Markes and Consumers Group Proposal o modify NATS (En Roue) plc licence in respec of he Oceanic price condiion for 2015-2019: Noice under secion 11(2) of he Transpor Ac 2000 CAP 1230
Published by he Civil Aviaion Auhoriy, November 2014 You can copy and use his ex bu please ensure you always use he mos up o dae version and use i in conex so as no o be misleading, and credi he CAA. Enquiries regarding he conen of his publicaion should be addressed o: mike.goodliffe@caa.co.uk The laes version of his documen is available in elecronic forma a www.caa.co.uk, where you may also regiser for e-mail noificaion of amendmens. November 2014 Page 2
Conens Conens Conens 3 Chaper 1: Inroducion 4 Purpose of his documen 4 Views invied 4 Nex seps 5 Chaper 2: Background 6 Chaper 3: Ouline of proposal in he consulaion documen 9 Chaper 4: Addressing poins raised by respondens 12 Chaper 5: CAA s provisional decision 18 Appendix A: Summary of consulaion responses 20 Appendix B: Traffic forecas informaion 24 Appendix C: Profiling 25 Appendix D: Summary of building blocks 27 Appendix E: Condiion 22: Proposed licence modificaion 29 November 2014 Page 3
Chaper 1: Inroducion Chaper 1 Inroducion Purpose of his documen 1.1 This documen ses ou, for represenaions, he CAA's provisional decision for a charge conrol on Oceanic services for he five years 2015 o 2019 inclusive and he formal noice of changes o he Condiion 22 of NERL's licence o ake effec from 1 January 2015 1. Views invied 1.2 The CAA published a consulaion documen in July 2014 seing ou proposals for a charges conrol for Oceanic services for he period 2015 o 2019. The consulaion closed on 25 Sepember 2014. This documen ses ou he CAA's provisional decision and reasoning. 1.3 Under secion 11(1) of he Transpor Ac 2000 he CAA may modify he condiions of a licence if is holder consens o he modificaions. 1.4 NERL, as he licence holder, has given is consen o he modified condiion in Appendix E. 1.5 Under secion 11(2) of he Transpor Ac 2000, before making modificaions o he licence he CAA mus publish a noice seing ou he proposed modificaions, heir effec and he reasons for he proposal, and mus sae he period (of no less han 28 days) wihin which represenaions may be made regarding he proposed modificaions. Accordingly, his documen consiues such a noice and he CAA would welcome commens on he proposed modificaions. Any commens should be sen, if possible, by e-mail o economicregulaion@caa.co.uk by 12:00 on Monday 15 December 2014. Alernaively, commens may be sen by pos o: Sephen Gifford Markes and Consumers Group Civil Aviaion Auhoriy 4h floor, CAA House 45-59 Kingsway London WC2B 6TE 1 Air raffic Services Licence for NATS (En Roue) PLC as consolidaed Sepember 2013. November 2014 Page 4
Chaper 1: Inroducion 1.6 The CAA would expec o make any responses available on is websie for oher ineresed paries o read as soon as pracicable afer he period for wrien commens has expired. Any maerial ha is regarded as confidenial should be clearly marked as such. Please noe ha he CAA has powers and duies wih respec o informaion under secion 102 of he Transpor Ac 2000 and he Freedom of Informaion Ac 2000. 1.7 If you have any quesions on his documen please conac Mike Goodliffe on 020 7453 6226 (or, by e-mail, o mike.goodliffe@caa.co.uk). Nex seps 1.8 The CAA is allowing 29 days for commens on his documen. Subjec o he scale and naure of he responses received he CAA plans o publish is final decision on he proposed modificaion o condiion 22 during December 2014. This will allow he condiions o ake effec on 1 January 2015. November 2014 Page 5
Chaper 2: Background Chaper 2 Background 2.1 The managemen of he Shanwick area of oceanic airspace over he Norh Alanic is delegaed o he UK and Ireland by ICAO 2. The UK is responsible for air raffic service and daalink communicaions while Ireland is responsible for high frequency communicaions. Figure 2.1: Service Providers in he Norh Alanic Source: NERL 2.2 As shown in Figure 2.1, he Shanwick area is one of five service providers across he Norh Alanic. The managemen and developmen of airspace governed by ICAO is hrough he Norh Alanic Sysem Planning Group (NATSPG) and sub-groups. The vas majoriy of flighs (c.80%) are handled by a combinaion of he Shanwick service and he service provided by Nav Canada from Gander. 2.3 Oceanic is a non-surveillance operaion (i.e. here is no radar coverage). Separaion of aircraf is assured hrough clearance and managemen of planned fligh rajecories. For ransalanic flighs here is an organised 2 Inernaional Civil Aviaion Organisaion - an agency of he Unied Naions Organisaion. November 2014 Page 6
