ANNUAL NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Annex II - ACC - Final Edition

Edition Number : Edition Validity Date : 18/5/216

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final i DOCUMENT CHARACTERISTICS Document Title ANNUAL NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT Document Subtitle (optional) Annex II - ACC - Final Edition Abstract Edition Number Edition Validity Date 18/5/216 Author(s) Contact Person(s) Tel/email Unit STATUS AND ACCESSIBILITY Status Accessible via Working Draft Intranet Draft Extranet Proposed Issue Internet (www.eurocontrol.int) Released Issue TLP STATUS Intended for Detail Red Highly sensitive, non-disclosable information Amber Sensitive information with limited disclosure Green rmal business information White Public information 216 The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL). This document is published by EUROCONTROL for information purposes. It may be copied in whole or in part, provided that EUROCONTROL is mentioned as the source and the extent justified by the noncommercial use (not for sale). The information in this document may not be modified without prior written permission from EUROCONTROL.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final ii Edition History The following table records the complete history of the successive editions of the present document. Edition History Edition. Edition Validity Date Author 11/4/216 [free text] [free text] Reason

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final iii Table of Contents DOCUMENT CHARACTERISTICS... I EDITION HISTORY... II TABLE OF CONTENTS... III 1 INTRODUCTION... 5 1.1 TRAFFIC & DELAY... 5 1.2 REALISATION OF CAPACITY PLAN... 5 1.3 ALLOCATION OF AND REASONS FOR EN-ROUTE DELAY... 6 1 ALBANIA - TIRANA ACC... 7 2 ARMENIA - YEREVAN ACC... 8 3 AUSTRIA - VIENNA ACC... 9 4 AZERBAIJAN - BAKU ACC... 1 5 BELGIUM - BRUSSELS ACC... 11 6 BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA - SARAJEVO ACC... 12 7 BULGARIA - SOFIA ACC... 13 8 CROATIA - ZAGREB ACC... 14 9 CYPRUS - NICOSIA ACC... 15 1 CZECH REPUBLIC - PRAGUE ACC... 16 11 DENMARK - COPENHAGEN ACC... 17 12 ESTONIA - TALLINN ACC... 18 13 EUROCONTROL - MAASTRICHT ACC... 19 14 FINLAND - TAMPERE ACC... 2 15 FRANCE BORDEAUX ACC... 21 16 FRANCE BREST ACC... 22 17 FRANCE MARSEILLE ACC... 23 18 FRANCE PARIS ACC... 24 19 FRANCE - REIMS ACC... 25 2 FYROM - SKOPJE ACC... 26 21 GEORGIA - TBILISI ACC... 27 22 GERMANY - BREMEN ACC... 28 23 GERMANY - KARLSRUHE ACC... 29 24 GERMANY - LANGEN ACC... 3 25 GERMANY - MUNICH ACC... 31 26 GREECE - ATHENS ACC... 32 27 GREECE - MAKEDONIA ACC... 33 28 HUNGARY - BUDAPEST ACC... 34 29 IRELAND - DUBLIN ACC... 35 3 IRELAND - SHANNON ACC... 36 31 ITALY - BRINDISI ACC... 37 32 ITALY - MILAN ACC... 38 33 ITALY - PADOVA ACC... 39 34 ITALY - ROME ACC... 4 35 LATVIA - RIGA ACC... 41 36 LITHUANIA - VILNIUS ACC... 42 37 MALTA - MALTA ACC... 43 38 MOLDOVA - CHISINAU ACC... 44

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final iv 39 THE NETHERLANDS - AMSTERDAM ACC... 45 4 NORWAY - BODO ACC... 46 41 NORWAY OSLO ACC... 47 42 NORWAY STAVANGER ACC... 48 43 POLAND WARSAW ACC... 49 44 PORTUGAL - LISBON ACC... 5 45 ROMANIA - BUCHAREST ACC... 51 46 SERBIA & MONTENEGRO - BELGRADE ACC... 52 47 SLOVAK REPUBLIC - BRATISLAVA ACC... 53 48 SLOVENIA - LJUBLJANA ACC... 54 49 SPAIN - BARCELONA ACC... 55 5 SPAIN - CANARIAS ACC... 56 51 SPAIN - MADRID ACC... 57 52 SPAIN - PALMA ACC... 58 53 SPAIN - SEVILLA ACC... 59 54 SWEDEN - MALMO ACC... 6 55 SWEDEN - STOCKHOLM ACC... 61 56 SWITZERLAND - GENEVA ACC... 62 57 SWITZERLAND - ZURICH ACC... 63 58 TURKEY - ANKARA /ISTANBUL ACC... 64 59 UKRAINE - DNIPROPRETROVSK ACC... 66 6 UKRAINE - KYIV ACC... 67 61 UKRAINE - L VIV ACC... 68 62 UKRAINE - ODESA ACC... 69 63 UNITED KINGDOM - LONDON ACC... 7 64 UNITED KINGDOM - LONDON TC... 71 65 UNITED KINGDOM - PRESTWICK ACC... 72

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 5 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The following annex provides a detailed analysis of ATC capacity evolution in for ACCs within the ECAC States for which data is available. The source of statistics is the NMOC unless otherwise indicated. The analysis covers: The chart and data table provide comprehensive information concerning the evolution of traffic and delay from 21 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 each year. Summer & ly is the daily average number of flight entries during the summer season (May to October inclusive) and over the whole year (January to December). Summer & ly En-route Delay is the average en-route delay per flight (including weather and special events e.g. industrial action), attributed to the ACC during the summer season (May to October inclusive) and over the whole year (January to December). 1.2 Realisation of Plan Evolution gives the percentage difference between the total traffic (number of flight entries) in compared to 214, for the summer and the full year. En-route Delay gives the number of minutes per flight of enroute delay attributed to all causes and also excluding delays attributed to weather and special events. s are provided for the summer and the full year. value per ACC is the delay breakdown to achieve the European delay target of min/flight for the full year, and min/flight in the Summer season, as published in the Network Operations Plan -219. ACC Baseline Offered: ACCESS or Reverse CASA was used to measure the capacity actually offered by the ACC during the reference periods (8-21 June 214, 6-19 July 214). 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. Plan (increase for Summer ) is the percentage value provided by ANSPs in the Network Operations Plan -219. This figure represents the ANSP commitment to increasing ACC capacity for Summer, when compared to Summer 214. enhancement: planned enablers This information was taken from the local capacity plan in the Network Operations Plan -219. An indication is given as to whether each measure was implemented as planned. Summer Performance Assessment 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

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 6 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. 1.3 Allocation of and reasons for En-route delay The table lists the reference locations (sectors) causing most of the ACC delay, the number of minutes of en-route delay attributed to each location and the percentage of the total ACC en-route delay. The graph shows the total ATFM en-route delay generated by each ACC, broken down into the 5 most significant reasons given for the delay in compared to 214. te: The scale on all graphs varies from ACC to ACC - graphs should not be directly compared.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 7 1 ALBANIA - TIRANA ACC LAAAACC - and en-route ATFM delays 1 8 6 211 212 213 214. Peak Day 88 926 984 959 12 Summer 671 666 74 692 75 ly 541 533 55 543 553 Summer enroute delay (all causes).... ly enroute delay (all causes)... Realisation of Plan Tirana LAAA ACC Evolution ( v 214) H: 1% Summer B: 1% L: 8.8% -1% The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. Plan 2% Achieved Comments Free route airspace Planed for winter 216/17 ATS route network improvements specific requirements during Standby and flexible shifts Expected summer 217 Implementation of enhanced Mode S radar system It will be MLAT and planned for 217 Maximum configuration: 3/4 ENR + 1 APP sectors 4 ENR + 1 APP sectors were opened Summer performance assessment Enroute Delay (min. per flight) +1.8%. ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +1.9%. 5 65 (%) The ACC capacity baseline was estimated at 65, the same level as last year. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 57 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 5.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 8 2 ARMENIA - YEREVAN ACC 18 16 UDDDACC - and en-route ATFM delays 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 211 212 213 214 Peak Day Summer 162 156 143 14 12 ly 157 153 143 139 116 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Yerevan UDDD ACC Evolution ( v 214) H: -3.8% Summer B: -5.6% L: -8.2% sig. Enroute Delay (min. per flight) -16.5%..1 The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) -13.9%..1 4 (%) Plan: Sufficient to meet demand Comments Summer 214 performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was estimated at 4. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 11 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 8.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 9 3 AUSTRIA - VIENNA ACC 35 3 LOVVACC - and en-route ATFM delays 25 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 2782 2788 2733 36 2946 Summer 2347 233 2275 2481 2493 ly 1961 1916 257 292 Summer enroute delay (all causes). ly enroute delay (all causes).. Realisation of Plan Vienna LOVV ACC The average en-route delay per flight increased from.4 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to 5 minutes per flight during Summer. 69% of the delays were due to Weather, 22% due to staffing and 8% due to ATC capacity Plan 5% Achieved Comments DCTs H24/7 165+ in parallel ops with ATS routes Improved ATFCM techniques, including STAM Participation in FABCE STAM Live Trial 9/ Enhanced sectorisation according to the FAB CE Airspace Plan Stepped improved sectorisation according to on-going projects Additional layer top sector Improved operational procedures including FMP/AMC Data link (Oct 214) Recruitment to maintain staff level SYSCO with neighbouring units Additional sectors as required, depending on traffic demand levels Maximum configuration: 13 sectors Maximum 12 sectors needed Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 194, 3% higher than in 214. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 187 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 17. observed peak was higher. H: 2.8% Summer B: 1.7% L: % Reference Evolution ( v 214) +7% ER Delays ACC ER Delay LOVVSC35 1 % LOVVE13 1 % LOVVWB15 2 % LOVVW15 2 1.1% LOVVWB5 3 1.4% LOVVNE15 3 1.5% 15 1 5 Enroute Delay (min. per flight) +1.7%.9 1 Vienna ACC en-route delays in ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +% 5 3 194 (+3%)

