised sector loads and sector optimisation Optimum max configurations Improved Mode S infrastructure On-going DMEAN actions VDL Mode 2 On-going ATM system improvements Additional staff (approx. 20/year) AMAN at FCO 1 st phase completed Change of DFL between Roma and Milano ACC (new DFL 315) In June Reorganisation of NE/NW sectors and possible availability of 1 additional sector Military CBA with Switzerland On-going Automation with Olbia APP to increase capacity in EW1 sector Summer performance assessment A maximum 18 sector configuration was opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LIRREWM 4,946 min 49% LIRRIEWL 1,515 min 15% LIRRMI2 1,492 min 15% LIRRMI1 1,058 min 11% LIRREW3 413 min 4% 20,000 min 18,000 min 16,000 min 14,000 min 12,000 min 10,000 min 8,000 min 6,000 min 4,000 min 2,000 min 0 min En route ATC Capacity En route Weather En route Military Activity En route Not regulated/not specified 2007 ACC ANNEX 35
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 35. LATVIA RIGA ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EVRRACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 452 534 575 630 Summer Traffic 386 457 518 556 Yearly Traffic 354 416 476 515 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity ACC Capacity Baseline gap? (% difference v 2007) Year + 8.2% 0.0 0.0 Summer + 7.4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 63 (0%) As in 2007, Riga ACC did not generate enroute ATFM delay. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Comments Various ATM system improvements Summer performance assessment The average peak 3 hour demand was 44 and the peak 1 hour demand was 49 flights during the measured period, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet the demand with spare capacity in the system. ACC ANNEX 36
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 36. LITHUANIA VILNIUS ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EYVCACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 361 450 622 771 Summer Traffic 308 390 536 630 Yearly Traffic 282 356 477 584 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year + 22.4% 0.0 0.0 Summer + 17.5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 77 (38%) In Summer, no enroute ATFM delay was generated by Vilnius ACC, as in Summer 2007. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments ATS route network improvements Consolidation of operations of the new ATM system Maximum configuration of 2 sectors Summer performance assessment The capacity baseline was estimated by NEVAC to be 77, showing a 38% growth compared to 2007. This is in line with the sector capacities increases. The peak 1 hour demand was 52 and the peak 3 hour demand was 45 during the measured period (June/July ). ACC ANNEX 37
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 37. MALTA MALTA ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LMMMACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 276 283 277 313 336 Summer Traffic 222 229 226 246 253 Yearly Traffic 200 207 207 223 231 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year + 3.7% 0.0 0.0 Summer + 3.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 39 (0%) Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero, as in Summer 2007. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Comments Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with NEVAC and indicates the maximum potential capacity of the ACC. The peak 1 hour demand was 21 flights and the peak 3 hour demand was 17, indicating that the ACC has sufficient capacity to meet the demand with spare capacity in the system. ACC ANNEX 38
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 38. MOLDOVA CHISINAU ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LUUUACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 92 106 123 146 165 Summer Traffic 73 79 86 105 125 Yearly Traffic 64 70 75 94 110 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year + 17.5% 0.0 0.0 Summer + 19% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 40 (0%) As in 2007, Chisinau ACC did not generate ATFM delay Planned Capacity Increase: Comments Sufficient to meet demand Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with NEVAC. The peak 1 hour demand during the measured period was 15 flights, indicating that the ACC has sufficient capacity to meet the demand with spare capacity in the system. ACC ANNEX 39
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 39. THE NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM ACC Traffic & EHAAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays IFR flights (Daily Average) 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1658 1657 1794 1780 1720 Summer Traffic 1463 1462 1535 1588 1543 Yearly Traffic 1381 1372 1433 1490 1439 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,4 0,7 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,5 1,1 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year - 3.4% 1.1 0.6 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer - 2.8% 0.7 0.4 0.3 No 129 (3%) The majority of the delays should be attributed to the airport - the traffic volume related to sector EHAA12345 is used to monitor and regulate arrivals for Amsterdam, although it is recorded as ACC delay. Capacity Plan +4% Achieved Comments Optimisation of airspace and ATS procedures Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and capacity baseline evolution, it is assessed that the planned capacity increase was achieved. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER EHAA12345 532,534 min 95% EHAA4+5 13,409 min 2% EHAASECT3 8,269 min 1% EHAASEC3I 1,552 min 0% EHAASECT2 1,376 min 0% 300,000 min 250,000 min 200,000 min 150,000 min 100,000 min 50,000 min 0 min 2007 En route Weather En route Environmental Issues En route ATC Capacity En route Aerodrome Capacity En route Other ACC ANNEX 40
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 40. NORWAY BODO ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) ENBDACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 613 682 667 688 693 Summer Traffic 397 513 519 548 545 Yearly Traffic 381 504 508 528 530 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,2 0,1 0,7 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,1 0,4 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Year + 0.4% 0.0 Without weather & special events 0.0 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer - 0.5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 55 (0%) Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero in Summer. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Flexible rostering of ATC staff Recruitment and training of air traffic controllers Revision of FUA operations Maximum configuration of 5 sectors + 1 oceanic Summer performance assessment Achieved in progress Comments The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as the previous Summer. During the measured period a maximum configuration of 4 sectors was open, the peak 1 hour demand was 43 flights and the peak 3 hour demand was 38, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet the demand with spare capacity in the system. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Total ER % of Total Location ACC ER ENBDST 1,832 min 55% ENALTMA 625 min 19% ENBDSCH 491 min 15% ENBDSN 169 min 5% ENBDSE 141 min 4% 4,000 min 3,500 min 3,000 min 2,500 min 2,000 min 1,500 min 1,000 min 500 min 0 min 2007 En route Equipment (ATC) En route ATC Staffing En route Special Event ACC ANNEX 41
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 41. NORWAY OSLO ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) ENOSACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 963 993 1068 1133 1213 Summer Traffic 761 805 887 942 990 Yearly Traffic 731 768 830 886 929 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,5 0,3 0,1 0,4 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,3 0,4 0,1 0,2 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 4.9% 0.0 0.0 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 5.1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 95 (0%) Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.4 minutes in Summer 2007 to 0 minutes in Summer. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Flexible rostering of ATC staff Recruitment and training of air traffic controllers Recruitment and training have until recently been at a maximum, limited only by the ATC-school capacity and OJT possibilities. Due to implementation of new ATS-systems, recruitment and training for the next years will be at a minimum. Revision of FUA operations In progress Maximum configuration of 5 sectors Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as during Summer 2007. During the measured period, a maximum configuration of 5 sectors was open, the peak 1 hour demand was 72 and the peak 3 hour demand was 66, indicating that the ACC had sufficient capacity to meet the demand with spare capacity in the system. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER ENOSST 2,940 min 47% ENOSTE 2,017 min 33% ENOSE 666 min 11% ENOSW 260 min 4% ENOSSK 131 min 2% 70,000 min 60,000 min 50,000 min 40,000 min 30,000 min 20,000 min 10,000 min 0 min 2007 En route ATC Capacity En route ATC Staffing En route Equipment (ATC) ACC ANNEX 42