Chaper 2: Background rack sysem (OTS), planned on a daily basis, depending on he posiion of he prevailing Jesream, o minimise he adverse effec on wesbound flighs and maximise he benefi o easbound flighs. 2.4 There is considerable collaboraion beween NATS and Nav Canada a boh a sraegic and a acical level. NATS has a long-erm sraegic relaionship wih Nav Canada for he provision of he Oceanic fligh daa processing sysem and supporing daalink sysems. This echnology is currenly being upgraded and replaced under he COAST programme (collaboraion of Oceanic airspace and sysem ools) based on a high level of commonaliy wih he equivalen sysems being implemened by Nav Canada. A a acical level NATS and Nav Canada share planning of he OTS for Shanwick and Gander wih NATS focusing on wesbound and Nav Canada on easbound flighs. 2.5 The Oceanic business is a relaively small par of he NERL business wih coss and revenues represening abou 4% and he regulaory asse base represening abou 3% of he NERL business. 2.6 The CAA currenly regulaes he maximum ha NERL can charge users for Oceanic services by means of a condiion in he NERL En Roue Licence issued under he Transpor Ac 2000. The curren charge conrol was se in December 2010. The maximum charge per Oceanic Fligh was 64.92 in he year April 2011-March 2012. This maximum was hen consrained o fall (in real erms) by he increase in he Reail Price Index (RPI) minus 4 percen (RPI-4%) in each of he hree succeeding years unil he year ending March 2015. 2.7 Alhough he Oceanic service does no fall under he SES performance scheme, he CAA asked NERL o consider he Oceanic service as par of is mandae for he Cusomer Consulaion process in summer 2013, alongside is proposals for domesic services under SES. The CAA considered ha his would be an efficien approach for boh NERL and users. The iniial business plan issued by NERL in May 2013 prior o Cusomer Consulaion herefore idenified is plans for Oceanic services and one of he workshops during he consulaion period was devoed o Oceanic. 2.8 A he conclusion of Cusomer Consulaion he join Chairs of he Working Group 3 repored ha Airlines agreed wih he Oceanic sraegy presened by NERL in he Revised Business Plan (RBP). Airlines were also keen o engage wih NERL on he opions and coss for saellie surveillance. 3 The wo join Chairs were nominaed respecively by NATS and he airlines. November 2014 Page 7
Chaper 2: Background 2.9 In July 2014 he CAA consuled on proposals for a new charge condiion ha would apply for he five years from 1 January 2015 o 31 December 2019. These proposals would end he curren charge condiion hree monhs earlier han originally specified in order for i o be aligned on a calendar year basis wih NERL's oher regulaed charges. (I is anicipaed ha in hese circumsances NERL would also change he charging year for Oceanic charges o a calendar year.) The CAA held a workshop on he proposals on 1 Sepember 2014 and he consulaion period closed on 25h Sepember 2014. The CAA received submissions from Briish Air Transpor Associaion (BATA) Briish Airways (BA) Inernaional Air Transpor Associaion (IATA) NATS NATS Trades Unions Side (NTUS) Virgin 2.10 Chaper 4 summarises hese responses in erms of overview commens and answers o specific quesions posed in he consulaion documen. The full ex of responses is published on he CAA websie 4. 4 hp://www.caa.co.uk/defaul.aspx??caid=5&pageype=90&pageid=585 November 2014 Page 8
Chaper 3: Ouline of proposal in he consulaion documen Chaper 3 Ouline of proposal in he consulaion documen 3.1 The consulaion documen proposed he coninuaion of a simple price conrol wih he feaures summarised below. 3.2 The conrol period going forward would be for calendar years raher han he curren 31 March year: This would mean ha he final year of he curren price conrol would be for 9 monhs ending 31 December raher han a full year. This would have some impac on he profiabiliy, all oher hings being equal, given ha i would bring forward he use of lower raffic forecass and lower coss for he new conrol period. I would also imply a gain o NERL due o he benefis of relaively more peak monhs in he nine monhs April o December compared o a full year. The CAA proposed no o make any adjusmen from he above effecs on profiabiliy. The effecs of bringing forward raffic and forecass appear o cancel each oher ou while he unanicipaed benefi o NERL in 2014/5 was no expeced o be as grea as he revenue shorfall due o lower raffic in ha year compared o wha was anicipaed for CP3. 