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 1 4 AZERBAIJAN - BAKU ACC 37 365 36 UBBAACC - and en-route ATFM delays 355 35 345 34 335 33 325 32 315 211 212 213 214 Peak Day Summer 354 367 354 353 335 ly 339 357 352 348 337 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Data Source: STATFOR Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Baku UBBA ACC ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) H: % Summer B: % L: -% significant -3.1%..1-5.%..1 65 (%) The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. Plan: Sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments ATS route network optimisation - an on-going process in co-operation with neighboring States Upgrade of UBBB (Baku/Heydar Aliyev Int'i) SIDs and STARs. Implementation on May 28,. Integration into EUROCONTROL IFPS (start of operations from May 28, ) It has been implemented since April 3, Integration has been postponed. Start of operations from January 7, 216. All appropriate actions are in place (publications, training, NM applications installation, etc) Maximum configuration: 5 + 3APP 1 sector opened Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was estimated at 65. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 33 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 19.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 11 5 BELGIUM - BRUSSELS ACC 25 EBBUACC - and en-route ATFM delays 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 1997 1926 1916 1964 239 Summer 1673 1644 1634 1691 1769 ly 1547 153 1483 1525 162 Summer enroute delay (all causes).. ly enroute delay (all causes).... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Brussels EBBU ACC H: 2.8% Summer B: 2.1% L: % The average en-route delay per flight increased from.3 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to 2 minutes per flight during Summer. 73% of the delays were due to ATC equipment and 26% due to ATC staffing. Plan 1% Achieved Comments Implementation of occupancy counts Postponed to 217 Minor upgrades of CANAC2 system -6% Dynamic use of sector configurations Maximum configuration: 7 sectors 6 sectors were sufficient Summer performance assessment +5.% 4.5 The ACC capacity baseline was estimated to be at 134 in summer. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 128 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 114. ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +4.6% 2.4 134 (+2%) Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay EBBULUS 1 % EBBUHUS 2 % EBBUELS 2 % EBBUWHS 3 1.3% EBBUNLS 3 1.4% EBBUEHS 4 2.% 15 1 5 Brussels ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 12 6 BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA - SARAJEVO ACC 18 16 LQSBACC - and en-route ATFM delays 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 92 174 Summer 121 ly 13 96 Summer enroute delay (all causes). ly enroute delay (all causes)... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Sarajevo LQSB CTA The en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. Planned capacity increase: sufficient capacity Achieved Comments Maximum configuration: 1 sector Maximum configuration: 1 sectors was sufficient Summer performance assessment ACC Baseline N/A. N/A N/A N/A Summer N/A..1 25 The capacity baseline was estimated with ACCESS at 25. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 14 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 11.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 13 7 BULGARIA - SOFIA ACC 35 3 LBSRACC - and en-route ATFM delays 25 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 2337 2253 2316 2875 3179 Summer 182 187 1871 2355 2513 ly 1418 1422 146 1822 246 Summer enroute delay (all causes).... ly enroute delay (all causes)..... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Sofia LBSR ACC The en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. Planned capacity increase: 5% Achieved Comments Lower level limit of FRA with Danube FAB Improved ATFCM, including use of occupancy counts and STAM ATS route network development New sector boundaries for Varna and Sofia Further evaluations required for the minimum altitude Airspace changes at interface with Turkey Partially Full implementation scheduled in spring 216 Cross border sectorisation within Danube FAB (Dec 14) Updated LoAs with Istanbul ACC Cross sector training Additional ATCOs Upgrade of SATCAS system H: 1% Summer B: 9.1% L: 7.3% Additional control working positions -5% Increase of maximum sector configurations available Maximum configuration: 12 sectors 1 sectors were opened Summer performance assessment +12.3%.1.5 The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS and was assessed to be at 186. During the period June/July, the average peak 1 hour demand was 177 flights and the average peak 3 hour demand was 162 flights. ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +6.7%.1.7 186 (+8%)

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 14 8 CROATIA - ZAGREB ACC 3 25 LDZOACC - and en-route ATFM delays 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 2247 247 241 2498 2486 Summer 1626 1635 1666 1775 1746 ly 1287 1286 1281 1355 1366 Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes). Realisation of Plan Zagreb LDZO ACC The average en-route delay per flight increased from 9 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to 9 minutes per flight during Summer. 63% of the delays were for the reason ATC, 29% for weather and 8% for ATC Staffing. plan: 4% Achieved Comments Further cross-border FRA evolutions Night FRA cross border Additional DCTs H24 Enhanced ATFM techniques through cooperative traffic management (STAM) Enhanced sectorisation according to the FAB CE Airspace Plan Further optimisation of ATS route network Reorganisation of lower airspace (up to 325) in line with BH ACCs Implementation of 4th lateral sector (Central) Implementation of Mode S DAP Optimization of manpower planning Additional ATCOs as required (~6 per year) Dynamic DFL rth SG DFL355-365 Improved sector opening times Maximum configuration: 1 sectors Evolution ( v 214) H: 6.6% Summer B: 5.6% L: 4.2% Summer performance assessment Partially On-going The capacity baseline was measured using ACCESS at 138. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 139, and the average peak 3 hour demand was 127. Reference +8% ER Delays ACC ER Delay LDZOHS.% LDZOTH.% LDZOGACC.% LDZOH % LDZOS 1 % LDZOULN 1 % 6 5 3 1 +% 7 6 Zagreb ACC en-route delays in ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) -1.6% 9 7 138 (-3%)