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 42. NORWAY STAVANGER ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) ENSVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 626 644 741 758 761 Summer Traffic 474 501 554 588 578 Yearly Traffic 459 479 523 556 558 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,2 0,0 0,2 0,2 0,1 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Year + 0.3% 0.1 Without weather & special events 0.1 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer - 1.8% 0.1 0.1 0.0 No 53 (0%) Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.2 minutes per flight in Summer 2007 to 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Flexible rostering of ATC staff Recruitment and training of air traffic controllers Revision of FUA operations Maximum configuration of 3 sectors + 1 helicopter Summer performance assessment In progress The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2007. During the measured period, a maximum configuration of 3 sectors was open, the peak 1 hour demand was 46 and the peak 3 hour demand was 41, indicating that the ACC has sufficient capacity to meet the demand with spare capacity in the system. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER ENSVSS 9,792 min 51% ENZVTA 5,503 min 29% ENSVN 2,381 min 12% ENSV4 1,274 min 7% ENSV3 244 min 1% 14,000 min 12,000 min 10,000 min 8,000 min 6,000 min 4,000 min 2,000 min 0 min 2007 En route ATC Staffing En route ATC Capacity En route Equipment (ATC) ACC ANNEX 43
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 43. POLAND WARSAW ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EPWWACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1216 1345 1553 1706 2099 Summer Traffic 1059 1182 1388 1552 1793 Yearly Traffic 935 1071 1246 1414 1623 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 1,1 0,8 1,6 2,7 2,6 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,6 0,5 1,0 1,9 2,0 3,0 2,8 2,6 2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 14.8% 2.0 2.0 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 15.5% 2.6 2.6 0.5-0.6 117 (+17%) The average en-route delay per flight slightly decreased from 2.7 minutes in Summer 2007 to 2.6 minutes in Summer. Capacity Plan +5 % Achieved Comments Increased sector throughput on a tactical basis Slight improvement to sector opening times Analysis followed by optimisation ATS route network improvements On-going Total improvement expected when the new system will be fully operational Additional controllers 2 additional controllers OLDI with Lviv Summer performance assessment The high traffic growth, the evolution of the delays and capacity baseline indicate that the planned capacity increase of 5% was successfully exceeded. The capacity baseline was measured with Reverse CASA and represents the capacity actually offered during the measured period. A maximum configuration of 8 sectors was opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER EPWWD 350,665 min 29% EPWWBG 165,710 min 14% EPWWG 160,539 min 13% EPWWTC 117,359 min 10% EPWWT 90,453 min 8% 1,200,000 min 1,000,000 min 800,000 min 600,000 min 400,000 min 200,000 min 0 min En route ATC Capacity En route ATC Staffing En route Weather En route Equipment (ATC) En route Military Activity 2007 ACC ANNEX 44
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 44. PORTUGAL LISBON ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LPPCACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1205 1207 1308 1413 1431 Summer Traffic 973 1006 1068 1126 1162 Yearly Traffic 934 978 1035 1096 1121 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,2 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3 0,2 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year + 2.3% 0.2 0.0 Summer + 3.2% 0.2 0.2 0.4 At limit 86 (3%) The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 0.3 minutes in Summer 2007 to 0.2 minutes in Summer, nevertheless remaining within the optimum. NAV Portugal E.P.E. has an agreed objective to maintain the delay close to zero. Capacity Plan +7 % Achieved Comments Optimisation of airspace structure and ATC procedures Terminal Airspace & reorganisation enroute airspace classification. Improved rostering and sector opening schemes CONF 9A / 8A / 7A / 5B / 4A Improved airspace management and ATFM procedures Level capping when necessary Additional controllers Terminal & En-route Revised sector loads and sector optimisation Flow & capacity management measures Implementation of a new en-route sector No Expected for 2009 Summer performance assessment Considering the low traffic growth, delay and capacity baseline evolution, it is assessed that the planned capacity increase was achieved. A maximum configuration of 9 sectors ( 7ENR+2TMA ) was opened during the measured period. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LPPCUPNC 37,125 min 45% LPPCSOUTH 16,889 min 21% LPPCCENL 16,625 min 20% LPPCWEST 6,784 min 8% LPPCVERAM 3,801 min 5% 120,000 min 100,000 min 80,000 min 60,000 min 40,000 min 20,000 min 0 min 2007 En route ATC Capacity En route Equipment (ATC) En route ATC Staffing ACC ANNEX 45
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 45. ROMANIA BUCHAREST ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LRBBACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1462 1613 1622 1659 1679 Summer Traffic 1207 1335 1332 1385 1416 Yearly Traffic 1013 1121 1136 1182 1212 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year + 2.5% 0.0 0.0 Summer + 2.2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 183 (0%) Average enroute ATFM delay per flight remained at zero in Summer, the same as in Summer 2007. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Comments ATS route network and sectorisation improvements Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 2007. It was calculated with NEVAC, giving the potential capacity of the ACC. The delivered capacity, calculated with ACCESS, was 119. During the measured period, a maximum configuration of 12 sectors was opened, the peak 1 hour demand was 107 flights and the peak 3 hour demand was 97, indicating that the ACC had sufficient capacity to meet the demand with spare capacity in the system. ACC ANNEX 46
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 46. SERBIA & MONTENEGRO BELGRADE ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LYBAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1322 1492 1629 1888 1991 Summer Traffic 1052 1213 1338 1535 1638 Yearly Traffic 907 950 1045 1218 1314 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year 7.9% 0.0 0.0 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 6.7% 0.0 0.0 0.1 No 147 (7%) Enroute delay remained at zero in Summer. Capacity Plan +6% Achieved Comments Route network Development Improved airspace management Flexible use of staff Civil/military coordination improvement Additional controllers Enhanced ATM ops concept - introduction of RDR planner concept Additional DPS functions FSA implementation, improved traffic load prediction Optimisation of ACC sectorisation / DFL change Improvement of TMA airspace organisation Partly Summer performance assessment The planned capacity increase of 6% was slightly exceeded, in line with the traffic growth. The capacity baseline of 147 was calculated with NEVAC, showing the potential capacity of the ACC. The delivered capacity calculated with ACCESS was 131 (+6%) for an average peak 1 hour demand of 122, showing good adaptation of the available capacity to the traffic levels. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LYBAALL 1,677 min 54% LYBAMIL01 1,455 min 46% 1,800 min 1,600 min 1,400 min 1,200 min 1,000 min 800 min 600 min 400 min 200 min 2007 0 min En route Equipment (non-atc) En route Military Activity ACC ANNEX 47
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 47. SLOVAK REPUBLIC BRATISLAVA ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LZBBACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1088 1218 1301 1203 1338 Summer Traffic 912 1017 1032 1021 1066 Yearly Traffic 744 840 855 840 891 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,4 0,5 0,1 0,3 0,2 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,3 0,4 0,1 0,5 0,2 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 6.0% 0.2 0.0 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 4.4% 0.2 0.2 0.2 No 86 (+16%) The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 0.3 minutes in Summer 2007 to 0.2 minutes in Summer. The capacity baseline increased to 86 in, in line with the traffic and delay evolution in Bratislava ACC. Capacity Plan +17% Achieved Comments Adaptation of sector opening times Improved flow and capacity management techniques Improved staff deployment Additional controllers Improved route network (Prague and Budapest interface) Implemented in May Improved sectorisation Implemented in May Improved configurations Opening of 5 sectors during peak-hour Extended opening of conf 3 in early morning and late evenings New functionalities for backup ATM system No Postponed Summer performance assessment A maximum of 5 sectors were opened during the Summer season. s were mainly produced in lower sectors mid-day or late afternoon. The capacity increase was in line with the plan, improving the performance compared to 2007 (0.3 to 0.2 min/flight) and sufficient to cope with the traffic recovery following the traffic stagnation in Summer 2007. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LZBBL28 30,693 min 57% LZBBM35 5,323 min 10% LZBBU35 4,990 min 9% LZBBL34 3,190 min 6% LZBBALL 3,118 min 6% 140,000 min 120,000 min 100,000 min 80,000 min 60,000 min 40,000 min 20,000 min 0 min En route ATC Capacity En route Weather En route Equipment (ATC) En route ATC Staffing En route Military Activity 2007 ACC ANNEX 48
