ATM in Europe It s all about Performance Facts and analysis from Performance Review World ATM Congress 2014, Madrid Xavier FRON Performance coordinator 5 March 2014
Topics ANS in aviation context European ANS Performance US-Europe comparisons Conclusions Number of accidents 2002 Safety Total commercial air transport (CAT) accidents and accidents with ANS contribution (fixed wing, weight > 2250Kg MTOW) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 3 4 5 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 Accidents with ANS contribution Environment Source: EASA 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (P) En-route ATFM delay/ flight (min.) 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Capacity Average en-route ATFM delay per flight 1997 2.2 1998 2.9 1999 4.5 2000 2.9 2001 2.5 2002 1.4 2003 0.9 2004 0.8 2005 0.9 2006 1.0 2007 1.2 2008 1.4 2009 0.9 2010 2.0 2011 1.1 2012 0.63 2013 0.53 ATC Other (strike, equipment, etc.) WEATHER OTHER (Special event, military, etc.) IFR Traffic source: Network Manager Cost-Efficiency 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 Traffic index (base: 1997) Horizontal en route flight efficiency (EUROCONTROL area) inefficiency 6.0 5.5 4.91 4.87 4.86 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.31 3.5 3.20 3.14 3.0 2.5 2009/10 KEA data based on regression analysis 2.0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 70 65 60.1 60 56.7 55.1 53.8 53.4 55 51.7 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Forecasts Forecasts En-route real unit cost per SU ( 2009) 60.1 56.7 53.8 55.1 53.4 51.7 Total en-route ANS costs index 100 97 97 98 102 102 En-route re al cost per SU ( 2009) 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 En-route costs and SU indexe s (2009=100) Flight Plan (KEP) Actual trajectory (KEA) Total en-route service units index 100 103 108 107 115 119
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 ANS in aviation context Total commercial air transport (CAT) accidents and accidents with ANS contribution (fixed wing, weight > 2250Kg MTOW) Number of accidents Source: EASA 3 4 3 3 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total anthropogenic CO2 emissions in Europe 1 2 1 2 1 2006 2007 2008 Accidents with ANS contribution 3.5% 2009 2010 2011 2012 Estimated share of ANS-related CO2 emissions in Europe (2011) 6% Share of aviation related CO2 emissions (Europe) Share of aviation emissions actionable by ANS 2013 (P) 6% 6-12% 6% 6% Orders of magnitude for illustrative purposes minutes per departure 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 Air Transport 200 B Change 2013 vs. 2012 (min./dep.) ATFCM (en route) ANS-related (airports) ATFCM (Weather) Weather (non ATFCM) Local Turn around -0.16 (airline, airport, etc.) Reactionary ANS Airports 9 B 40 B GA Orders of magnitude of turnover -0.06 0.00-0.01 0.07-0.10 Source. PRU analysis; CODA MIL
ANS Total Economic Cost (TEC) Flight-efficiency En-route: 2.0 B 3.8 B TEC values all KPAs but Safety in economic terms Estimated Total economic cost 14B (2011) Total User cost (ground) 14 B TMA, taxi: 1.8 B ATFM Delays ER: 0.9, Apt: 0.5 ATCO 1.4 B 2.4 B ANS-related Airborne equipment to be added TEC fully borne by users of European airspace Lower estimates for 2013 with performance improvements, more accurate data (SES area) ATFM delays ( 660M) User Charges Support costs Other staff: 2.6 B Other oper.: 1.5 B 4.1 B Flight-efficiency ( 1B en-route, 1.2B TMA, taxi) ATFM delay and flight-efficiency cost estimates must not be interpreted as ANS inefficiency 9 B p.a. CAPEX Depreciation: 1 B Capital cost: 0.5 B Other costs EURO: 0.5 B MET: 0.4, NSA: 0.1 B 1.5 B 1 B Trade-offs between KPAs Optimum is not 0: Minimise TEC within acceptable bounds of safety and security 2011
Environmental impact (en-route) 6.0 5.0 Target RP1 5.42 5.38 5.18 5.15 5.11 Indicative KEP profile 4.67 Target RP2 inefficiency (%) 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.29 3.17 3.12 Indicative KEA profile 4.10 2.60 1.0 0.0 SES area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Flight plan (KEP) - actual Flown trajectory (KEA) - actual Great Circle broken up using Achieved distance KEP (FPL) and KEA (actual) vs great circle New KPI using Achieved distance addresses any airspace breakdown (in %) Excellent routing efficiency of ANS, certainly best of all transport modes (~ 3%) Yet significant economic impact (fuel burn, flight time) Network Manager s flight-efficiency initiative aimed at reaching SES targets Improvement in KEA compensates traffic growth Carbon-neutral growth of aviation (due in 2020) already being met by ANS! Impossible to reach 0% with full civil-military traffic load Further environmental indicators needed (Vertical, CO 2 efficiency ) Flightefficiency Delays Charges
Capacity vs. cost-efficiency 2009 per kilometre 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 All States in Route Charges system En-route unit costs Traffic in km (index: 1990=1) En-route delay (summer) 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 Minutes of en-route ATFM delay per flight and traffic index Flightefficiency Delays Charges 0.5 0.0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ECAC Institutional Strategy Single European Sky 1st package Start of SES Performance Scheme Performance Review Commission Start of SES PS RP1 data source : EUROCONTROL/CRCO, CFMU (delay) Reactive policy in the 90 s: delays going up while costs going down, and vice-versa Balanced approach since then: delays and unit costs going down in the long run PRC and CFMU roles En-route ATFM delays: Best level ever achieved in 2013!