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 15 9 CYPRUS - NICOSIA ACC 1 1 8 6 LCCCACC - and en-route ATFM delays 3. 2.5 2. 1.5 Realisation of Plan Nicosia LCCC ACC The average en-route delay per flight increased from 1.38 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to 2.77 minutes per flight during Summer. 55% of the delays were due to ATC staffing, 37% of delays were due to ATC capacity, 4% due to ATC equipment and 3% due to airspace management Plan 9% Achieved Comments FTS for +FL285 - Application of FRA +FL285 for specific N/X points Improved ATFCM, including STAM Continuous improvement of ATS route network New SIDs and STARs LCLK Partially Reduce Nicosia FIR separation standard from 1 to 5 NM Postponed to 218 Reduce radar transfer separation with LGGG from 2 to 15 NM Implementation of Approach Radar function at LCLK and LCPH airports MTCD OLDI with Athens Benefits from CPR exchange with NM FTS started in October, expected results early 216. Some DCTs published in January 216 AIRAC cycle Updated capacity figures, use of occupancy counts from July External factors limiting ATS route network expansion and improvement Postponed to 217 More flexibility in sector configuration openings Depending on staffing Improve Civil-Military cooperation in the South-East part of the FIR Operation of a 5th en-route sector Limited due to staffing Revision of sector capacities Since July average increase of 15% Maximum configuration: 5 sectors Summer performance assessment 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 117 149 195 1175 1298 Summer 855 819 844 944 991 ly 77 736 76 834 874 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 1.7 1.6 2.7 1.4 2.8 ly enroute delay (all causes) 1.6 1.6 2.2 1.9 2.5 Evolution ( v 214) H: 9.% Summer B: 7.5% L: 5.5% +3% The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS/Reverse CASA at 52, 5% lower than in 214. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 6 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 54. +4.8% 2.47 6. ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +5.% 2.77 2 52 (-5%) Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay LCCCS2W.% LCCCES1 1.% LCCCES 1.% LCCCE 1 % LCCCEW 1 % LCCCWLOW 4 % 15 5 Nicosia ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 16 1 CZECH REPUBLIC - PRAGUE ACC 3 25 LKAAACC - and en-route ATFM delays 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 2386 2338 2358 2416 2561 Summer 278 217 263 212 228 ly 1841 1793 184 1849 1976 Summer enroute delay (all causes).... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Prague LKAA ACC The average en-route delay per flight decreased from.2 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to.1 minutes per flight during Summer. Plan: +2% Achieved Comments Stepped implementation of FRA Improved flow and capacity management techniques, including STAM Improved ATS route network Enhanced sectorisation according to the FAB CE Airspace Plan Additional controllers Minor improvements of system functionalities Datalink Evolution ( v 214) H: 1.6% Summer B: % L: -% -11% Adaptation of sector opening times depending on available staff Maximum configuration: 9/1 sectors Summer performance assessment +6.9%.1.9 ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +7.5%.1 5 175 (+8%) Unsuccessful training, 5% below expectations/plan. Postponed due to new implementation date set by EC Regulation, and technical problems. The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS and was assessed to be at 175. The peak 1 hour demand was 172 flights and the peak 3 hour demand was 157 flights. Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay LKAAWM % LKAASL 1.4% LKAANM 1.6% LKAAWL 2.6% LKAANL 3.2% LKAASM 1 4.2% 15 1 5 Prague ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 17 11 DENMARK - COPENHAGEN ACC 18 16 EKDKACC - and en-route ATFM delays 1 1 8 6 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 1769 1688 1781 1765 1792 Summer 1562 1485 158 1571 1592 ly 1476 149 1459 1464 1488 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Copenhagen EKDK ACC Evolution ( v 214) Enroute Delay (min. per flight) ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) H: % Summer B: -% L: -1.1% significant +1.7%..8 +1.3%. 1 127 (+2%) The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. Plan +2 % Achieved Comments Possible alignment with FRA within NEFAB Optimizing the use of FRA when military areas are active Improved ATFCM, working with occupancy counts Continuous improvements on the ATS route network Possible DFL change to 35 and 355 Postponed UFN. current need for the measure. CPDLC (Feb ) Sector configurations adapted to traffic demand Maintain appropriate level of staffing to open up to 8 sectors Minor updates of COOPANS Maximum configuration: 4/5 (E) + 3 (W) 3E + 2W, sufficient to meet traffic demand. Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 127, 2% higher than in 214. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 119 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 11.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 18 12 ESTONIA - TALLINN ACC EETTACC - and en-route ATFM delays 7 6 5 3 1 211 212 213 214. Peak Day 597 632 621 651 649 Summer 517 544 537 567 569 ly 468 493 485 58 516 Summer enroute delay (all causes).... ly enroute delay (all causes).... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Tallinn EETT ACC H: % Summer B: -% L: -2.2% The average en-route delay per flight remained at almost zero minutes per flight during Summer. Plan: Sufficient capacity to meet demand Achieved Comments NEFRA NO NEFAB FRA - Additional staff and controller rating Adaptation of sector opening times sig. Maximum configuration: 2 (+1 FEEDER) Summer performance assessment +1.7%.1.3 The capacity baseline was estimated to be 63. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 54 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 46. ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +%.2.4 63 (%) Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay EETTFED 1 14.7% EETTFEEDER 1 17.2% EETTEST 4 68.% 2 15 1 5 Tallinn ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 19 13 EUROCONTROL - MAASTRICHT ACC 6 5 EDYYUAC - and en-route ATFM delays 3 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 5348 5244 5349 5526 5552 Summer 4788 4793 4941 543 596 ly 447 4389 4474 4579 4664 Summer enroute delay (all causes). ly enroute delay (all causes)... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Maastricht EDYY UAC The average en-route delay per flight increased from 5 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to 3 minutes per flight during. 53% of the delays were for the reason ATC, 32% for Weather, 11% for Airspace Management, 2% for ATC Staffing and 2% for Other. The majority of the delay was caused in the Brussels Sector Group which was challenged by changes in the traffic patterns resulting in traffic growth higher than expected. Plan +1% Achieved Comments Improved ATFCM including STAM FABEC AD South-East Phase 1: EUC25 Project frozen Advanced tactical ATFCM measures Cross training of ATCOs H: 2.7% Summer B: 1.8% L: 1.1% +4% ifmp (integrated Flow Management Position) Fielded with basic capabilities Stepped implementation of XMAN (possible negative on capacity) 2 out of 13 expected implementations done Maximum configuration: 2 sectors (Possible if required according to traffic levels) 17 sectors were opened Summer performance assessment The capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS/Reverse CASA at 322. During the same period, the peak 3 hour demand was 316 and the peak 1 hour was 337. +1.9% 4 8 ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +1.1% 3 8 322 (-2%) Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay EDYYH5WH.% EDYYBALL.% EDYYH5SL.% EDYYH5ML 1.% EDYYH5RL 1 % EDYYHRHR 2 % 8 6 Maastricht UAC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 2 14 FINLAND - TAMPERE ACC 8 7 EFINCTA - and en-route ATFM delays 6 5 3 1 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 711 62 592 594 579 Summer 537 48 451 465 452 ly 533 485 451 459 445 Summer enroute delay (all causes).... ly enroute delay (all causes)... 1.1. Realisation of Plan Tampere EFIN CTA The average en-route delay per remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. Plan: Sufficient capacity to meet demand Achieved Comments Airspace re-structurisation (v 214) Maintain number of controllers Starting 8.1. part of staff located in EFHK WAM impl.in Western Finland (Q4 214) Evolution ( v 214) H:.% Summer B: -1.3% L: -2.5% significant Partial move of ACC functions to new ACC at EFHK (1 ATCOs) Maximum configuration: 6 + 3 feeders 5 sectors were opened Summer performance assessment -3.%.3 ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) -2.7%..8 58 (%) WAM project Postponed UFN due problems with supplier The capacity baseline was estimated at the same level as last year. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 39 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 32.. Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay EFINKLMN 1.1% EFIN7GN 1 4.3% EFIN7AG 1 5.4% EFINHJKLMN 1.57 EFINGKLMN 1.64 EFINEFG 2 13 8 6 4 2 Tampere ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 21 15 FRANCE BORDEAUX ACC 35 3 LFBBALL - and en-route ATFM delays 25 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 2945 2978 366 3183 3197 Summer 2557 2575 2615 2668 2744 ly 2238 2222 2238 2282 2349 Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes). Realisation of Plan Bordeaux LFBB ACC The average en-route delay per flight remained at 4 minutes per flight during Summer. 62% of the delays were due to ATC, 28% due to Weather and 6% due to Special Events. Plan % Achieved Comments FABEC FRA Step 1 : WE DCTs Improved Airspace Management / FUA Improved ATFCM Procedures and STAM Staff deployment / Flexible rostering Datalink IOC Evolution ( v 214) H: 3.1% Summer B: 2.3% L: % +4% Maximum configuration: 21 UCESO 21 sectors Summer performance assessment +3.% 4 2 The ACC capacity baseline was assessed with ACCESS to be at the same level as in Summer 214. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was and the average peak 3 hour demand was 187. ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +2.9% 4 21 (%) Referenc e ER Delays ACC ER Delay LFBPFIS.% LFBBT4.% LFBBPZ.% LFBBX3.% LFBBNH2.% LFBBUS1.% 3 1 Bordeaux ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 22 16 FRANCE BREST ACC 35 LFRRACC - and en-route ATFM delays 3 25 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 3347 3294 3345 355 3429 Summer 28 2752 285 298 2975 ly 244 2398 2457 2559 2538 Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1. Realisation of Plan Brest LFRR ACC The average en-route delay increased from 3 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to 4 minutes per flight during Summer. 73% of the delays were due to the reason ATC and 13% due to Special Events. Plan % Achieved Comments FABEC FRA Step 1 : WE DCTs Improved airspace management / FUA Improvement of ATFCM procedures and STAM Reorganisation of airspace below FL145 (2 nd & final step) Implementation planned for 216 IBP Staff redeployment / flexible rostering Datalink IOC Upgraded ops room and new simulation room Maximum configuration: 19 UCESO (July & August) Summer performance assessment Partiallyy Plan developed in, implementation expected in December. Maximum configuration: 15/16 UCESO (July & August) The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS/Reverse CASA at 198, 5% lower than in 214. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 218 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 23. Evolution ( v 214) Referenc e H: 3.6% Summer B: 2.6% L: 1.2% ER Delays significant ACC ER Delay LFRSSIVE.% LFRRNIU.% LFRRQSI.% LFRRKWS.% LFRRQXS.% LFRRGU.% 15 5 -% 1.41 1 Brest ACC en-route delays in ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) -% 4 8 198 (-5%)

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 23 17 FRANCE MARSEILLE ACC 45 LFMMACC - and en-route ATFM delays 35 3 25 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 3928 3929 3999 432 43 Summer 3257 3268 3271 3269 327 ly 286 2763 2746 273 2743 Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes). Realisation of Plan Marseille LFMM ACC The average en-route delay decreased from 6 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to 9 minutes per flight during Summer. 66% of the delays were due to the reason ATC, and 3% due to Weather. Plan +2% Achieved Comments FABEC FRA Step 1 : WE DCTs In addition, comprehensive tests of DCTs in sector D and Z Improved airspace management / FUA Improved airspace availability in D54 area. Improvement of ATFCM procedures and STAM CDM Procedures New DFL D and Z sectors New upper level of sectors LO and LS Reorganisation of lower airspace and delegation of ATS to APP units below FL145 Staff redeployment / flexible rostering Datalink IOC Evolution ( v 214) H: 2.4% Summer B: 1.7% L: % Reorganisation of the sector groups (transfer of 1 sector from E to W) Postponed until December 217 t required at present, retained as an option if needed Maximum configuration: 28 UCESO Maximum configuration: 28 UCESO Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed with ACCESS to be at 242, 2% higher compared to Summer 214. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 246 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 233. Reference significant ER Delays ACC ER Delay LFMMRAES.% LFMMW2.% LFMMLE.% LFMMMNST.% LFMMGYAB.% LFMMMM.% 8 6 % 5 Marseille ACC en-route delays in ACC Baseline (% difference v 214).% 9 4 242 (+2%)

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 24 18 FRANCE PARIS ACC 45 LFFFALL - and en-route ATFM delays 35 3 25 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 417 3863 394 3925 Summer 3462 3429 339 3353 352 ly 3284 3227 317 3125 325 Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes). Realisation of Plan Paris LFFF ACC The average en-route delay slightly decreased from minutes per flight during Summer 214 to 7 minutes per flight during Summer. 51% of the delays were due to the reason Weather, 39% due to ATC, 4% due to Industrial Action (ATC), and 4% due to Special Events. Plan +1% Achieved Comments FABEC FRA Step 1 : WE DCTs Improved airspace management / FUA Improved ATFCM procedures and STAM / GF project* FABEC AD South-East Phase 1 (EUC25) New sectorisation HP KZ IBP Reorganisation of lower airspace and delegation of ATS to APP units below FL145 (for relevant airspace) Staff redeployment / flexible rostering Datalink IOC Maximum configuration: 22 UCESO Evolution ( v 214) H: 2.% Summer B: 1.4% L: % Summer performance assessment Implementation of CDM processes and procedures started already in. GF included now in the wider istream Project. Maximum configuration: 21 sectors, higher configuration not required. The ACC capacity baseline was assessed with ACCESS to be at 276, 3% higher than in Summer 214. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 271 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 245. Reference -3% ER ACC ER Delay Delays LFFFMPT.% LFQQTMA.% LFFFAO.% LFFFORGYS.% LFFFDOGS.% LFFFAOML.% 3 25 15 1 5 +2.6% 4 3 Paris ACC en-route delays in ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +4.4% 7 7 276 (+3%)

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 25 19 FRANCE - REIMS ACC 35 3 LFEEACC - and en-route ATFM delays 25 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 2795 293 33 3193 3267 Summer 2537 2587 2719 2832 2899 ly 2311 2334 243 2522 2574 Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes). Realisation of Plan Reims LFEE ACC The average en-route delay slightly increased from minutes per flight during Summer 214 to 6 minutes per flight during Summer. 75% of the delays were due to ATC, and 2% due to Weather. Plan +1% Achieved Comments FABEC FRA Step 1: WE DCTs Improved airspace management / FUA FABEC XMAN Step 1 : Basic Improved ATFCM procedures and STAM FABEC AD South-East Phase 1 (EUC25) UL1 +LAMP trial Staff redeployment / Flexible rostering Datalink IOC Implementation of CDM processes and procedures started already in. Maximum configuration: 19 UCESO Maximum configuration: 18 UCESO Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 19. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was and the average peak 3 hour demand was 189. Referenc e Evolution ( v 214) H: 2.4% Summer B: 1.6% L: % ER Delays +12% ACC ER Delay LFEESEUH.% LFEEXE.% LFSBALL.% LFEE5H.% LFEE5E.% LFEEXKHH.% 8 6 +2.1% 5 Reims ACC en-route delays in ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +2.4% 6 7 19 (+2%)