3.3 The correcion erm would be changed so ha i operaes wo years in arrears, when all he relevan informaion is known in line wih he approach for Euroconrol Charges. (I is currenly specified o operae one year in arrears based on forecass.) 5 3.4 The price conrol would ake he form CPI-Z* raher han he curren RPI- Z: This will make he indexaion consisen wih he requiremens for he vas majoriy of NERL's services regulaed under SES and hus avoid adminisraive complexiy. The value of CPI-Z* would be se a an expeced level equivalen o wha i would have been if specified as RPI-Z. 5 In pracice his correcion mechanism has no been acive because NERL has charged a exacly he allowed maximum rae. I remains a echnical possibiliy ha NERL could charge a more or less han he allowed maximum rae. November 2014 Page 9
Chaper 3: Ouline of proposal in he consulaion documen Consisen wih Euroconrol and London Approach charges, he CAA inends o coninue o apply RPI as he appropriae index for revaluing he RAB given ha his is he basis on which he weighed average cos of capial has been derived. 3.5 In CP3 he CAA applied a rolling incenive designed o provide a consan incenive on he service provider o bear down on coss hroughou he reference period by effecively allowing i o reain he benefis for five years. The CAA proposed o honour previous sums accumulaed hrough he RIM bu no o apply i furher in 2015-2019. This is he approach adoped in he UK-Ireland FAB Performance Plan for services provided in UK airspace under Euroconrol and given he small scale of he Oceanic business, he CAA proposed a consisen approach for Oceanic. 3.6 The CAA proposed ha i would be prepared o re-open he Oceanic price conrol in he even of real echnological change where he Licensee is able o demonsrae o he reasonable saisfacion of he CAA ha, afer proper consulaion wih users and oher ineresed paries, here is an accepable level of suppor for he Licensee s proposals and ha hey would be in he general ineress of Users. 3.7 In erms of he projecions of he building blocks for calculaing he maximum charges he CAA proposed: A se of raffic forecass consisen wih he UK-Ireland FAB Performance Plan based on STATFOR February 2014 forecass. Equivalen cos inervenions o hose which had been applied in he UK-Ireland FAB plan: To reduce he assumpion for increases in average saff coss o he rae of CPI. Wih respec o he Employee Share Ownership Scheme, o coninue o make a cos allowance for he disribuion of shares o employees a less han cos bu no o make an allowance for he anicipaed increase in he liabiliy o evenually redeem shares generally. To remove opex coningency coss. November 2014 Page 10
Chaper 3: Ouline of proposal in he consulaion documen For pensions: In respec of he five year reference period, passing hrough only 80% of he difference beween acual conribuions and conribuions assumed as par of he deermined coss when he acual conribuions are greaer han he assumed conribuions (bu coninuing o pass hrough 100% of he difference when he acual conribuions are less han he assumed conribuions). To reduce he conribuions assumed for 2018 and 2019 by 10% compared o NERL's Revised Business Plan. 3.8 In he Consulaion Documen, he CAA also proposed o adop he capial expendiure in NERL's Revised Business Plan. 3.9 Furhermore, CAA proposed o apply he same cos of capial as CAA had applied o he Euroconrol business in he UK-Ireland FAB plan. November 2014 Page 11
Chaper 4: Addressing poins raised by respondens Chaper 4 Addressing poins raised by respondens 4.1 This secion responds o he poins raised by respondens. A commen regisry is also aached in Appendix A. 4.2 Firs he CAA noes ha none of he respondens argued ha Oceanic should no coninue o be regulaed. The CAA herefore confirms is view ha he benefis of applying a simple form of charge cap ouweigh he burden on he regulaed company and users. 4.3 Respondens generally favoured he coninuaion of a simple form of price cap alhough IATA argued ha CPI-Z* regulaion should be replaced by he SES specificaion from he second year of he conrol period. 