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 48. SLOVENIA LJUBLJANA ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LJLAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 773 809 847 954 986 Summer Traffic 559 647 681 771 815 Yearly Traffic 446 520 539 624 671 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,5 0,1 0,2 0,1 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,2 0,3 0,0 0,3 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Year Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events + 7.6% 0.0 0.0 Optimum Capacity ACC Capacity Baseline gap? (% difference v 2007) Summer + 5.7% 0.1 0.0 0.2 No 74 (0%) The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 0.2 minutes in Summer 2007 to 0.1 minutes in Summer. Capacity Plan +8 % Achieved Comments Implementation of new FDPS Net availability of 4 additional controllers ATS route network and traffic organisation changes Improved ATFCM Revision of sector DFLs Maximum opened configuration of 4 sectors Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and capacity baseline evolution, it is assessed that the capacity offered was sufficient to meet demand. The capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS, representing the delivered capacity (74). The potential capacity was measured with NEVAC at the same level as last year (80). The peak 1 hour demand was 67 and the peak 3 hour demand was 59 during the measurement period. A maximum configuration of 3/4 sectors was opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LJLAMDTT 3,439 min 46% LJLATLLD 2,674 min 36% LJLAONE 766 min 10% LJLAMDUD 341 min 5% LJLAHDTT 283 min 4% 30,000 min 25,000 min 20,000 min 15,000 min 10,000 min 5,000 min 0 min En route ATC Capacity En route Equipment (ATC) En route Special Event En route ATC Staffing En route Not regulated/not specified 2007 ACC ANNEX 49
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 49. SPAIN BARCELONA ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 LECBACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 2705 2827 2829 3116 3282 Summer Traffic 2097 2245 2242 2482 2638 Yearly Traffic 1787 1908 1912 2140 2250 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 1,2 1,3 0,6 0,3 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,8 1,0 0,5 0,2 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 5.2% 0.2 0.2 Optimum Summer + 6.3% 0.3 0.3 0.3 Capacity gap? Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.6 minutes in Summer 2007 to 0.3 minutes in Summer. Capacity Plan +6% ATC system upgrades Optimised sector configurations Additional controllers Staff rostering improvement Summer performance assessment Achieved No Comments ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) ACC: 186 (13%) BL TMA: 80 (0%) CL TMA: 56 (6%) Considering the traffic, delay and capacity baseline evolution, it is assessed that the planned capacity increase was exceeded. The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 186, indicating the capacity made available during the measured period. During the same period, the peak 1 hour demand was 173 and the peak 3 hour demand was 163, and a maximum configuration of 12 sectors was opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Total ER % of Total Location ACC ER LEBLX5E 58,002 min 29% LEBLFIN 47,306 min 24% LEBLX5W 36,080 min 18% LECBMNI 26,411 min 13% LECBP1I 9,248 min 5% 300,000 min 250,000 min 200,000 min 150,000 min 100,000 min 50,000 min 0 min En route ATC Capacity En route Weather En route ATC Staffing En route Equipment (ATC) En route Other 2007 ACC ANNEX 50
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 50. SPAIN CANARIAS ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 GCCCACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1051 1041 1155 1282 1234 Summer Traffic 734 782 806 818 816 Yearly Traffic 758 798 830 844 840 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 1,0 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,2 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,7 0,2 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year - 0.5% 0.3 0.3 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer - 0.3% 0.2 0.2 0.3 No 71 (0%) Average enroute delay per flight increased from 0.1 in Summer 2007 to 0.2 in Summer. Capacity Plan +3% Achieved Comments Additional controllers Optimised sector configurations ATM system upgrade Route split on the EUR-SAM corridor New radar stations at Fuerteventura Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 71, indicating the capacity made available during the measured period. During the same period, the peak 1 hour demand was 61 and the peak 3 hour demand was 54, and a maximum configuration of 8 sectors was opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER GCCCAAC 56,805 min 57% GCCCINB 24,068 min 24% GCCCIGC 10,718 min 11% GCCCRC2 2,696 min 3% GCCCRE2 1,560 min 2% 80,000 min 70,000 min 60,000 min 50,000 min 40,000 min 30,000 min 20,000 min 10,000 min 0 min En route ATC Capacity En route Weather En route ATC Staffing En route Not regulated/not specified 2007 ACC ANNEX 51
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 51. SPAIN MADRID ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 LECMALL - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 2742 2942 3087 3277 3303 Summer Traffic 2514 2675 2795 3031 2978 Yearly Traffic 2401 2567 2691 2907 2863 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,4 0,9 1,0 1,1 0,9 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,5 0,7 1,0 0,9 0,7 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year - 1.5% 0.7 0.7 Summer - 1.7% 0.9 0.9 0.2 ACC 195 (3%) TMA 113 (16%) Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 1.1 minutes in Summer 2007 to 0.9 minute in Summer, remaining significantly higher than the optimum. Capacity Plan +6 % Achieved Comments Optimised sector configurations ATM system upgrade Additional controllers Staff rostering improvement Improved parallel runway ops at LEMD (increase to 48 arr/hr by end 07) Split of Asturias sector Multilateration at LEMD & LEAS On-going Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and capacity baseline evolution, it is assessed that the planned capacity increase achieved was less than the plan. The ACC capacity baseline was measured with Reverse CASA at 195, indicating the capacity made available during the measured period. During the same period, the peak 1 hour demand was 210 and the peak 3 hour demand was 200, and maximum configurations of 10 sectors in the North sector group and 6 sectors in the South sector group were opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LECMDOM 212,442 min 28% LECMTLU 100,702 min 13% LECMCJL 82,566 min 11% LECMPAU 80,143 min 10% LECMAST 60,165 min 8% 900,000 min 800,000 min 700,000 min 600,000 min 500,000 min 400,000 min 300,000 min 200,000 min 100,000 min 0 min En route ATC Capacity En route ATC Staffing En route Weather En route Equipment (ATC) En route Military Activity 2007 ACC ANNEX 52
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 52. SPAIN PALMA ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LECPACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1421 1447 1576 1642 1545 Summer Traffic 875 913 982 1033 1017 Yearly Traffic 643 668 712 749 733 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year - 2.1% 0.0 0.0 Summer - 1.6% 0.0 0.0 0.3 No 89 (1%) Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero minutes in Summer, the same as during Summer 2007. Capacity Plan +2% Achieved Comments Optimised sector configurations ATM system upgrade Additional controllers Multilateration at LEPA On-going Under trials Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 89, giving the capacity made available during the measured period. During the same period, the peak 1 hour demand was 77, the peak 3 hour demand was 70, and a maximum configuration of 7 sectors was opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LECPGIX 1,220 min 94% LECPDWX 74 min 6% 2,500 min 2,000 min 1,500 min 1,000 min 500 min 0 min En route ATC Capacity 2007 En route ATC Staffing ACC ANNEX 53
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 53. SPAIN SEVILLA ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LECSACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1149 1216 1269 1369 1343 Summer Traffic 944 1054 1091 1183 1139 Yearly Traffic 882 976 1025 1100 1067 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,1 0,6 0,4 0,1 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,1 0,4 0,3 0,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution All Without weather Optimum ( v 2007) reasons & special events Year -3.0% 0.1 0.1 Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer - 3.7% 0.1 0.1 0.5 No 97 (15%) Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.4 minutes in Summer 2007 to 0.1 minutes in Summer. Capacity Plan +5% Achieved Comments Optimised sector configurations ATM system upgrade Additional controllers Staff rostering improvement Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 97, indicating the capacity made available during the measured period. During the same period, the peak 1 hour demand was 87 and the peak 3 hour demand was 79, and a maximum configuration of 8 sectors was opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Total ER % of Total Location ACC ER LECSCES 9,506 min 26% LECSNOR 6,776 min 19% LECSAPT 3,455 min 10% LECSNCS 3,145 min 9% LECSCEN 2,927 min 8% 100,000 min 90,000 min 80,000 min 70,000 min 60,000 min 50,000 min 40,000 min 30,000 min 20,000 min 10,000 min 0 min 2007 En route ATC Capacity En route Weather En route ATC Routeing ACC ANNEX 54