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 26 2 FYROM - SKOPJE ACC 9 8 LWSSACC - and en-route ATFM delays 7 6 5 3 1 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 696 642 661 834 859 Summer 465 418 424 566 568 ly 34 36 31 389 41 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Skopje LWSS ACC ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) H: 9.1% Summer B: 8.4% L: 7.8% +34% +3.1%.1 9 +%.2 6 59 (%) The delays slightly increased from zero minutes for flight during Summer 214 to.2 minutes per flight during Summer. Plan 5% Achieved Comments Free route airspace Planned June 216 Maximum configuration: 3 sectors 3 sectors Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was estimated to be at the same level as in Summer 214. During the measured period the average peak 1 hour was 48 and the average peak 3 hour was 42.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 27 21 GEORGIA - TBILISI ACC 35 UGGGACC - and en-route ATFM delays 3 25 15 1 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day Summer 314 31 37 327 355 ly 31 295 32 318 335 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Tbilisi UGGG ACC ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) H: -% Summer B: -2.1% L: -4.% significant +5.5%..1 +8.4%..1 4 (%) The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. Plan : Sufficient capacity to meet demand Comments Free route airspace Planned June 216 Maximum configuration: 3 sectors 3 sectors Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was estimated to be 4. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 39 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 23.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 28 22 GERMANY - BREMEN ACC 25 EDWWACC - and en-route ATFM delays 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 2228 2239 2136 2192 2185 Summer 183 1826 1777 1839 1864 ly 179 1674 1628 1683 172 Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes). Realisation of Plan Bremen EDWW ACC Plan: % Evolution ( v 214) H: 1.6% Summer B: % L: -% significant Summer performance assessment +2.2%.8.6 Comments ACC Baseline (% difference v 213) +1.4%.8.6 151 (%) The summer traffic increased by 1.4%. The Average ATFM Delay En-route per Movement was stable at min/flight in Summer. The delays were mainly due to ATC (39%), ATC Staffing (6%) and Weather (27%). The offered capacity was the same as in 214. The ADM Summer is close to the EU reference value. There, no capacity deficit was observed. A maximum configuration of 17+4 consists of 14 en-route sectors and 3 en-route/app- sectors (Hamburg, Hannover) and 4 APP/TMAsectors (Berlin). The offered configuration of 14+4 with 11 en-route sectors was opened during the whole year. The sectors EIDER EAST and MÜRITZ LOW were only open for military exercises. Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay EDWWNORDB % EDWWHEI % EDWWALEH % EDWWCTA % EDWWDBAN % EDWWHEIC 1 % 6 5 4 3 2 1 Bremen ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 29 23 GERMANY - KARLSRUHE ACC EDUUUAC - and en-route ATFM delays 6 5 3 211 212 213 214. Peak Day 4795 4748 56 5746 571 Summer 435 4345 588 5245 535 ly 3871 395 451 4631 4719 Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Karlsruhe EDUU ACC Plan +6% Evolution ( v 214) H: 2.8% Summer B: 1.7% L: % Summer performance assessment significant +1.9% 8 6 ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +1.1% 6 4 357 (+3%) The summer traffic growth reaches 1.1% and is higher than expected. The Average ATFM Delay en-route per Movement decreased slightly to 6 min./flight compare to the previous summer period. The delays were mainly due to ATC Staffing (13%), ATC (18%) and Weather (57%). The summer delay was generated primarily by Weather. capacity deficit was observed The offered capacity increased continuously in. Two sectors were split. A maximum configuration of 42 en-route sectors was available; the OSTSEE, CHIEM and ISA sectors was mostly combined (offered configuration of 39 sectors). Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay EDUULK13.% EDUUALCH12.% EDUUHVL12.% EDUUHVL22 % EDUUDON13 1 % EDUUDI13 1 % 6 5 3 1 Karlsruhe UAC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 3 24 GERMANY - LANGEN ACC 45 EDGGACC - and en-route ATFM delays 35 3 25 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 4138 419 473 4122 4179 Summer 3654 3688 364 3642 3679 ly 3434 3377 3319 3317 3343 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 1.4 ly enroute delay (all causes) 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1. Realisation of Plan Langen EDGG ACC Evolution ( v 214) H: 1.2% Summer B: % L: -% significant Plan -1% Achieved Comments Upgrade of P1/ATCAS system (PSS) EBG5/6 NEX 6 +% 4 3 ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +% 5 26 (+2%) The realisation was completed successfully on Sep/Dec 214 New structure EBG 1 (APP FRA) NEX 9 The realisation was completed successfully on 3.4. FABEC AD South-East Phase 1 : EUC25 EX 12 Summer performance assessment The realisation was completed successfully on 5.3. The summer traffic increased in compared to 214 by %. The Average ATFM Delay en-route per Movement was significant decreased to 5 min/flight in Summer compared to the last year. The delays were mainly due to ATC Staffing (19%), ATC (35%) and Weather (4%). The offered capacity was also stable in. The ADM in summer is lower than the reference value. capacity deficit was observed. A maximum configuration of 23+13 consists of 23 en-route sectors (including 3 sectors with predominantly military traffic) and 2 en-route /APPsectors (Stuttgart) and 11 APP/TMA- sectors (Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Cologne/Bonn 2 sectors always combined). The offered configuration is 23+12 sectors. Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay EDGGPFEI.% EDGGHMMM.% EDGGNLH.% EDGGLBU.% EDGGDLDS % EDGGRUMO 1 % 3 25 15 1 5 Langen ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 31 25 GERMANY - MUNICH ACC 6 5 EDMMACC - and en-route ATFM delays 3 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 512 4798 3593 3543 356 Summer 454 439 3126 399 324 ly 48 3911 2876 2846 2923 Summer enroute delay (all causes). ly enroute delay (all causes)... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Munich EDMM ACC H: 1.5% Summer B: % L: -% -1% Plan % Achieved Comments Implementation FMTP REV/MAC EX 17 Upgrade of P1/ATCAS system (PSS) EBG APP EX 2 Summer performance assessment +2.7%.4 9 ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +3.4%.8 5 25 (+2%) The realisation was completed successfully. The realisation was completed successfully on 23./24.5. The Average ATFM Delay En-route per Movement is nearly. minutes/flight, as in the previous summer period. The delays were mainly due to Weather (48%), ATC and ATC Staffing (2%). Approximately 48% of ATFM delays caused by the implementation of PSS. The ADM summer was below the reference value. The maximum configuration of 17+4 sectors consists of 14 en-route sectors and 3 en-route /APP- sectors (Nuremberg, Dresden and Leipzig) and 4 APP/TMA- sectors (Munich). The offered configuration has 14+4 sectors three en-route sectors (FRANKEN Upper/High, NÖRDLINGEN/WALDA and SACHSEN Low/ High) are mostly combined. Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay EDMMSOUTH.% EDMMNORTH.% EDMMRDG % EDMMFRKL 1 % EDMMRDEG 1 % EDMMTRGHN 1 % 8 6 4 2 Munich ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 32 26 GREECE - ATHENS ACC 3 25 LGGGACC - and en-route ATFM delays 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 2211 2197 236 2419 243 Summer 1555 1521 1561 172 1779 ly 123 1195 1195 1291 1365 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 5.2 1.5 ly enroute delay (all causes) 3.3 5.5 5. 4.5 4. 3.5 3. 2.5 2. 1.5. Realisation of Plan Athens LGGG ACC The average en-route delay per flight increased from 7 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to 1.46 minutes per flight during Summer. 6% of delays were due to the reason ATC capacity and 39% due ATC staffing. Plan -5% Achieved Comments Improved civil/military coordination Improved ATFCM, including STAM Improved ATS route network and airspace management Reduction in number of ATCOs ATM system upgrade FDPS upgrade including FPL 212 OLDI with Nicosia Maximum configuration: 4/5 sectors Evolution ( v 214) H: 15.4% Summer B: 14.2% L: 12.3% +6% Summer performance assessment Reduction of active ATCOs continued in with on the number of sectors being made available 6 sectors used for a limited period of time and even 7 sectors during some days of the peak season. The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS/Reverse CASA at 118, same as in 214. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 133 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 121. +5.8% 6 ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +3.5% 1.46 8 118 (%) Reference ER ACC ER Delay Delays LMMMCTA.% LGGGRDSU.% LAAACTA 1 % LIBBCTA 2 % LGGGMILU 5 % LGGGRDKA 9 % 8 6 Athens ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 33 27 GREECE - MAKEDONIA ACC 25 LGMDACC - and en-route ATFM delays 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 1729 178 1721 1942 1996 Summer 1258 1268 1264 1413 1452 ly 976 961 939 132 175 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 1.9. ly enroute delay (all causes) 1.2.. 2. 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2. Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Makedonia LGMD ACC The average en-route delay increased from 4 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to 5 minutes per flight during Summer. 62% of delays were due to the reason ATC staffing, and 37% due ATC capacity. Plan -5% Achieved Comments Improved civil/military coordination Improved ATFCM, including STAM Improved ATS route network and airspace management Reduction in number of ATCOs ATM system upgrade H: 13.% Summer B: 12.2% L: 1% FDPS upgrade including FPL 212 significant / / / / / / Maximum configuration: 4/3 sectors / 4 sectors Summer performance assessment +4.2% 1 6 ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +2.8% 5 1 1 (%) The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS/Reverse CASA at 1, same value as in 214. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 16 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 96. Reference ER ACC ER Delay Delays LGMDKVL.% LGMDWLSK % LGMDKVLU % LGMDTSLU 1 % LGMDWU 2 % LGMDLMOML 2 % 3 1 Makedonia ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 34 28 HUNGARY - BUDAPEST ACC 35 3 LHCCACC - and en-route ATFM delays 25 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 2434 2316 2353 288 2893 Summer 1913 1847 194 2147 2364 ly 1594 1526 1566 1754 1951 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Budapest LHCC ACC Evolution ( v 214) H: 8.7% Summer B: 7.6% L: 5.9% -16% The average en-route delay per flight slightly increased from zero minutes per flight during Summer 214 to.4 minutes per flight during Summer. Plan +2.5% Achieved Comments FRA.2.5 Fully implemented, H24, whole FIR Optimization of airspace structure Ongoing Recruitment and training of controllers 3 ACC trainees will start OJT early 216 Maximum configuration: 1 sectors Max 8 sector configuration needed in Summer performance assessment +11.3%.3.6 ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +1%.4.9 25 (+16%) The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 25, 16% higher than in 214. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 193 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 17. Reference ER ACC ER Delay Delays LHCCWESTM % LHCCWESTH % LHCCWESTL % LHCCWHT 2 3.5% LHCCWESTU 4 7.% LHCCWLM 8 14.5% 6 5 4 3 2 1 Budapest ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 35 29 IRELAND - DUBLIN ACC 8 7 EIDWACC - and en-route ATFM delays 6 5 3 1 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 623 624 634 659 715 Summer 529 544 568 595 642 ly 489 491 59 537 578 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Dublin EIDW ACC ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) H: 4.4% Summer B: 3.6% L: 2.5% significant +7.8%..1 +7.8%..1 59 (%) Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight in Summer. Plan: +3% Achieved Comments A-CDM at Dublin airport Ongoing Planned implementation 216 Improved ATFCM, including STAM UK / Ireland FAB initiatives Point merge RWY 1 On-going recruitment to maintain staff levels Cross rating training Maximum configuration: 4 sectors Summer performance assessment The capacity baseline was estimated at the same level as last year. The peak 1 hour demand was 51 and the peak 3 hour demand was 44.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 36 3 IRELAND - SHANNON ACC 18 16 EISNACC - and en-route ATFM delays 1 1 8 6 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 147 1381 1467 1578 1495 Summer 1199 1189 1199 125 1279 ly 189 175 174 186 1127 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Shannon EISN ACC ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) H: 2.% Summer B: 1.6% L: % significant +3.7%..2 +2.3%..3 124 (%) Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight in Summer. Plan: +2% Achieved Comments Improved ATFCM, including STAM UK / Ireland FAB initiatives CPDLC Developing Queue Management programme On-going recruitment to maintain staff levels FAB dynamic sectorisation - Trials Extra sectors as required Dynamic sectorisation available Maximum configuration: 12 sectors Summer performance assessment The ACCESS measured baseline of 124 indicates the capacity available during the measured period. The peak 1 hour demand was 15 and the peak 3 hour demand was 94.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 37 31 ITALY - BRINDISI ACC 16 1 LIBBACC - and en-route ATFM delays 1 8 6 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 1459 1349 1377 1273 1226 Summer 154 978 961 884 864 ly 872 88 786 73 697 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Brindisi LIBB ACC Evolution ( v 214) Enroute Delay (min. per flight) ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) H: 7.5% Summer B: 6.6% L: 5.1% significant -4.5%..1-2.2%..1 86 (+5%) Average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. Plan:: 5% Achieved Comments Free-route implementation program Improved airspace management PBN Program Improved ATFCM, including STAM Airspace management and ATS route assessment and/or improvements according to network needs, Airspace Users expectations, ENAV s Flight Efficiency Plan and BLUEMED FAB implementation Additional capacity benefits from VDL Mode 2 implementation by all stakeholders Postponed to 216 Flexible opening scheme according to traffic demand and system enablers implementation Maximum configuration: 5 sectors Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured at 86. During the measured period (June and July), the average peak 1 hour demand was 68 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 61.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 38 32 ITALY - MILAN ACC 35 3 LIMMACC - and en-route ATFM delays 25 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 2198 2165 22 2893 2843 Summer 1893 1853 1754 2441 2496 ly 1719 1659 1567 1973 2166 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Milan LIMM ACC Average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. Plan: 5% Achieved Comments Free-route implementation program Improved airspace management PBN Program Improved ATFCM including STAM Airspace management and ATS route assessment and/or improvements according to network needs, Airspace Users, ENAV s Flight Efficiency Plan and/or BLUEMED FAB implementation Airspace and configuration re-organization Additional ATCOs (from TWRs to ACC) Additional capacity benefits from VDL Mode 2 implementation by all stakeholders Flexible opening scheme according to traffic demand and system enablers implementation Maximum configuration: 2 sectors Evolution ( v 214) H: 3.2% (+1%)* Summer B: 2.2% (+1%)* L: % (+1%)* significant Summer performance assessment Enroute Delay (min. per flight) +9.8%..8 Postponed to 217 The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 192. During the measured period (June and July), the average peak 1 hour demand was 184 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 174. ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +2.3%. 3 192 (+2%)