4.4 The CAA is no convinced ha he SES specificaion would represen a simple form of regulaion consisen wih a business of Oceanic's small scale. The SES specificaion includes raffic risk-sharing mechanisms, incenive mechanisms and separae reamen of exemp coss. Togeher hese would imply more risk for airlines and greaer adminisraive effor. Even if hese feaures were no adoped, he fundamenal SES specificaion is based around correcing for inflaion wo years in arrears raher han applying indexaion ex ane each year a he poin ha charges are se. Correcions for inflaion are hus a feaure of he SES specificaion adding lumpiness and unpredicabiliy o charges whereas a CPI-Z* specificaion avoids his. The CAA does no consider ha adoping an approach more aligned wih SES would be proporionae or be in he direc ineres of users. I herefore confirms ha i coninues o consider he mos appropriae simple price o be based on he annual change maximum charges o be specified as a measure of inflaion (plus or) minus a facor. 4.5 Respondens generally suppored he alignmen of he charge conrol o calendar years. IATA did however believe ha here should be an adjusmen o he ransiional arrangemen o reurn he 0.8 million benefi o NERL would receive back o users. 4.6 The CAA confirms ha is proposals for he licence modificaion are based on he calendar years 2015-2019. 4.7 In respec of he ransiional arrangemens, he CAA's provisional view in he consulaion documen was ha while here was an apparen November 2014 Page 12
Chaper 4: Addressing poins raised by respondens unanicipaed benefi o NERL of 0.8 million from seasonaliy in 2014/5, i was no likely o be as grea as he revenue shorfall due o lower raffic in ha year compared o wha was anicipaed for CP3. The CAA believes ha his shorfall is likely o be larger han 0.8million. The CAA is no convinced ha i would be appropriae o make a specific adjusmen for NERL's unanicipaed gain from ransiion wihou considering his agains he unanicipaed losses generally. The CAA herefore confirms ha i has no made any adjusmens from ransiion effecs in is proposed modificaion o Condiion 22 of he licence. 4.8 There was general suppor for he use of CPI raher han RPI in he price conrol. BA argued ha CAA should swifly move away from reflecing he difference beween CPI and RPI. 4.9 The CAA confirms ha he specificaion of he charge cap in he proposed modificaion o Condiion 22 is based on CPI. As regards moving away from reflecing he expeced difference beween CPI and RPI, he CAA considers ha i has o observe he realiy ha while CPI and RPI are boh commonly used measures of general inflaion hey are defined differenly and ha here is a sysemaic difference in expeced values going forward. I would be inconsisen for he CAA o ignore his when applying forecass. The CAA does, however, noe ha he use of CPI in NERL's price condiions should encourage i o consider variances in inpu coss agains a CPI raher han an RPI yardsick. 4.10 In respec of he proposal of he CAA being recepive o change he price conrol in he even of echnological change, here was suppor from NATS and qualified suppor from airlines, user bodies and rades unions. User bodies were concerned ha such proposals should have a sound cos benefi case which is endorsed by users while NTUS were concerned ha he approach should no be unnecessarily bureaucraic. 4.11 The CAA agrees ha any proposal o re-open he charge cap in hese circumsances would have o include boh a srong cos benefi case ha he inroducion of he new echnology and higher charges were o he benefi of, and enjoyed widespread suppor from, users. This does no require a change o he licence given ha Condiion 25.2.b already covers a licence modificaion in hese circumsances. The CAA would propose ha he process would involve as lile bureaucracy as possible, subjec o esablishing ha such a licence change was consisen wih is sauory duies. November 2014 Page 13
Chaper 4: Addressing poins raised by respondens Building blocks 4.12 None of he respondens have direcly challenged he raffic forecass alhough here was a reques for more explanaion of how hey have been derived. More informaion is aached in Appendix B. 4.13 NTUS argued in respec of he cos componens ha: as he pricing srucure is differen and he service specialised, cauion should be aken in racing o reduce coss, paricularly se agains expeced invesmen in echnologies in he upcoming reference periods; in view of he fac ha he European Commission has aemped o include Oceanic Services wihin he Single European Sky legislaion, i is poliically dangerous and conradicory o hen use he raionale applied in respec of he performance scheme; and he imposiion of a price cap, whils using some raionale used for RP2 (wihou a performance approach and wihou any of he oher areas), seems o lack a sound raionale. 