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 54. SWEDEN MALMO ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) ESMMACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1648 1646 1739 1705 1908 Summer Traffic 1320 1343 1401 1439 1546 Yearly Traffic 1254 1282 1324 1367 1449 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,1 0,2 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year + 6.0% 0.1 0.1 Summer + 7.4% 0.2 0.2 0.1 No 115 (2%) Average enroute delay per flight increased slightly from 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2007 to 0.2 minutes per flight in Summer. Capacity Plan: Sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments System upgrade through planned software releases Increases capacity gradually Gradual availability of additional controllers Positive impact Summer 2010 and after Opening of a maximum configuration of 10 sectors Only 9 sectors during parts of Summer season Summer performance assessment The capacity baseline was assessed to be 2% higher in than in 2007, in line with the traffic and delay evolution. The baseline (115) calculated with ACCESS represents the capacity delivered during the Summer season in the ACC. The potential capacity of the ACC calculated with NEVAC is at the same level as last year, i.e. 130. A maximum configuration of 9 sectors was open ESMME 4 sectors, ESMML 2 sectors and ESMMW 3 sectors. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER ESMM67Y 27,435 min 38% ESMM89 9,473 min 13% ESMM7Y 7,436 min 10% ESMM2 6,060 min 8% ESMMK 5,191 min 7% 70,000 min 60,000 min 50,000 min 40,000 min 30,000 min 20,000 min 10,000 min 0 min En route ATC Capacity En route ATC Staffing En route Equipment (ATC) En route Military Activity En route Weather 2007 ACC ANNEX 55
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 55. SWEDEN STOCKHOLM ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) ESOSACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1376 1368 1559 1520 1549 Summer Traffic 1015 1004 1103 1124 1157 Yearly Traffic 1015 999 1068 1116 1129 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Year + 1.1% 0.0 Without weather & special events 0.0 Optimum Capacity ACC Capacity Baseline gap? (% difference v 2007) Summer + 2.9% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 122 (0%) Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero minutes in Summer, as in Summer 2007. Capacity Plan: Sufficient capacity to meet demand Achieved Comments System upgrade through planned software releases Increases capacity gradually Gradual availability of additional controllers Positive impact Summer 2010 and after Reorganisation of sectors in northern Sweden No Planned 2009 Opening of a maximum configuration of 10 sectors Summer performance assessment The capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as during Summer 2007. A maximum configuration of 9/10 sectors was opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Two northern sectors always collapsed due to low traffic load Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER ESOSK 1,550 min 28% ESOSCV 1,475 min 27% ESOSNF 1,471 min 27% ESOS2 741 min 13% ESOSN 177 min 3% 6,000 min 5,000 min 4,000 min 3,000 min 2,000 min 1,000 min 0 min En route Equipment (ATC) 2007 En route ATC Capacity ACC ANNEX 56
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 56. SWITZERLAND GENEVA ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 LSAGACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1930 2015 2055 2240 2251 Summer Traffic 1744 1787 1846 1990 1981 Yearly Traffic 1601 1648 1703 1832 1813 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,4 1,3 0,8 0,7 0,5 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,4 1,0 0,6 0,7 0,5 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year - 1.0% 0.5 0.4 Summer - 0.4% 0.5 0.4 0.2 140 (1.5%) Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.7 minutes per flight in Summer 2007 to 0.5 minutes per flight in Summer, remaining higher than the optimum. Capacity Plan Achieved Comments ATFCM / DMEAN processes Increased staff levels No CAPAN study Increased sector capacities from August (up to 10%) Maximum configuration of 9 sectors Maximum configuration with 8 sectors opened Summer performance assessment The capacity baseline was measured using Reverse CASA. During the same measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 147, and the peak 3 hour demand was 137. A maximum configuration of 8 sectors was opened (3+5). Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LSAGSE 124,745 min 39% LSAGKL4 55,148 min 17% LSAGN 54,272 min 17% LSAGL4 27,196 min 8% LSAGLOW 20,566 min 6% 250,000 min 200,000 min 150,000 min 100,000 min 50,000 min 0 min En route ATC Capacity En route Weather En route ATC Staffing En route Military Activity En route Equipment (ATC) 2007 ACC ANNEX 57
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 57. SWITZERLAND ZURICH ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LSAZACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 2291 2399 2472 2511 2637 Summer Traffic 2091 2172 2207 2304 2350 Yearly Traffic 1918 1994 2039 2127 2156 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 1,0 0,7 1,7 1,5 1,1 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,8 0,5 1,3 1,2 0,8 2,0 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 1.4% 0.8 0.4 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 2.0% 1.1 0.9 0.2 157 (5%) Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 1.5 minutes per flight in Summer 2007, to 1.1 minutes per flight in Summer, remaining higher than the optimum. Capacity Plan Achieved Comments SSR code management No MV-NT 4sec ZECAT BI (March ) ATFCM / DMEAN processes CAPAN Study Increased sector capacities from July (up to 7%) Maximum configuration of 8 sectors Summer performance assessment The capacity baseline was measured using Reverse CASA. During the same measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 178, and the peak 3 hour demand was 158. A maximum configuration of 8 sectors was opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LSAZM4 207,222 min 34% LSAZM2 202,743 min 33% LSAZM1 66,145 min 11% LSAZM3 49,873 min 8% LSAZM34 43,607 min 7% 600,000 min 500,000 min 400,000 min 300,000 min 200,000 min 100,000 min 0 min En route ATC Capacity En route Weather En route ATC Staffing En route Other En route Military Activity 2007 ACC ANNEX 58
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 58. TURKEY ANKARA ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LTAAACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1412 1686 1772 1887 2113 Summer Traffic 1187 1363 1473 1609 1760 Yearly Traffic 1047 1196 1310 1427 1544 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,2 0,4 0,0 0,1 0,2 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,3 0,0 0,0 0,2 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year + 8.2% 0.2 0.0 Summer + 9.4% 0.2 0.2 0.4 No 111 (5%) Average enroute delay per flight increased from 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer 2007 to 0.2 minutes per flight in Summer, remaining below the optimum. Capacity Plan +10% Achieved Comments Interim upgrade of ATM system Improved civil/military coordination Improved surveillance infrastructure (Replacement of current stations and addition of new sensors) Implementation of A/G and G/G communications infrastructure improvements ATS route structure development Reduction of radar separation in Turkish airspace On-going Final implementation 2009. Additional controllers Resectorisation of Ankara ACC On-going Resectorisation of Ankara APP On-going Maximum 8 sector configuration Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and baseline evolution, it is assessed that the capacity plan was achieved and delay was kept at optimum levels. A maximum 8 sector configuration was opened. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER LTAASOL 54,567 min 40% LTAASOC 46,910 min 35% LTAAWEL 12,712 min 9% LTAASOU 11,330 min 8% LTAAWL 4,718 min 3% 70,000 min 60,000 min 50,000 min 40,000 min 30,000 min 20,000 min 10,000 min 0 min En route Special Event En route Equipment (ATC) En route ATC Capacity En route ATC Staffing En route Other 2007 ACC ANNEX 59
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 59. TURKEY ISTANBUL & IZMIR ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) LTBBACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1361 1550 1631 2093 2270 Summer Traffic 1088 1258 1334 1742 1860 Yearly Traffic 939 1077 1165 1472 1569 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 6.6% 0.0 0.0 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 6.8% 0.0 0.0 0.2 No 106 (12%) Average enroute delay per flight was zero in Summer, the same as in Summer 2007, remaining at the optimum. Capacity Plan +10% Achieved Comments Interim upgrade of ATM system Improved civil/military coordination Improved surveillance infrastructure (Replacement of current stations and addition of new sensors) Implementation of A/G and G/G communications infrastructure improvements ATS route structure development Reduction of radar separation in Turkish airspace On-going Final implementation 2009. Additional controllers Resectorisation of Istanbul ACC On-going Maximum 4 sector configuration On-going Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and capacity baseline evolution, it is assessed that the capacity plan was achieved. A maximum 3 sector configuration was opened. ACC ANNEX 60