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 39 33 ITALY - PADOVA ACC 35 3 LIPPACC - and en-route ATFM delays 25 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 2755 2826 2869 294 2694 Summer 221 222 227 2264 2129 ly 1865 1844 1821 1854 1764 Summer enroute delay (all causes).... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Padova LIPP ACC ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) H: 3.8% (-5%)* Summer B: 3.% (-5%)* L: 1.3% (-5%)* significant -4.9%..8-6.%. 2 193 (%) Average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. : 183 Achieved Comments Free-route implementation program Improved airspace management PBN Program Improved ATFCM including STAM Airspace management and ATS route assessment and/or improvements according to network needs, Airspace Users expectations, ENAV s Flight Efficiency Plan and/or BLUEMED FAB implementation Airspace and configuration re-organization Additional capacity benefits from VDL Mode 2 implementation by all stakeholders Flexible opening scheme according to traffic demand and system enablers implementation Maximum configuration: 13 sectors Postponed to end 216 Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured at 193. During the measured period (June and July) the average peak 1 hour demand was 173 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 162.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 4 34 ITALY - ROME ACC 35 LIRRACC - and en-route ATFM delays 3 25 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 3744 3798 3799 36 37 Summer 381 368 354 2477 2512 ly 2662 2583 2565 2239 2144 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Rome LIRR ACC Average en-route delay per flight slightly increased from zero minutes per flight in Summer 214 to.3 minutes per flight in Summer. : 213 Achieved Comments Free-route implementation program Improved airspace management PBN Program Improved ATFCM including STAM Airspace management and ATS route assessment and/or improvements according to network needs, Airspace Users expectations, ENAV s Flight Efficiency Plan and/or BLUEMED FAB implementation Airspace and configuration re-organization TMA reorganisation Evolution ( v 214) H: 2.3% (+9%)* Summer B: 1.4% (+9%)* L: -% (+9%)* Additional capacity benefits from VDL Mode 2 implementation by all stakeholders Flexible opening scheme according to traffic demand and system enablers implementation Maximum configuration: 2/21 sectors significant Summer performance assessment Postponed to 217 The ACC capacity baseline was assessed measured at 214. During the measured period (June and July), the average peak 1 hour demand was 197 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 185. Enroute Delay (min. per flight) -4.3%.2.4 ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +1.4%.3.6 214 Referenc e ER Delays ACC ER Delay LIRRNE % LIRRALL 1 3.8% LIRRES 2 5.% LIRRARR 2 5.7% LIRRNNW 2 6.2% LIRRDPNS 3 7.3% 5 4 3 2 1 Roma ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 41 35 LATVIA - RIGA ACC 9 8 EVRRACC - and en-route ATFM delays 7 6 5 3 1 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 819 833 831 841 843 Summer 716 74 714 738 739 ly 639 634 642 659 664 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Riga EVRR ACC ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) H: % Summer B: -% L: -1.9% significant +%..4 +%..6 85 (%) The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. Plan Sufficient capacity to meet demand Achieved Comments Various ATM system improvements Maximum configuration: 3 + 2 APP 4 sectors were opened Summer performance assessment The capacity baseline was estimated at the same level as in 214. The average peak 1 hour demand was 64 and the peak 3 hour demand was 58 flights during the measured period, indicating that the ACC offered sufficient capacity to meet the demand. The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight in Summer 214.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 42 36 LITHUANIA - VILNIUS ACC 9 8 EYVCACC - and en-route ATFM delays 7 6 5 3 1 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 691 685 738 84 776 Summer 591 62 633 672 664 ly 534 545 566 598 599 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Vilnius EYVC ACC ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) H: % Summer B: -1.7% L: -3.4% significant +%..1-1.1%..1 77 (%) The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. Plan Sufficient capacity to meet demand Achieved Comments Free route airspace concept implementation in Vilnius FIR Maximum configuration: 3 sectors Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 214. The peak 1 hour demand was 55 and the peak 3 hour demand was 51 during the measured period.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 43 37 MALTA - MALTA ACC 45 LMMMACC - and en-route ATFM delays 35 3 25 15 1 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 366 389 415 392 379 Summer 231 35 331 297 312 ly 222 264 298 277 279 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Malta LMMM ACC ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) H: -8.4% Summer B: -9.5% L: -11.2% significant +%..1 +5.3%..1 42 (+8%) The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. Plan Sufficient capacity to meet demand Achieved Comments Maximum configuration: 2 sectors 2 sectors Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS. During June and July, the average peak 1 hour demand was 26 flights and the peak 3 hour demand was 22 flights per hour..