4.14 The CAA considers ha in general i has adoped similar inervenions for boh Euroconrol charges under SES and Oceanic charges no because hose assumpions are being driven by EU requiremens bu because hose assumpions are a reasonable and proporionae balance in addressing is duies under he Transpor Ac 2000. The CAA herefore considers ha i is reasonable o apply mos of he inervenions o boh businesses. 4.15 NTUS has also challenged he basis of he CAA's inervenion on saff coss and he advice of is consulans IDS. 4.16 The CAA would re-ierae ha in addressing saff coss i is no seing a budge or cap for pay, eiher collecively or for paricular ypes or grades of saff, nor is i inended o require he company o move o any paricular srucure. This does no represen any aemp o micro-manage he business. I is he overall charging conrols under he charges regulaion ha NERL will be expeced o mee raher han he inermediae componens pars of opex. 4.17 On pay, as on oher building blocks of he cos arges, he CAA is seeking o be ransparen abou he assumpions ha i has adoped in proposing an overall cos efficiency arge as a whole. CAA acceps ha here can be differen approaches aken by praciioners in benchmarking pay and benefis. The CAA concluded in respec of he Euroconrol business ha November 2014 Page 14
Chaper 4: Addressing poins raised by respondens when he pensions are aken ino accoun he full benefi package for NERL saff appears very generous compared o appropriae comparaors. Differences on he scale found were clearly robus o aking differen assumpions concerning oher pars of he remuneraion package. 6 The CAA considered ha he reasoning i has applied o NERL saff inpu ino he Euroconrol business also applies o saff inpu o he Oceanic business. 4.18 CAA confirms is assumpions for expeced levels of average saff remuneraion of no more han CPI growh for pay raes wih no furher increase o cover he wage drif componen of pay progression. 4.19 Pensions is he issue which has drawn he wides commens wih airlines and user bodies arguing ha lower pension allowances, more in line wih amouns in oher comparable commercial businesses, should be allowed; while NATS and NTUS have focussed on resoring a 100% pass hrough. 4.20 The posiion in respec of he level of pension conribuion for Oceanic is fully aligned wih he posiion for NERL generally. The CAA acceps ha he legal resricions on he Scheme s amendmen power broadly preven an amendmen o he Scheme's rules being made o reduce or sop he fuure accrual of benefis for he pre-exising members of he scheme. The CAA acceps ha his precludes NERL from making changes o he scheme on a scale envisaged by users. The CAA considers ha in he absence of changes o he scheme iself, placing any dramaic limiaion on conribuions allowed in user charges would make i unreasonably difficul for NERL o finance is funcions and may impac on he coninuing provision of services. I herefore considers ha in general i should allow a level of conribuion o be funded by charges sufficien o remunerae NERL's legal commimens over he long erm. 4.21 The CAA does however confirm he assumpions made in he consulaion documen of reducing he level of conribuions in respec of he Oceanic service in he las wo years of he conrol period by 10%. This would be afer he nex riennial valuaion of he scheme and he original NERL projecions are less cerain from ha poin onwards. 4.22 In respec of he rae of pensions pass hrough here have been furher developmens since he publicaion of he consulaion documen. Furher legal argumens have been pu forward by NERL and following careful 6 Furher analysis in his poin can be found a hp://www.caa.co.uk/defaul.aspx?caid=5&pageype=90&pageid=15841 November 2014 Page 15