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 60. UKRAINE KHARKIV ACC Traffic & UKHVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays IFR flights (Daily Average) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2007 Peak Day Traffic 451 512 Summer Traffic 366 415 Yearly Traffic 323 364 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year + 12.6% 0.0 0.0 Summer + 13.4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 45 (0%) Average enroute ATFM delay remained at zero, as in Summer 2007. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Sufficient to meet demand Summer performance assessment Comments The ACC capacity baseline was measured using NEVAC. The peak 1 hour demand was 30 flights, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet demand with spare capacity remaining in the system. During the measured period a 4 sector maximum configuration was declared open. ACC ANNEX 61
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 61. UKRAINE KYIV ACC Traffic & UKBVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays IFR flights (Daily Average) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2007 Peak Day Traffic 656 743 Summer Traffic 534 622 Yearly Traffic 482 550 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year + 14.1% 0.0 0.0 Summer + 16.5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 72 (0%) Average enroute ATFM delay remained at zero, as in Summer 2007. Planned Capacity Increase: Sufficient to meet demand Summer performance assessment Comments The ACC capacity baseline was measured using NEVAC. The peak 1 hour demand was 50 flights, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet demand with spare capacity remaining in the system. During the measured period a 3 sector maximum configuration was declared open. ACC ANNEX 62
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 62. UKRAINE L VIV ACC Traffic & UKLVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays IFR flights (Daily Average) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2007 Peak Day Traffic 543 643 Summer Traffic 415 488 Yearly Traffic 374 429 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year + 14.8% 0.0 0.0 Summer + 17.7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 72 (0%) Average enroute ATFM delay remained at zero, as in Summer 2007. Planned Capacity Increase: Sufficient to meet demand Summer performance assessment Comments The ACC capacity baseline was measured using NEVAC. The peak 1 hour demand was 43 flights, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet demand with spare capacity remaining in the system. During the measured period a 3 sector maximum configuration was declared open. ACC ANNEX 63
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 63. UKRAINE ODESA ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) UKOVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2007 Peak Day Traffic 309 334 Summer Traffic 224 256 Yearly Traffic 190 215 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year + 12.9% 0.0 0.0 Summer + 14.1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 59 (0%) Average enroute ATFM delay remained at zero, as in Summer 2007. Planned Capacity Increase: sufficient to meet demand Comments Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured using NEVAC. The peak 1 hour demand was 22 flights, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet demand with spare capacity remaining in the system. During the measured period a 2 sector maximum configuration was declared open. ACC ANNEX 64
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 64. UKRAINE SIMFEROPOL ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) UKFVACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2007 Peak Day Traffic 640 682 Summer Traffic 506 537 Yearly Traffic 461 481 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Year + 4.4% 0.0 Without weather & special events 0.0 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 6.1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 No 75 (0%) Average enroute ATFM delay remained at zero, as in Summer 2007. Planned Capacity Increase: Sufficient to meet demand Summer performance assessment Comments The ACC capacity baseline was measured using NEVAC. The peak 1 hour demand was 40 flights, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet demand with spare capacity remaining in the system. During the measured period a 5 sector maximum configuration was declared open. 45000 Ukraine: Traffic 2003 to 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 150 0 0 10 0 0 0 5000 0 year-month ACC ANNEX 65
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 65. UNITED KINGDOM LONDON ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EGTTACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 5813 6209 6415 6537 6644 Summer Traffic 5309 5684 5857 6038 5971 Yearly Traffic 4896 5191 5352 5511 5430 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,6 0,7 0,9 1,0 0,8 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,5 0,4 0,6 0,6 0,6 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year - 1.5% 0.6 0.5 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer - 1.1% 0.8 0.7 0.4-0.5 385 (1%) Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 1 minute per flight in Summer 2007 to 0.8 minute per flight in Summer (May to October inclusive). Average delay per delayed flight was 20.4 minutes, compared to 19.3 minutes in Summer 2007. NATS attributable average en-route delay per flight fell from 37 seconds in Summer 2007 to 25 seconds in Summer. NATS attributable delay per delayed flight fell slightly from 17.7 minutes in 2007 to 17.2 minutes in. Capacity Plan +1% Achieved Comments Traffic Management Improvements Adaptation of sector configurations to demand Flexible use of existing staff Improved ATFCM Complexity reduction & improved traffic presentation between sectors / ANSPs BYPASS Project No No impact on capacity delivery, as the traffic reduced and there was no longer a need for this project. Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and capacity baseline evolution, it is assessed that the planned capacity increase was achieved although there remains a capacity gap. During the measured period, the peak hour demand was 413, the peak 3 hour demand was 386. Despite a general traffic decrease, traffic at peak hours (mainly during the first rotation) and in the most congested sectors continued to increase, particularly affecting West End, Central and Seaford sectors. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute (LONDON ALL: ACC + TC) Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER EGLL60NM 1,008,148 min 46% EGTTDVR 199,143 min 9% EGTT18SFD 136,465 min 6% EGTT01LUW 77,305 min 4% EGTT17LYD 73,323 min 3% 900,000 min 800,000 min 700,000 min 600,000 min 500,000 min 400,000 min 300,000 min 200,000 min 100,000 min 0 min En route Weather En route ATC Capacity En route ATC Staffing En route Military Activity En route Equipment (ATC) 2007 ACC ANNEX 66
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 66. UNITED KINGDOM LONDON TC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EGTTTC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 4014 4242 4400 4549 4568 Summer Traffic 3682 3856 3975 4112 4053 Yearly Traffic 3468 3623 3738 3854 3780 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,2 0,6 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year - 1.9% 0.8 0.2 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer - 1.4% 0.6 0.2 0.2 No 286 (3%) Average enroute delay per flight increased from 0.2 minutes in Summer 2007 to 0.6 minutes in. This apparent increase is mainly due to the fact that EGLL weather delay was recorded as EGTTTC weather delay in the CFMU systems. Average delay per delayed flight decreased from 22.5 minutes in Summer 2007 to 20.7 minutes in Summer. NATS attributable average enroute delay per flight fell from just over 4 seconds in Summer 2007 to less than 4 seconds in Summer. NATS attributable average delay per delayed flight fell from 18.3 minutes in 2007 to 17.8 minutes in. Capacity Plan +1% Achieved Comments Traffic Management Improvements Adaptation of sector configurations to demand Flexible use of existing staff Improved ATFCM Complexity reduction and improved traffic presentation between sectors / ANSPs TC SW Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic, delay and capacity baseline evolution, it is assessed that the planned capacity increase of 1% was exceeded. During the measured period, the peak hour demand was 289, the peak 3 hour demand was 277. ACC ANNEX 67