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 44 38 MOLDOVA - CHISINAU ACC 35 3 LUUUACC - and en-route ATFM delays 25 15 1 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 256 284 33 279 19 Summer 187 22 241 165 146 ly 162 171 198 149 119 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Chisinau LUUU ACC ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) H: -9.4% Summer B: -1% L: -13.% +49% -2.%..2-11.5%..3 4 (%) Average enroute delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flightduring Summer. Plan: Sufficient capacity to meet demand Achieved Comments WAM / MLAT systems Final Implementation during 216 Update of sector capacity following CAPAN study Maximum configuration: 3 sectors Summer performance assessment Maximum configuration: 2 sectors Sufficient to meet the traffic demand The ACC capacity baseline was estimated at 4. The peak 1 hour demand was 14 flights and the peak 3 hour demand was 12.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 45 39 THE NETHERLANDS - AMSTERDAM ACC EHAAACC - and en-route ATFM delays 18 16 1 1 8 6 211 212 213 214. Peak Day 1673 1645 1657 1698 1764 Summer 1532 159 1534 1565 1632 ly 1416 1393 148 1441 1499 Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) Realisation of Plan Amsterdam EHAA ACC The average en-route delay per flight slightly decreased from 7 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to 3 minutes per flight in Summer. 46% of the delays were for the reason ATC, and 28% for reason Weather. Plan % Achieved Comments Maximum configuration: 5 sectors Evolution ( v 214) H: 1.1% Summer B: % L: % significant Summer performance assessment +4.1% 4 The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 143, representing the delivered capacity. This was sufficient to accommodate the traffic demand, with an average peak 1 hour of 127 during the measured period and an average peak 3 hour of 113. ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +4.3% 3 4 143 (+4%) Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay EHAASECT2 2 1.3% EHAASECT3 9 6.% EHAACBAS 135 92.7% 15 1 5 Amsterdam ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 46 4 NORWAY - BODO ACC 9 8 ENBDACC - and en-route ATFM delays 7 6 5 3 1 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 719 729 753 753 765 Summer 558 572 588 69 614 ly 544 555 565 589 59 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Bodo ENBD ACC Average enroute delay per flight slightly decreased from.2 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to zero minutes per flight during Summer. Plan: Sufficient capacity to meet expected demand Achieved Comments SNAP (Southern rway Airspace Project) Flexible rostering of ATC staff Recruitment and training to maintain number of air traffic controllers New ATM system in Bodo Oceanic Evolution ( v 214) H: -1.9% Summer B: -2.3% L: -2.9% significant Impact Maximum configuration: 7 + 1 oceanic Summer performance assessment +%. The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at the same level as in Summer 214. During the measured period, the average peak hour demand was 5 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 45. ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +%..6 57 (%) Reference ACC ER ER Delays Delay ENOBOA8 3 1.% 12 1 8 6 4 2 Bodo ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 47 41 NORWAY OSLO ACC 16 1 ENOSACC - and en-route ATFM delays 1 8 6 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 1135 1135 1 1224 1433 Summer 911 947 118 125 982 ly 884 898 949 961 965 Summer enroute delay (all causes)... ly enroute delay (all causes).... Realisation of Plan Oslo ENOS ACC Average enroute delay per flight increased from.1 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to minutes per flight during Summer. Planned Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Additional controllers Flexible rostering of ATC staff Evolution ( v 214) H: -2.3% Summer B: -2.9% L: -3.8% significant Maximum configuration: 7 sectors Maximum 8 available Summer performance assessment +%.6 3 The capacity offered was measured with ACCESS at a level of 88, for an average peak demand of 78 (peak 1 hour) and 73 (peak 3 hour ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) -4.2% 3 88 (-3%) Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay ENOS5 % ENOS34 % ENOS67 1 1.7% ENOSEFAR 1 2.% ENOS8 2 2.6% ENOSW34567 3 4.1% 4 3 2 1 Oslo ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 48 42 NORWAY STAVANGER ACC ENSVACC - and en-route ATFM delays 9 8 7 6 5 3 1 211 212 213 214. Peak Day 85 831 88 9 883 Summer 619 653 696 78 697 ly 588 625 663 677 661 Summer enroute delay (all causes). ly enroute delay (all causes)... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Stavanger ENSV ACC H: -3.3% Summer B: -3.8% L: -4.4% significant -2.3%.3 1 ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) -1.5%.6 1 62 (+2%) Average enroute delay per flight slightly decreased from.8 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to.6 minutes per flight during Summer. Plan 1% Achieved Comments SNAP (Southern rway Airspace Project) Flexible rostering of ATC staff Recruitment and training to maintain number of air traffic controllers Re-assessment of sector capacities with CAPAN Planned now for 216 Maximum configuration: 3 + 2 helicopter Summer performance assessment The capacity baseline of 64 was measured with ACCESS, indicating the capacity actually offered. During the measured period, the average peak demand was 59 (peak 1 hour) and 53 (peak 3 hour). Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay ENSVALL % ENSV567 % ENSV131417 1 3.3% ENSV912EB 2 12.1% ENSV92EB 3 13.1% ENSV912 14 7% 4 3 2 1 Stavanger ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 49 43 POLAND WARSAW ACC 3 25 EPWWACC - and en-route ATFM delays 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 2222 2395 2414 2456 2333 Summer 1954 217 263 217 273 ly 1748 186 1829 1851 1841 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 1.1 ly enroute delay (all causes) 1.2 1.1. Realisation of Plan Warsaw EPWW ACC The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 1.14 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to 7 minutes per flight during Summer. 84% of delays were for the reason ATC, 6% for Weather and 4% ATC Staffing Plan +3% Achieved Comments Improved ATFCM techniques, including STAM YES New sector s occupancy reference values Additional controllers YES 125 ATCOs available Improved sector configurations and management (additional measure to the plan) Introduction of Manager position (additional measure to the plan) YES YES Increased number of effective configurations (up to total of 87) D-1 and tactical planning, EU restrictions and scenarios applied during Summer Minimizing ATC Staffing cause of delays (additional measure to the plan) YES Achieved ( decrease from 13% on 214) Maximum configuration: 9 sectors YES 9 sectors Summer performance assessment Evolution ( v 214) H: 1.7% Summer B:.% L: -1.5% -7% -% 9 3 ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) -1.6% 7 4 142 (+5%) The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS/Reverse CASA at 142, 5% higher than in 214. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 149 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 14. Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay EPWWSE.% EPWWC.% EPWANS 1 % EPWWJR 1 % EPWWR 1 % EPWWDTC 2 % 8 6 Warsaw ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 5 44 PORTUGAL - LISBON ACC 18 16 LPPCACC - and en-route ATFM delays 1 1 8 6 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 1484 1516 1448 1669 1672 Summer 1217 1178 1213 1312 137 ly 1153 1121 115 1229 1292 Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes). Realisation of Plan Lisbon LPPC ACC The average en-route delay per flight increased from 9 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to 4 minutes per flight during Summer. 68% of the delays were for the reason ATC, 12% for Special events, 11% for ATC Staffing, 8% for ATC equipment and 2% for Weather. Plan 3% Achieved Comments Enhanced ATFCM procedures, including STAM New DFL 365 West Sector Partially Reduction of separation minima from 8 to 5 NM Implemented on 2 October Flexible rostering Partially Maintain appropriate level of staffing to open up to 9 sectors Partially t at all times when required Area Proximity warning (APW) Planned for 216 Flexible sector opening schemes Evolution ( v 214) H: 4.7% Summer B: 3.8% L: 2.2% significant Partially Maximum configuration: 9 (7 ENR+2 TMA) 9 sectors were opened Summer performance assessment +5.1% 1 2 ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +4.4% 4 3 94 (%) The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS / Reverse CASA at 94 same as in 214. During the measured period (June and July AIRAC cycles), the average peak 1 hour demand was 1 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 9. Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay LPPCWU345.% LPPCAPP 1 % LPPCWL365 1 % LPPCMAD 1 % LPPRTA 2 % CCS 3 % 6 5 3 1 Lisbon ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 51 45 ROMANIA - BUCHAREST ACC 3 25 LRBBACC - and en-route ATFM delays 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 1945 1982 257 2362 243 Summer 1588 1566 1676 1975 221 ly 1333 138 1383 1617 1717 Summer enroute delay (all causes).... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Bucharest LRBB ACC ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) H: 7.7% Summer B: 6.3% L: 4.7% significant +6.2%.3.1 +2.3%.5.1 183 (%) Average enroute ATFM delay per flight slightly increased from zero minutes per flight during Summer 214 to.5 minutes per flight during Summer. 82% of the delays were for the reason Equipment (ATC) and 17% for Industrial action (ATC). Plan Sufficient capacity to meet demand Achieved Comments : Free Route extension study through Real Time Simulation at DANUBE FAB level, with EUROCONTROL support (project co-financed by European Union, according to the Decision C(213) 7573 / 7.11.213) ATS route network and sectorisation improvements : ATS procedures will be revisited with the occasion of the FRA extension study through RTS planned at DANUBE FAB level (project cofinanced by European Union, according to the Decision C(213) 7573 / 7.11.213) BUCURESTI ACC sectorisation & capacity optimisation will be studied with the occasion of the Real Time Simulation for Free Route Airspace extension at DANUBE FAB level planned in (project co-financed by European Union, according to the Decision C(213) 7573 / 7.11.213) Maximum configuration: 14 sectors 14 sectors opened Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was assessed to be at 183 the same level as in Summer 214. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 15 flights and the peak 3 hour demand was 14.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 52 46 SERBIA & MONTENEGRO - BELGRADE ACC 35 3 LYBAACC - and en-route ATFM delays 25 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 2464 2435 2441 261 2943 Summer 187 183 1792 193 28 ly 152 1435 1393 1491 1621 Summer enroute delay (all causes).... ly enroute delay (all causes)..... Realisation of Plan Belgrade LYBA ACC En-route delay slightly increased from zero minutes per flight during Summer 214 to.4 minutes per flight during Summer. Plan 1% Achieved Comments Night Free Route. Night Cross border FRA with Croatia. LARA/CIMACT Public procurement procedure issues Lower sector DFL change CCAMS Maximum configuration: 12 sectors Evolution ( v 214) H: 8.4% Summer B: 7.2% L: 5.8% +8% Summer performance assessment +8.7%.3 ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +7.8%.4 5 181 (+1%) 9 sectors were opened and sufficient to cope with the traffic demand The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 181. The peak 1 hour demand was 159 and the peak 3 hour demand was 146 during the measurement period. Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay LYBAUWES % LYBAUE % LYBATE % LYBAT % LYBALU 1.1% LYBAUW 1 1.3% 3 25 2 15 1 5 Belgrade ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 53 47 SLOVAK REPUBLIC - BRATISLAVA ACC 25 LZBBACC - and en-route ATFM delays 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 154 1553 1563 1924 1832 Summer 1213 1217 1276 1419 15 ly 16 14 155 1161 1243 Summer enroute delay (all causes)... ly enroute delay (all causes).... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Bratislava LZBB ACC The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 3 minutes per flight in Summer 214 to 2 minutes per flight in Summer. 75% of the delays were for the reason ATC, and 22% for weather. Plan +3% Achieved Comments Improve accuracy of airspace booking From ANSP perspective no influence on this Improved ATFCM techniques, including STAM STAM trial completed Continuous improvements of the route network and sectorisation Enhanced sectorisation according to the FABCE SYSCO Continuous recruitment to increase staff level Mode S Optimisation of sector opening times New sector configurations H: 4.5% Summer B: 3.% L: 1.2% -23% Maximum configuration: 5 sectors 5 sectors Summer performance assessment +7.%.8 The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 13, 9% higher than in 214. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 128 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 111. ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +5.7% 2 5 13 (+9%)