Chaper 4: Addressing poins raised by respondens consideraion, he CAA acceps ha he provisions of he EU charging regulaion do no permi less han a full (100%) pass hrough of relevan coss. 4.23 This does no have any direc read-across o he Oceanic business because i is no subjec o hese charging regulaions, or indeed he SES regime generally. However, he CAA considers ha imposing a differen pension pass-hrough regime for Oceanic compared o SES would impose a regulaory cos, and given he small scale of he business ha cos is likely o be greaer han any benefi. The CAA has herefore resored 100% pass hrough for under recovery. In he conex of he proposed amendmen o Condiion 22 of he licence, his makes no difference o he charge. I will, however, affec he way ha values in he Regulaory Asse Base are carried forward beween price reviews. 4.24 None of he respondens challenged he capial programme assumed. The CAA herefore confirms ha is proposals o modify Condiion 22 are based on unchanged capex assumpions for 2015-2019, based on he Revised Business Plan. However, echnical errors have been spoed in he calendarising of he 2015 value as well as he conversion from 2012/13 prices ino ouurn. The correced figures are presened in Figure 4.1 below. Figure 4.1: Assumed capial expendiure ( m) 2012 prices 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Toal Capex 1.9 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.2 5.9 4.25 In respec of he cos of capial he CAA noes ha no responden has direcly argued for a differen cos of capial. The CAA noes NATS' commen concerning he higher risk o NERL s reurn in relaion o Oceanic charges. However on he basis of: he advice of CAA's consulans PwC was on a cos of capial for NERL raher han specifically direced a he Euroconrol business; a definiive analysis of a separae cos of capial for Oceanic would need o ake accoun of he effecive rae of ax; no separae analysis was conduced for segmens of he UKATS business which were no subjec o he Euroconrol cos sharing mechanism (e.g. he MoD conrac); he Oceanic business represens only a small segmen of he NERL business; and November 2014 Page 16
Chaper 4: Addressing poins raised by respondens in absolue erms he effec of a lower cos of capial on overall Oceanic coss would be small. 4.26 The CAA confirms ha i has applied he same cos of capial o Oceanic as for he Euroconrol business - a reurn of 5.86%. 4.27 In respec of profiling, airlines and user groups generally have requesed furher informaion. BA wen furher and saed ha i did no suppor he concep of profiling as i implied a cross-subsidy beween users in differen years. 4.28 Furher informaion on profiling is se ou in Appendix C. In respec of BA's general poin abou cross subsidy he CAA recognises he poin in principle bu in pracice: The projecions of coss and raffic, on which he price cap is based, are jus forecass. There can be a danger of spurious accuracy where he price cap mimics every expeced variance in expeced cos some years before he relevan period. To reain he benefis of no correcing rerospecively for inflaion he price cap would have o be specified in a CPI-Z forma wih he value of Z flucuaing (possibly by small amouns) each year. Moreover he issue of cross-subsidy is less of an issue when smoohing coss year by year over a five year period raher han say over he life of a major piece of infrasrucure. By and large he disribuion of raffic beween airlines over his period is no likely o change dramaically - alhough he CAA recognises ha he possibiliy always remains ha i migh. 4.29 The CAA believes ha a profiled approach is no maerially derimenal o users and is proporionae in erms of mainaining a simple, easily adminisered price cap. The CAA confirms ha i has adoped his approach in i formal noice of modificaions o Condiion 22 of NERL's licence. 4.30 NTUS argued ha he erm "Euroconrol Business" in he licence is somewha misleading as i could be aken o refer only o he cos par of he performance scheme. 4.31 This curren documen relaes o he Oceanic Business. If here is an issue wih he Euroconrol business i would be more appropriae o deal wih i elsewhere. The use of he erm "Euroconrol Business" has been used here largely o disinguish his major par of NERL's en roue business from he Oceanic Business. Neverheless, i should be borne in November 2014 Page 17
Chaper 4: Addressing poins raised by respondens mind ha he Licence graned under he Transpor Ac 2000 is fundamenally an economic licence so will no cover all he aspecs of performance under he SES regime e.g. safey. November 2014 Page 18
Chaper 5: CAA s decision Chaper 5 CAA s decision 5.1 The CAA s decision, subjec o sauory consulaion, is as follows: for he year commencing 1 January 2015, a maximum permied average charge per oceanic fligh of 64.93 (nominal); annual increases in he underlying base charge per Oceanic Fligh for he calendar years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 based on a price cap of CPI-5% per year; a mechanism for over- and under-recovery, wo raher han one year in arrears 7. 5.2 A summary of he building blocks is se ou in Appendix D. 5.3 This proposed licence condiion is se ou in Appendix E. This consiues he publicaion of a noice seing ou he proposed modificaions of he licence as required under secion 11(2) of he Transpor Ac 2000. 7 This recovery mechanism will generally be zero because he maximum allowed can be deermined based on known informaion before he charge is se for he relevan year. November 2014 Page 19