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 67. UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EGCCACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 1994 2063 2076 2117 2064 Summer Traffic 1689 1746 1754 1814 1710 Yearly Traffic 1557 1609 1621 1667 1570 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,2 0,5 0,6 0,3 0,1 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,1 0,3 0,5 0,2 0,1 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Year - 5.8% 0.1 0.1 Summer - 5.7% 0.1 0.1 0.5 No 151 (4%) Enroute delay reduced from 0.3 minutes per flight in Summer 2007 to 0.1 minutes per flight in Summer, staying within the optimum. Average delay per delayed flight increased from 16.9 minutes in Summer 2007 to 17.9 minutes in Summer. NATS attributable average delay per flight decreased markedly; from 8 seconds in Summer 2007 to 4 seconds in Summer. NATS attributable delay per delayed flight was unchanged from Summer 2007 at 15.3 minutes in Summer. Capacity Plan +1% Achieved Comments Traffic Management Improvements Adaptation of sector configurations to demand Flexible use of existing staff Improved ATFCM Complexity reduction and improved traffic presentation between sectors / ANSPs Summer performance assessment Considering the traffic delay and capacity baseline evolution, it is assessed that the planned capacity increase was exceeded. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 149 and the peak 3 hour demand was 127. Traffic at EGCCCTA was significantly down in (-18%). Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER EGCC29G 23,837 min 43% EGCCSE 13,669 min 25% EGCCIOM 10,452 min 19% EGCCN 4,410 min 8% EGTTACC 958 min 2% 45,000 min 40,000 min 35,000 min 30,000 min 25,000 min 20,000 min 15,000 min 10,000 min 5,000 min 0 min En route ATC Capacity En route Weather En route ATC Staffing En route Accident/Incident En route Special Event 2007 ACC ANNEX 68
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex I ACC Capacity Evolution 68. UNITED KINGDOM SCOTTISH ACC Traffic & IFR flights (Daily Average) EGPXACC - Traffic and en-route ATFM delays 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Peak Day Traffic 2182 2224 2323 2326 2326 Summer Traffic 1743 1823 1868 1908 1954 Yearly Traffic 1637 1699 1739 1784 1800 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,2 Yearly enroute delay (all causes) 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,2 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Realisation of Capacity Plan Traffic Evolution ( v 2007) All reasons Without weather & special events Year + 0.9% 0.2 0.1 Optimum Capacity gap? ACC Capacity Baseline (% difference v 2007) Summer + 2.4% 0.2 0.2 0.4 No 156 (0%) Average enroute delay per flight decreased from 0.3 minutes in Summer 2007 to 0.2 minutes in Summer, remaining within the optimum. En route delay per delayed flight increased from 17.3 minutes in Summer 2007 to 18.5 minutes in Summer.. The high concentration of north-about westbound NAT flows moved the delay emphasis to the upper sectors. NATS attributable average enroute delay per flight increased from 6 seconds in Summer 2007 to 10 seconds in Summer. NATS attributable delay per delayed flight fell slightly from 17.4minutes in Summer 2007 to 17.0 minutes in Summer. Capacity Plan +3% Achieved Comments Traffic Management Improvements Adaptation of sector configurations to demand Flexible use of existing staff Improved ATFCM Complexity reduction and improved traffic presentation between sectors / ANSPs BYPASS Project No No impact on capacity delivery, as the traffic reduced and there was no longer a need for this project. GWY resectorisation Summer performance assessment The capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 155, the peak 3 hour demand was 143. The only UK most penalised city pair in terms of flight efficiency (Aberdeen-London) has been addressed and improvement implemented as from the Summer. Allocation of and Reasons for Enroute Reference Location Total ER % of Total ACC ER EGPXDXN 17,496 min 17% EGPXDXS 17,456 min 17% EGPXXTLA 16,816 min 16% EGPXMON 11,646 min 11% EGPXDCS 10,158 min 10% 50,000 min 45,000 min 40,000 min 35,000 min 30,000 min 25,000 min 20,000 min 15,000 min 10,000 min 5,000 min 0 min 2007 En route ATC Capacity En route ATC Staffing En route Weather En route Military Activity ACC ANNEX 69
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK February 2009 ACC ANNEX 70
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 1. ANNEX II: AIRPORT STATISTICS The following pages present a brief summary of key indicators for the 34 airports identified as the most constraining within the context of DMEAN. The data include (where available): The airport declared capacity (peak operations) An overview of annual traffic movements over past years An overview of annual arrival delays over past years An overview of arrival and departure punctuality over the last years (This information is obtained from both CFMU and ecoda and is updated throughout the year) The current status of each of the following Joint EUROCONTROL activities: Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation. Analysis and Reduction. Airport Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) Implementation. Integration of Airports into the Network. AIRPORT ANNEX 1
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 2. TURKEY ANTALYA AIRPORT AYT/LTAI Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: The project is in its initial stage. The first data collection has been carried out in August and September and the PIATA+ analysis has been completed. Forums are being held on December 2 nd, 3 rd and 16 th with a Steering Group meeting in January 2009. Started : Progress: 60% Status: planned 2009 Analysis and Reduction Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Gap analysis completed in Feb 2009. Progress: 10% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2013 AIRPORT ANNEX 2
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 3. SPAIN - ALICANTE AIRPORT ALC/LEAL Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 18 Maximum Departures: 18 Global: 30 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: no plans so far Status: no plans so far Analysis and Reduction Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: AENA / EUROCONTROL Joint Action Plan established. In line with the action plan Airport CDM will not commence in Alicante before Palma or Madrid. No plan for the moment. Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: no plans so far AIRPORT ANNEX 3
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 4. NETHERLANDS - AMSTERDAM AIRPORT AMS/EHAM Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 68 Maximum Departures: 74 Global: 112 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: no plans so far Status: no plans so far Analysis and Reduction Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Gap Analysis completed. Airport CDM implementation continues well and on track. Eurocontrol CDM team completed 4 local one day training courses during Feb and March. One of the days was dedicated to the partners higher management. CDM implementation continues, but slow. Restructuring of project management Progress: 30% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2010 AIRPORT ANNEX 4
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 5. GREECE - ATHENS AIRPORT ATH/LGAV Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: no plans so far Status: no plans so far Analysis and Reduction Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: DMAN trials underway. Active shadow mode trials planned for. Progress: 50% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2011 AIRPORT ANNEX 5
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 6. SPAIN - BARCELONA AIRPORT BCN/LEBL Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 36 Maximum Departures: 36 Global: 64 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: ACE exercise provisionally planned for Summer 2010. Awaiting confirmation from AENA Analysis and Reduction Status: Agreed with AENA for delay analysis at LEMD and LEBL but dates yet to be confirmed. Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: AENA/EUROCONTROL Joint Action Plan established. Gap analysis to commence 2009 in line with joint AENA / EUROCONTROL action plan Progress: 50% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2011 AIRPORT ANNEX 6
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 7. BELGIUM - BRUSSELS AIRPORT BRU/EBBR Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 48 Maximum Departures: 44 Global: 74 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: no plans so far Analysis and Reduction Status: analysis meeting held in February. Environmental issues to be incorporated into ACE Analysis report. DEC : nothing further to report Started : Progress: 100% Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Fully implemented live DPI trials continue. DMAN trial has been performed successfully. Report with quantitative data analysis finalised. Benefits: Partners reduced workload and resources Progress: 80% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: Mid 2009 AIRPORT ANNEX 7
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 8. HUNGARY- BUDAPEST AIRPORT BUD/LHBP Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 26 Maximum Departures: No restrictions Global: Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: The Final Report has been issued. There are some issues with the Action Plan with the airport company preferring to delay some infrastructure developments Started : No Progress: 100% Status: completed Analysis and Reduction Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Airport CDM Implementation still on hold. Trial underway where Malev will provide TOBT to the Airport Operator. No change Progress: 10% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2013 AIRPORT ANNEX 8
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 9. DENMARK - COPENHAGEN AIRPORT CPH/EKCH Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 45 Maximum Departures: 44 Global: 83 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: no plans so far Status: no plans so far Analysis and Reduction Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: No direct involvement and lack of information on their local plans Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: no plans so far AIRPORT ANNEX 9