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 54 48 SLOVENIA - LJUBLJANA ACC 16 1 LJLAACC - and en-route ATFM delays 1 8 6 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 1189 1262 1254 1351 135 Summer 912 99 89 962 914 ly 741 735 73 743 725 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Ljubljana LJLA ACC ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) H: 3.5% Summer B: 2.5% L: % +28% -2.5%. 1-5.%. 1 87 (%) The average en-route delay per flight remained zero minutes per flight during Summer. Plan 5% to 15% Achieved Comments Stepped implementation of FRA according to the FAB CE Airspace Plan Enhanced ATFCM techniques, including STAM ATS route network and traffic organisation changes Enhanced sectorization according to the FAB CE Airspace Plan In addition Slovenia Control entered into cross border FRA project with Austro Control, implementation date NOV216 (project SAXFRA). Mode S New implementation date April 216 4 additional ATCOs Minor system upgrades as necessary Reassessment of sector capacities (CAPAN) Flexible sector configurations Maximum configuration: 5 sectors 4 sectors were opened The capacity baseline was estimated at the same level as last year. The peak 1 hour demand was 71 and the peak 3 hour demand was 65 during the measurement period

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 55 49 SPAIN - BARCELONA ACC 35 3 LECBACC - and en-route ATFM delays 25 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 324 3138 3187 3333 3294 Summer 2599 2523 2533 2599 2628 ly 2138 213 7 242 285 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 1.9 ly enroute delay (all causes) 1.3 2. 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2. Realisation of Plan Barcelona LECB ACC Average en-route delay per flight increased from 5 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to minutes per flight during Summer. 75% of the delays were for the reason ATC, 18% for Weather, 3% for Industrial Action, 2% for ATC Equipment and 2% for Staffing. Plan: 3% Achieved Comments A-CDM at LEBL airport Improved ATFCM, including STAM Partially TMA-resectorisation (sectors TGR and XAL) Vertical split of central sector Safety nets (STCA) April 216 Optimised sector configurations Evolution ( v 214) H: 5.5% Summer B: 4.8% L: 2.5% significant Flexible sectorisation for BALSE and MED sectors +2.1% 6 3 increase in some en-route sectors (specially P1U) Partially Maximum configuration: 11/12 sectors 12 sectors ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +1.1% 2 144 (%) Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS/Reverse CASA at 144. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 146 and the peak 3 hour demand was 139. Referenc e ER Delays ACC ER Delay LEBLFER.% LEBLT4E.% LECBCBM.% LECBLVL.% LEBL3FN % LEBL14E 1 % 8 6 Barcelona ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 56 5 SPAIN - CANARIAS ACC 1 1 8 6 GCCCACC - and en-route ATFM delays 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 1145 1141 166 1221 1261 Summer 792 715 688 746 736 ly 814 749 724 774 767 Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes) 1.1 1.2 1.1. Realisation of Plan Canarias GCCC ACC Average en-route delay per flight decreased from 9 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to 7 minutes per flight durin Summer. 66% of the delays were for the reason ATC, 24% for Weather, 6% for Industrial Action and 3% for ATC Equipment Plan: 1% Achieved Comments RNAV structure for Canarias TMA Phase 1 (procedures in GCRR and GCFV) Improved ATFCM, including STAM Partially Minor ATC system upgrades Safety Nets (STCA) April 216 Optimised sector configurations Evolution ( v 214) H: 4.7% Summer B: 3.6% L: 1.7% significant Maximum configuration: 9/1 (5 APP/4+1ENR) 1 sectors (5 APP + 5 ENR) Summer performance assessment -% 6 8 The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 68. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 64 and the peak 3 hour demand was 58. ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) -1.4% 7 2 68 (%) Referenc e ER Delays ACC ER Delay GCCCRU6 1 % GCCCIGC 2 1.1% GCCCD26 2 1.1% GCCCRCE 2 1.2% GCCCAAC 6 2.9% GCCCRC2 14 7.% 3 25 15 1 5 Canarias ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 57 51 SPAIN - MADRID ACC 35 3 LECMALL - and en-route ATFM delays 25 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 3139 2877 2794 2951 362 Summer 2887 2677 2578 272 284 ly 2728 25 2395 2514 2616 Summer enroute delay (all causes) 1.6 ly enroute delay (all causes) 1.2 2. 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2. Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Madrid LECM ACC H: 5.% Summer B: 4.1% L: 2.% Average en-route delay per flight slightly increased from.9 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to 1 minutes per flight during Summer. 74% of the delays were for the reason ATC, 11% for the reason Other, 8% for Weather, 6% for Special Events, 1% for ATC Staffing and 1% for Industrial Action. Plan: % Achieved Comments Improved ATFCM including STAM Partially Full implementation of SACTA CF2 version - (Feb ) Safety nets (STCA) April 216 Optimised sector configurations significant Maximum configuration: 17 sectors 17 sectors Summer performance assessment +4.% 4 The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 24. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was and the peak 3 hour demand was 183. ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +4.4% 1 8 24 (+3%) Referenc e ER Delays ACC ER Delay LEMDWDN.% LECMSAI % LECMZTI % LECMR1I % LECGTA % PRADO 1 % 15 1 5 Madrid ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 58 52 SPAIN - PALMA ACC 18 16 LECPACC - and en-route ATFM delays 1 1 8 6 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 1572 1527 1573 1651 1697 Summer 135 111 19 158 184 ly 717 682 674 695 721 Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes). Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Palma LECP ACC H: 6.3% Summer B: 5.5% L: 3.3% Average enroute delay per flight increased from 5 minutes during Summer 214 to 3 minutes per flight during Summer. 94% of the delays were for the reason ATC and 6% were due to Weather Plan: 2% Achieved Comments Improved ATFCM, including STAM Partially Safety nets (STCA) April 216 Optimised sector configurations significant Increase of capacity in sectors GXX and IRX July Increase of capacity in one of Palma APP configurations June 216 Maximum configuration: 7/8 (3/4 APP + 4 ENR) 8 sectors Summer performance assessment +3.7% 7 8 The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 94. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 97, the peak 3 hour demand was 84. ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +2.4% 3 2 94 (+2%) Referenc e ER Delays ACC ER Delay LECPIXX 1 % LECPGIX 1 % LECP12O 1 % LECPIAX 1 % LECPAPO 3 2.1% LECPGMX 12 9.4% 15 1 5 Palma ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 59 53 SPAIN - SEVILLA ACC LECSACC - and en-route ATFM delays 1 1 8 6 211 212 213 214. Peak Day 131 1195 119 1164 1237 Summer 187 984 986 998 115 ly 12 894 879 91 99 Summer enroute delay (all causes).. ly enroute delay (all causes)... Realisation of Plan Sevilla LECS ACC Average enroute delay slightly increased from.2 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to.5 minutes per flight during Summer. 38% of the delays were for the reason ATC, 24% for Special event, 21% for Airspace management, and 1% for industrial action. Plan: % Achieved Comments Improved ATFCM including STAM Partially Full implementation of SACTA CF2 version (Dec 214) Safety nets (STCA) April 216 Optimised sector configurations Evolution ( v 214) H: 5.7% Summer B: 4.2% L: 1.1% +6% TLP European military activity (every 2 months) Maximum configuration: 7 (5 ACC+2 APP) 7 sectors Summer performance assessment +%.4 1 The ACC capacity baseline was measured with ACCESS at 89. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 77 and the peak 3 hour demand was 69. ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +1.7%.5 5 89 (%) Referenc e ER Delays ACC ER Delay LECSRTA 1 2.3% LECSNCS 1 2.5% LECSAPNN 1 3.4% LECSAPT 1 3.6% LECSSEV 1 3.8% LECSSUR 2 4.3% 2 15 1 5 Seville ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 6 54 SWEDEN - MALMO ACC 18 16 ESMMACC - and en-route ATFM delays 1 1 8 6 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 1732 1698 1713 1729 1742 Summer 1498 1451 1488 155 1517 ly 1391 1359 1377 1386 141 Summer enroute delay (all causes).... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Malmo ESMM ACC The average en-route delay per flight remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. Plan +2 % Achieved Comments Possible alignment with FRA within NEFAB Optimizing the use of FRA when military areas are active Improved ATFCM, working with occupancy counts Continuous improvements on the ATS route network DFL change to 35 Postponed UFN. current need for the measure. CPDLC Maintain appropriate level of staffing to open up to 11 sectors Training for 3 to 2 sector groups controller ratings Sector configurations adapted to traffic demand Minor updates of COOPANS Maximum configuration: 4/5 (E) + 3/4 (W) +2 (L) 4E + 3W +2L, sufficient to meet traffic demand. Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was estimated to be at the same level as in Summer 214. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 117 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 18. Reference Evolution ( v 214) H: % Summer B: -% L: -1.4% significant ER Delays ACC ER Delay ESMM6Y % ESMM89 % ESMMY 2.6% ESMMALL 4.5% ESMM45 1 11.3% ESMM2W 2 36.4% 6 5 4 3 2 1 Enroute Delay (min. per flight) +1.2%..7 Malmo ACC en-route delays in ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +%. 124 (%)