Appendix A: Summary of consulaion responses APPENDIX A Summary of consulaion responses 1. Figure A.1 below presens an overview of all consulaion responses and he CAA's consideraion of poins raised. Figure A.1: Summary of Consulaion Responses Responden Commen CAA Response General commens Reference IATA NATS NTUS Believes ha here should be an adjusmen o he ransiional arrangemen o reurn he 0.8 million benefi o users. IATA seeks ha CPI-Z be replaced by he SES mehodology afer he firs year of RP2. Requess clarificaion of raffic forecass. Airlines should only pay a pension rae in line wih commercial benchmarks. Draws aenion o lower han expeced reurns in RP1 due o raffic variance o highligh he higher risk where here is no raffic volume risk sharing mechanism. Expec consisen pension pass hrough beween he En Roue business and he Oceanic business. Cauion should be aken in reducing coss. Quesions he raionale of CAA adoping any of he SES srucure. Sugges a modificaion of he NATS licence as "Euroconrol Business" could relae o he cos par of he performance scheme alone. Paragraph 4.7 Paragraph 4.4 Paragraphs 4.19-4.4.21 Noed. On pass hrough, see paragraphs 4.19 o 4.23. Paragraph 4.16 Paragraph 4.14 Paragraph 4.31 Virgin Suppors IATA. Noed. BATA Suppors IATA & member submissions. Noed. Is i appropriae o coninue o regulae Oceanic charges so long as ha conrol is simple and easy o adminiser? If no, why no? Briish Airways Essenial o coninue. Noed. Paragraph 4.2 November 2014 Page 20
Appendix A: Summary of consulaion responses IATA Essenial o coninue. Noed. Paragraph 4.2 NATS No concerns wih CAA s recommendaions. Noed. Paragraph 4.2 Virgin Imperaive o coninue. Noed. BATA Suppors IATA & member submissions. Noed. Briish Airways Suppors coninuaion of simple price cap. Noed. Paragraphs 4.3-4.4 IATA Suppors price cap and noes ease of adminisraion. Noed. Paragraphs 4.3-4.4 Do you agree wih he proposed form of regulaion for Oceanic services? Mindful of he degree of marke power, do you consider a differen regulaory approach would be more proporionae given he scale of he business? If so, wha would ha approach comprise? NATS No concerns wih CAA s recommendaions. Noed. Paragraphs 4.3-4.4 Virgin Where possible he cos of regulaion should be kep as low as possible by a simple price cap. Noed. Paragraphs 4.3-4.4 BATA Suppors IATA & member submissions. Noed. Should he imeframe for an Oceanic charge conrol be aligned wih he imeframe for he RP2 conrols for Euroconrol and erminal services? If no, why no? Briish Airways Suppors he alignmen. Noed. Paragraphs 4.5-4.6 IATA Suppors he alignmen. Noed. Paragraphs 4.5-4.7 NATS No concerns wih CAA s recommendaions. Noed. Paragraphs 4.5-4.6 NTUS Harmonising imescales is he righ way forward. Noed. Paragraphs 4.5-4.6 Virgin Noes he alignmen. Noed. BATA Suppors IATA & member submissions. Noed. Should he basis of indexaion of charges be changed from RPI o CPI (subjec o he value of X in a CPI-X charge cap being expeced o generae he same amoun as he value of Z in an RPI-Z cap)? Briish Airways IATA Suppors CPI. Urged he CAA o migrae swifly away from reflecing he difference beween CPI and RPI. Noes he consisency wih he use of CPI elsewhere bu wans a level of X ha reflecs Noed. Paragraphs 4.8-4.9 Noed. November 2014 Page 21
Appendix A: Summary of consulaion responses marke condiions. NATS No concerns wih CAA s recommendaions. Noed. BATA Suppors IATA & member submissions. Noed. Is he approach proposed by he CAA o revise he Oceanic charge cap where he condiions se ou in paragraphs 3.16-3.20 of he consulaion documen accepable? If no, why no? Briish Airways Suppors. Noed. IATA Noes bu rejecs rade-off beween coss and benefis. Any proposal mus be based on a sound cos benefi analysis and be endorsed by users. Paragraph 3.6 NATS No concerns wih CAA s recommendaions. Noed. NTUS Virgin Is keen for invesmens o be made o improve safey and capaciy. Imporan ha he faciliy o re-open he cap is sraighforward and no overly bureaucraic. A clear