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 10. IRELAND - DUBLIN AIRPORT DUB/EIDW Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 28 Maximum Departures: 31 Global: 48 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: no plans so far Status: no plans so far Analysis and Reduction Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: CDM Gap Analysis completed and all recommendations accepted. DAA and the IAA are supportive of the plan to implement CDM at Dublin Airport. Project scope being defined. Project Manager appointed August 08. Started : Progress: 30% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2012 AIRPORT ANNEX 10
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 11. GERMANY - DÜSSELDORF AIRPORT DUS/EDDL Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: no plans so far Status: no plans so far Analysis and Reduction Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: In collaboration with DFS an introductory presentation was given to all local partners in July 2007. Significant interest shown. Started : Progress: 10% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: no plans so far AIRPORT ANNEX 11
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 12. ITALY - FLORENCE AIRPORT FLR/LIRQ Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 10 Maximum Departures: Not available Global: 15 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: no plans so far Analysis and Reduction Status: Initial contact made. Awaiting confirmation from Stakeholders regarding start date for Analysis Started : Progress: 10% Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: no plans so far Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: no plans so far AIRPORT ANNEX 12
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 13. GERMANY - FRANKFURT AIRPORT FRA/EDDF Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 44 Maximum Departures: 52 Global: 83 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: no plans so far Analysis and Reduction Status: analysis has been undertaken and a report summarising the delay issues for Frankfurt has been sent to DFS and FRAPORT. Started : No Progress: 100% Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Following a High level meeting between DFS, Fraport, Lufthansa and EUROCONTROL on the 01/04/ an Airport CDM project has been launched. Project plan and local gap analysis underway Started : Progress: 30% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2012 AIRPORT ANNEX 13
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 14. SWITZERLAND - GENEVA AIRPORT GVA/LSGG Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: ACE introductory meeting took place on November 27 th Started : Progress: 10% Status: planned 2009 Analysis and Reduction Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Gap Analysis completed and recommendations fully accepted. (23rd November 2007).Implementation continues Progress: 50% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2010 AIRPORT ANNEX 14
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 15. FINLAND - HELSINKI AIRPORT HEL/EFHK Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: no plans so far Status: no plans so far Analysis and Reduction Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: CDM Project currently being re-activated. Project Manager appointed. Request for EUROCONTROL assistance received. Initial kick off meeting took place on 8 th Oct. Official kick-off meeting and signing of MoU took place end January 2009 Started : Progress: 20% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2013 AIRPORT ANNEX 15
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 16. GREECE - IRAKLION AIRPORT HER/LGIR Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 8 Maximum Departures: 12 Global: 20 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: Data was collected during a week in July and has been analysed in conjunction together with an assessment of airport operations. Analysis and recommendations will be presented to the Hellenic CAA in January 2009 Started : Progress: 80% Analysis and Reduction Status: analysis will be discussed at the ACE Steering Group meeting in January 2009. Started : No Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Airport CDM Gap Analysis completed and all recommendations accepted. Implementation continues. CDM tool under development Started : Progress: 20% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2012 AIRPORT ANNEX 16
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 17. TURKEY ISTANBUL AIRPORT IST/LTBA Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 24 Maximum Departures: 24 Global: 40 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: Phase 1 of the ACE project is now complete, following forums and a Steering Group meeting that developed an agreed action plan. An Awareness campaign has been carried out in July and August. A second data collection has been completed and a Final Steering Group meeting was held on November 25 th to review the action plan. Further work is expected in order to follow-up on the outstanding actions and support DHMI in achieving the study objectives Started : Progress: 1 st phase 80% Analysis and Reduction Status: analysis was completed on March 13th. Following continued delays in summer 2009 a further study will be required Started : Progress: 1 st phase 100% completed in Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: First phase of CDM Gap Analysis completed. Gap Analysis report presented to DHMI an partners in Feb 2009. Anticipated a long implementation phase considering the current infrastructure and system availability. Started : Progress: 10% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2013 AIRPORT ANNEX 17
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 18. PORTUGAL LISBON AIRPORT LIS/LPPT Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: No current ACE activity following completion of Phase 2 of the project Status: no plans so far Analysis and Reduction Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: DMAN trials in preparation. Relaunch of CDM project Q2 2009 Progress: 50% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2011 AIRPORT ANNEX 18
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 19. UNITED KINGDOM LONDON HEATHROW AIRPORT LHR/EGLL Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 44 Maximum Departures: 46 Global: 90 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: no plans so far Analysis and Reduction Status: A Analysis meeting was held at Heathrow on June 5th with Manager ATC. Further work required to ensure continued support from Heathrow. Started : Progress: 60% Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Contractual problems now resolved. Project driver is now the BAA. Arrivals portal developed by NATS still in use. Early 2009 BAA system will be deployed including the departure functionality of A-CDM. Progress: 50% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2010 AIRPORT ANNEX 19
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 20. SPAIN MADRID AIRPORT MAD/LEMD Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 48 Maximum Departures: 50 Global: Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: ACE exercise provisionally planned for Summer 2009. Awaiting confirmation from AENA Analysis and Reduction Status: Agreed with AENA for delay analysis at LEMD and LEBL but dates yet to be confirmed Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: AENA / EUROCONTROL Joint Action Plan established. Gap analysis to commence 2009 in line with joint AENA / EUROCONTROL action plan Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2011 AIRPORT ANNEX 20
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 21. ITALY MILAN MALPENSA AIRPORT MXP/LIMC Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 39 Maximum Departures: 40 Global: 70 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: Steering group meeting was on February 1st to develop an Action Plan and confirm the next steps for the project. Following significant downturn in traffic (Alitalia crisis), the project has now been put on hold. There was no data collection in July, postponed to summer 2009. Intention to keep the ACE project alive in preparation of future traffic grows. Started : No Progress: 65% Analysis and Reduction Status: analysis meeting held on January 31st. Actions focussed around arrival regulations and ad-hoc traffic. Again, the significant downturn in traffic has led to minimal delays in Milan during and no further delay analysis meetings are planned. Started : Progress: 100% Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Gap Analysis completed and recommendations accepted. Implementation continues. was due to turbulent uncertainties of the main carrier. Progress: 50% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2010 AIRPORT ANNEX 21
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 22. GERMANY MUNICH AIRPORT MUC/EDDM Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 58 Maximum Departures: 58 Global: 90 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: no plans so far Analysis and Reduction Status: The delay analysis at Munich is on-going and the next meeting with DFS is planned in January 2009. Started : No Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Fully implemented and fully operational from 7 th June 2007 including DPI exchange Benefits: 10% reduced taxi times, partners reduced workload and resources Progress: 100% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: Fully operational. Continued finer tuning of message transmission AIRPORT ANNEX 22