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 61 55 SWEDEN - STOCKHOLM ACC 16 1 ESOSACC - and en-route ATFM delays 1 8 6 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 1485 1428 1451 1426 1422 Summer 1133 19 1113 1119 1124 ly 194 162 169 178 177 Summer enroute delay (all causes)... ly enroute delay (all causes).... Realisation of Plan Stockholm ESOS ACC The average en-route delay per flight decreased from.9 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to.2 minutes per flight during Summer. Plan 2% Achieved Comments Possible alignment with FRA within NEFAB Optimizing the use of FRA when military areas are active Airport CDM at ESSA To be implemented in January 216. Improved ATFCM, working with occupancy counts Continuous improvements on the ATS route network CPDLC Maintain appropriate level of staffing to open up to 11 sectors Training for 3 to 2 sector groups controller ratings Sector configurations adapted to traffic demand Minor updates of COOPANS Maximum configuration: 3 (M) + 4 (N) + 4 (S) 2M + 2N + 4S, sufficient to meet traffic demand. Summer performance assessment The ACC capacity baseline was estimated to be at the same level as in Summer 214. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 83 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 77. Reference Evolution ( v 214) H: % Summer B: -% L: -2.1% significant ER Delays ACC ER Delay ESOS3 % ESOS19 % ESOSF 1.1% ESOSF4 1.5% ESOS4 1.7% ESOS8 1 2.2% 4 3 2 1 Enroute Delay (min. per flight) -%.3.7 Stockholm ACC en-route delays in ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +%.2.3 112 (%)

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 62 56 SWITZERLAND - GENEVA ACC 25 LSAGACC - and en-route ATFM delays 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 214 272 25 2145 2154 Summer 1873 1848 1837 1876 189 ly 174 1654 1627 1654 1676 Summer enroute delay (all causes). ly enroute delay (all causes). Realisation of Plan Geneva LSAG ACC The average en-route delay per flight decreased from 5 minutes per flight during Summer 214 to.9 minutes per flight during Summer. 55% of delays were for the reason Weather, 33% for ATC, 7% for ATC Staffing, 3% for Airspace Management and 2% for ATC Equipment Plan 1% Achieved Comments Improved ATFCM Procedures and STAM STAM measures implemented (MCP) Crystal and complexity prediction tool B2B connection, configuration plan and capacity modifications sent automatically Flight Plan adherence Improvement in intruders detection and reporting FABEC AD South-East Phase 1 : EUC25 Successfully implemented Cross qualification of ATCOs (Upper/Lower) Nearly all ATCOs now have both licences Recruitment as necessary to maintain the staffing levels Still overstaffing Stripless step 3 (New Lower Upgrade Upper) Successfully implemented and Step 4 as well Maximum configuration: 8/9 sectors (5/6 + 3) 6 + 3 sectors Summer performance assessment The capacity baseline was measured using ACCESS at 154, which represents the capacity delivered during the Summer season in the ACC. During the measured period, the peak 1 hour demand was 147, and the peak 3 hour demand was 138. Evolution ( v 214) H: 1.3% Summer B: % L: -% Reference significant ER Delays ACC ER Delay LSAGE % LSAGNE 1 % LSAGS 1 % SALEV 1 % LSAGL3 2 1.9% LSAGL6 2 2.% 8 6 4 2 +1.3%.6 8 Geveva ACC en-route delays in ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +%.9 7 154 (+2%)

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 63 57 SWITZERLAND - ZURICH ACC 3 25 LSAZACC - and en-route ATFM delays 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 252 254 2485 2499 258 Summer 2273 2249 2211 2241 2249 ly 278 231 1975 1984 4 Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes). Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Zurich LSAZ ACC H: 1.3% Summer B: % L: -% The average en-route delay per flight remained at 1 minutes per flight during Summer. 67% of delays were for the reason ATC, 27% for Weather, 4% for ATC Staffing and 1% for ATC Equipment. Plan 2% Achieved Comments Improved ATFCM Procedures and STAM STAM measures implemented (MCP) Crystal and complexity prediction tool B2B connection, configuration plan and capacity modifications sent automatically Flight Plan adherence Improvement in intruders detection and reporting Recruitment as necessary to maintain the staffing levels Still overstaffing Stripless step 3 Successfully implemented Maximum configuration: 9 sectors +8% Summer performance assessment +% 8 ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) +% 1 9 177 (+2%) 9 sectors The capacity baseline was measured using ACCESS at 177. During the period June/July, the peak 1 hour demand was 17, and the peak 3 hour demand was 159. Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay LSAZSW 1 % LSAZWSL 3 1.3% LSAZM56 4 1.9% LSAZM23 4 2.3% LSAZFTMA 9 4.7% LSAZM5 16 8.6% 15 1 5 Zurich ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 64 58 TURKEY - ANKARA /ISTANBUL ACC 35 LTAAACC - and en-route ATFM delays 3 25 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 2685 2445 2587 2993 337 Summer 2186 2193 2312 2626 2893 ly 1914 1928 237 232 2574 Summer enroute delay (all causes) ly enroute delay (all causes). 35 LTBBACC - and en-route ATFM delays 3 25 15 5 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 2865 2821 3 3473 3742 Summer 2375 2418 2613 2922 314 ly 3 25 2216 2476 2543 Summer enroute delay (all causes).... ly enroute delay (all causes)..... Realisation of Plan

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 65 Evolution ( v 214) Ankara LTAA ACC Summer Average enroute delay per flight in Ankara ACC remained at minutes per flight during Summer. 6% of the delays were for the reason ATC and 4% for the reason Other. Plan 237 Achieved Comments Improved civil/military coordination AMAN/DMAN at LTBA Ongoing Implementation in 216 CDM will be operational before the end of year at LTBA Ongoing Implementation in 216 Improved ATFCM, including STAM ATS route structure development Reconfiguration of ACC/APP with DFL 235 and 335 Improved route structure and sectorisation in the N & NE sectors to adapt to the new traffic flows New LoA with Teheran H: 5.7% B: 4.3% L: 2.5% significant New interface alternatives with Sofia Additional controllers (45 per year for en-route) New Ankara ACC (Max 25 physical sectors + 5 optional) - Implementation of SMART system Ongoing Maximum configuration: 2 sectors 5 additional sectors available Summer performance assessment Ankara: +11.8% Istanbul: +2.7% Ankara: +1% Istanbul: +7.5% Ankara: 2 Istanbul:. Ankara: 2 Istanbul:. ACC Reference Ankara: The capacity baseline of 167 was calculated with ACCESS, representing 4% more capacity than the previous year 214. During the same period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 16 and the peak 3 hour demand was 147. A maximum configuration of 11 sectors was opened. Istanbul: The capacity baseline of 166 was calculated with ACCESS, representing 8% more capacity than the previous year 214. During the same period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 162 and the peak 3 hour demand was 15. A maximum configuration of 3 sectors was opened. Izmir: The ACC capacity baseline of 75 was calculated with ACCESS, representing 1% more than the previous year 214. During the same period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 68 and the peak 3 hour demand was 6. A maximum configuration of 6 sectors was opened, including APP sectors. 6 ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) 3 Ankara: 167 (+4%) Reference ER Delays ACC ER Delay LTAASOW.% LTAANOU 5 1.4% ODERO 317 98.6% 3 1 Ankara ACC en-route delays in

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 66 59 UKRAINE - DNIPROPRETROVSK ACC 8 7 UKDVACC - and en-route ATFM delays 6 5 3 1 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 577 73 645 476 72 Summer 488 522 54 49 ly 422 446 467 233 43 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Dnipropetrovsk UKDV ACC Evolution ( v 214) ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) H: -44.2% Summer B: -45.3% L: -46.9% significant -81.6%..1-75.3%..1 54 (%) Average enroute ATFM delay remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. Planned Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Free Route Airspace Implementation (FRAU Ukraine, Scenarios 1A Night operations) Implementation of Advanced Airspace Management (LSSIP AOM19) Implementation of enhanced tactical flow management services (LSSIP FCM1) and collaborative flight planning (LSSIP FCM3) Sector configurations management, ATFCM measures development Maximum configuration: 6 sectors Summer performance assessment It is expected to be implemented by the end of 216 FCM3 is ready to be implemented, FCM1 is partially implemented The ACC capacity baseline was estimated at 54, the same level as last year. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 6 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 4.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 67 6 UKRAINE - KYIV ACC 1 UKBVACC - and en-route ATFM delays 8 6 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 876 199 14 945 63 Summer 713 754 783 64 496 ly 626 65 666 544 41 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) Kyiv UKBV ACC ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) H: -23.5% Summer B: -25.1% L: -27.1% +35% -24.6%..1-17.9%..1 73 (%) Average enroute ATFM delay remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. Planned Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Free Route Airspace Implementation (FRAU Ukraine, Scenarios 1A/1B Night operations) Implementation of Advanced Airspace Management (LSSIP AOM19) Implementation of enhanced tactical flow management services (LSSIP FCM1) and collaborative flight planning (LSSIP FCM3) Sector configurations management, ATFCM measures development Maximum configuration: 7 sectors Summer performance assessment Partially It is expected to be implemented by the end of 216 FCM1 is implemented FCM3 is ready to be implemented The ACC capacity baseline was estimated at 73, the same level as last year. During the measured period, the average peak 1 hour demand was 41 and the average peak 3 hour demand was 35.

Edition Validity Date: 18/5/216 Edition: Status: Final 68 61 UKRAINE - L VIV ACC 9 8 UKLVACC - and en-route ATFM delays 7 6 5 3 1 211 212 213 214 Peak Day 721 757 796 697 411 Summer 546 554 574 379 289 ly 486 488 53 364 24 Summer enroute delay (all causes)..... ly enroute delay (all causes)...... Realisation of Plan Evolution ( v 214) L viv UKLV ACC ACC Baseline (% difference v 214) H: -24.2% Summer B: -25.2% L: -26.5% +35% -34.%..1-23.7%..1 72 (%) Average enroute ATFM delay remained at zero minutes per flight during Summer. Planned Increase: sufficient to meet demand Achieved Comments Free Route Airspace Implementation (FRAU Ukraine, Scenarios 1A/1B Night operations) Implementation of Advanced Airspace Management (LSSIP AOM19) Implementation of enhanced tactical flow management services (LSSIP FCM1) and collaborative flight planning (LSSIP FCM3) Installation of new ATM system Sector configurations management, ATFCM measures development Maximum configuration: 4 sectors Summer performance assessment It is expected to be implemented by the end of 216 FCM1/FCM3 is expected to be implemented during 216 The new ATM system is expected to be operational in 216 The ACC capacity baseline was estimated at 72, the same level as last year. The peak 1 hour demand was 27 flights, and the peak 3 hour demand was 23 flights.