US-Europe OPS comparisons OPS Performance Reports jointly produced by EUROCONTROL/PRC and FAA Similar conditions (surface of continental airspace, average flight length ) US controls approximately 59% more (IFR) flights with some 23% fewer ATCOs and 39% fewer staff. Where does it come from?
US-Europe economic comparison (2002-11) 145 140 135 130 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 EUROCONTROL PRC report, prepared in cooperation with FAA 2002-11: Traffic increased +30-40% in European areas, nearly not in US ATM/CNS costs increased in Europe and the US, but not at the same rate Fluctuations in exchange rates and inflation taken into account Conversion based on constant exchange rate (average 1:1.28), close to current and PPS rates (1:1.3) Compares ANS provision costs, not funding Index of Flight-Hours (2002 = 100) Source: PRC analysis 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 US 100 100 107 109 108 109 111 102 102 101 SES 100 106 111 118 123 130 132 123 124 129 Europe 100 108 114 121 128 136 140 131 134 139 145 140 135 130 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 Index of Total ATM/CNS provision costs (real terms) Index (2002 = 100) Source: PRC analysis 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 US 100 103 105 110 113 117 130 133 138 135 SES 100 107 109 112 113 120 121 122 116 116 Europe 100 108 110 113 116 122 123 125 120 121
Unit costs Flight-hours is adequate output metric for ANS cost-efficiency European unit costs decreased -13% over 2002-2011 But still some 50% above US in absolute terms (US 34% below Europe)
Unit cost breakdown Flight-hours controlled ATCOs in OPS working hours ATCO-hour productivity +55% in US ATCO in OPS cost / ATCO-hour ATCOs employment Cost / flight-hour -48% in US Support costs per flight-hour -25% in US Unit ATM/CNS provision costs -34% in US -25% in US 85 163 269 348 354 511 Detailed comparison (2003) of selected US and European En-route Centres involving FAA, AENA,DFS, DSNA, ENAV, MUAC, NATS provided very valuable insights Further work welcomed ATCOs in OPS Employment costs + ATM/CNS provision costs Support costs EUROCONTROL/PRU
Opportunities for improvement Flight-efficiency En-route: 2.0 B TMA, taxi: 1.8 B ATFM Delays ER: 0.9, Apt: 0.5 ATCO Support costs Other staff: 2.6 B Other oper.: 1.5 B CAPEX Depreciation: 1 B Capital cost: 0.5 B Other costs EURO: 0.5 B MET: 0.4, NSA: 0.1 B 2011 3.8 B 1.4 B 2.4 B 4.1 B 1.5 B 1 B Efficiency gains in individual ANSPs Airspace improvements (e.g. free routes) More flexible management of capacity to match demand New Technology Rationalisation of and greater cooperation in service provision and oversight
Conclusions Significant progress in European ANS performance Best level ever achieved in ATFM delays Flight-efficiency target leads to carbon-neutrality of aviation for ANS Unit costs going down significantly But margins exist for significant further improvements European unit costs still nearly 50% above US s Opportunities for improvement to be sought and applied Balance between KPAs is essential Detailed benchmarking and other research to identify best practices, better quantify influence of performance drivers, interdependencies Benefits of global benchmarking (ICAO ANC 12 recommendation 1/15) EUROCONTROL willing to engage with partners in transparency