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 23. NORWAY OSLO AIRPORT OSL/ENGM Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: no plans so far Status: no plans so far Analysis and Reduction Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Following the successful acceptance of the CDM gap analysis recommendations in 2007 the project was re launched in June 08. Project Manager appointed and currently writing PMP. EUROCONTROL have conducted a successful local training on the 06th Nov 08. Partners very committed Started : Progress: 30% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2013 AIRPORT ANNEX 23
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 24. SPAIN PALMA AIRPORT PMI/LEPA Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 32 Maximum Departures: 33 Global: 60 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: no plans so far Status: no plans so far Analysis and Reduction Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: AENA / EUROCONTROL Joint Action Plan established. Phase 1 of Gap Analysis completed. AENA HQ (Madrid) acceptance of recommendations additionally needed before any implementation in Palma can commence Started : Progress: 10% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2010 AIRPORT ANNEX 24
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 25. FRANCE PARIS CDG AIRPORT CDG/LFPG Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 74 Maximum Departures: 77 Global: 141 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: No progress Status: No progress Analysis and Reduction Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Airport CDM implementation continues. Pre-departure sequence will be operational in Q3 2009 followed by DPI trials with CFMU Progress: 50% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: End of 2009 AIRPORT ANNEX 25
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 26. FRANCE PARIS ORLY AIRPORT ORY/LFPO Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: No progress Status: No progress Analysis and Reduction Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: no plans so far Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2013 AIRPORT ANNEX 26
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 27. CZECH REPUBLIC PRAGUE AIRPORT PRG/LKPR Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 30 Maximum Departures: No restrictions Global: 44 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: ACE activities completed Analysis and Reduction Status: analysis completed Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Gap Analysis completed and recommendations accepted. CBA fully accepted by Airport partners. CDM Project currently being established Progress: 30% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2010 AIRPORT ANNEX 27
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 28. ITALY ROME FIUMICINO AIRPORT FCO/LIRF Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 54 Maximum Departures: 60 Global: 90 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: Phase 1 of the ACE project is now complete, following forums and a Steering Group meeting that developed an agreed action plan. An Awareness campaign has been carried out in July and August. A second data collection has been completed in September, followed by analysis of the acquired data in order to quantify operational improvements. A Final Steering Group meeting will be held in February 2009 to review the action plan and confirm any next steps Progress: 75% Analysis and Reduction Status: A Analysis meeting was held on March 18th and a number of actions taken, in particular to review ecoda delays against regulations and traffic demand. Started : Progress: 100% Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Airport CDM Gap Analysis completed and recommendations accepted. MoU under development. Still waiting confirmation to whether ENAV or ADR will lead project. was due to turbulent uncertainties of the main carrier. Started : Progress: 10% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2011 AIRPORT ANNEX 28
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 29. SWEDEN STOCKHOLM AIRPORT ARN/ESSA Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: Initial ACE presentation has still to be coordinated with LFV and Arlanda airport authority Analysis and Reduction Status: Targeted for delay analysis, no progress Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Re-activation of Airport CDM has commenced Q1 Progress: 50% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2012 AIRPORT ANNEX 29
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 30. GREECE THESSALONIKI AIRPORT SKG/LGTS Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 10 Maximum Departures: No restrictions Global: 25 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: no plans so far Status: plan in progress Analysis and Reduction Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: After Heraklion implementation the same CDM system and procedures will be implemented in Thessaloniki. Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2013 AIRPORT ANNEX 30
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 31. SPAIN VALENCIA AIRPORT VLC/LEVC Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 20 Maximum Departures: 20 Global: 34 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: The ACE project is in its initial stage after a first Steering Group meeting in mid September. The data collection has been completed. The controllers and pilots forums are planned for January 2009. Started : Progress: 60% Analysis and Reduction Status: planned 2009 Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: no plans so far Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2013 AIRPORT ANNEX 31
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 32. ITALY VENEZIA AIRPORT VCE/LIPZ Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 16 Maximum Departures: Global: 30 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: no plans so far Status: no plans so far Analysis and Reduction Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: no plans so far Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: no plans so far AIRPORT ANNEX 32
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 33. AUSTRIA VIENNA AIRPORT VIE/LOWW Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 48 Maximum Departures: 48 Global: 66 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: The ACE project at Vienna is now completed, with a final report (awaiting comments from Vienna). Vienna have also set-up a local ACE team. However, there were issues with data collection and analysis. ACE will work with Austrocontrol to ensure continuation of the ACE Action Plan. Started : No Progress: 95% Analysis and Reduction Status: Analysis has been performed and the findings have been provided in the final airside capacity enhancement report. Comments awaited. Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Gap Analysis completed and recommendations accepted. The Airport CDM Project kicked off officially on 22/01/. Implementation continues - First phase being the Concept Paper (part of local PMP) currently under review and to be presented to all boards in January 2009. Started : Progress: 30% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2010 AIRPORT ANNEX 33
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 34. POLAND WARSAW AIRPORT WAW/EPWA Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 24 Maximum Departures: Global: 36 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: The first phase of the ACE project in Warsaw has been completed and the list of recommendations developed at the Joint Forum has been transformed into an agreed ACE action plan. An Awareness Campaign will take place in late Spring (when traffic is expected to increase) and ACE will maintain regular contact to ensure progress against the action plan. Started : Progress: 60% Analysis and Reduction Status: A delay analysis will be undertaken in early 2009 Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Airport CDM gap analysis completed and all recommendations accepted. MoU under development Local project manager being appointed. Started : Progress: 20% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: 2012 AIRPORT ANNEX 34
NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II Airports Statistics 35. SWITZERLAND ZURICH AIRPORT ZRH/LSZH Declared Capacity Peak Operations Maximum Arrivals: 36 Maximum Departures: 32 Global: 66 Joint EUROCONTROL Activities Airport Airside Capacity Enhancement (ACE) Implementation Status: An ACE project was launched in July. The first data collection took place in October, followed by a data analysis and forums in. However, there are issues with the depth of the data which delays the plan. Started : Progress: 25% Analysis and Reduction Status: An initial delay analysis has already been carried out. This identified a number of issues that will be analysed further during the ACE study. In addition, the process of reviewing delays and their causes (including ATFCM regulations and IATA delay codes) has been identified as a Best Practice and will also be reviewed further to determine if it should be recommended for implementation to other airports. Started : Progress: 100% Airport CDM Implementation Local Airport CDM Implementation Status: Fully implemented but live DPI trials to start in Summer 2009. Progress: 80% Integration of Airports into the network (DPI, FUM) By: End 2009 AIRPORT ANNEX 35