cos benefi analysis mus ake place on any poenial improvemens o be implemened Noed. Paragraph 3.6 Paragraph 3.6 BATA Suppors IATA & member submissions. Noed. Is i reasonable o apply assumpions consisen wih hose adoped in he UK-Ireland FAB Performance Plan for NERL's Euroconrol business? If no, why no? Briish Airways Suppors in principle. Noed. IATA NATS NTUS Welcome alignmen in planning bu reieraes commens in relaion o operaing expenses and cos of capial. Reasonable o apply consisen assumpions for inflaion, raffic assumpions and ineres raes. Believes i will be difficul o jusify he exclusion of Oceanic from SES scheme if i applies elemens of he SES approach o Oceanic. Believes he definiion of businesses in he licence should be clarified. Noed. Noed. Paragraph 4.14 Paragraph 4.31 Virgin Suppors IATA. Noed. Do you have any commens on he building block assumpions described in paragraphs 4.12-4.28 of he consulaion documens? Briish Airways IATA Broadly suppors bu believes a higher percenage of pension opex should be disallowed. Requess furher informaion on he basis of he raffic forecass. Noed. Appendix B November 2014 Page 22
Appendix A: Summary of consulaion responses Pension raes in line wih commercial benchmarks should be applied. Paragraphs 4.19-4.23 (pensions) NATS No commens. (see general commens above) Noed. NTUS Saff cos based on he IDS and pension pass hrough should be discouned. The reducion proposed by NATS is overly puniive bu could accep he NERL RBP figure wih he cos of capial inervenion. The lack of risk sharing mechanism should be aken ino accoun in no imposing any furher inervenions. Paragraphs 4.15-4.16 Noed. Noed. Virgin Suppors IATA. Noed. BATA Suppors IATA & member submissions. Noed. Is i reasonable o apply profiling o arrive a a simple CPI-X charge conrol? If no, why no? Briish Airways IATA BA does no suppor because here is cross subsidy beween years. IATA requess furher informaion on his calculaion. Paragraph 4.28 Appendix C NATS Suppors Noed. Virgin Noes he meri in smoohing he evoluion of charges in he 2015-2019 period, bu requess furher daa in relaion o paragraph 4.31 of he consulaion documen. Appendix C BATA Suppors IATA & member submissions. Noed. November 2014 Page 23
Appendix B: Traffic forecas informaion APPENDIX B Traffic forecas informaion 1. This appendix ses ou more clearly how he forecass of Oceanic services were derived consisen wih he STATFOR forecass for service unis and movemens in domesic airspace. 2. Table B.1 below shows: The acual Oceanic movemens in 2013 recorded by NERL. The annual percenage growh raes forecas in he February 2014 STATFOR forecass for Euroconrol Saisical Reference Area Norhwes o Norh Alanic 8. (This was considered o be he bes available proxy for Oceanic Traffic in he Swanwick area disinguished in he STATFOR forecass.) To derive a forecas for Oceanic flighs he acual Oceanic flighs for 2013 were uplifed by he growh rae assumed for 2014 o make a 2014 forecas. This calculaion was hen repeaed for each year of he conrol period wih he assumed growh rae for each year being applied o he prior year forecas. Table B.1: Derivaion of Oceanic Movemen Forecass Movemens 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Acual 402,653 Assumed growh rae 0.40% 2.00% 1.90% 1.40% 1.60% 1.50% Forecas 404,264 412,349 420,184 426,066 432,883 439,376 Sources: NERL STATFOR and CAA Calculaion. 8 EUROCONTROL Seven-Year Forecas - February 2014 - page 63 November 2014 Page 24
Appendix C: Profiling APPENDIX C Profiling 1. In response o a reques from users, he following ses ou he profiling calculaion in more deail. 2. The CAA firs considered as inpus: he raffic projecions; he cos projecions; he discoun rae; and he exising charge per fligh in he las year of he curren review period. 3. The calculaion hen considers he ne presen value of he cos projecions (i.e. he cos projecions discouned by he weighed average cos of capial). I is hen possible o consider he presen value of he revenue sreams resuling from various pahs in prices which produce he same ne presen value. In his case he CAA has considered price pahs defined by wo parameers: The value of Z in he CPI-Z formula in each year of he review period afer he iniial year. The equivalen value o he value of Z o reflec he real decrease from he las year of he old price review period and he new (usually referred o as P0). 4. The CAA has se he value of Z o 5% (i.e. he price formula is CPI-5%). I has hen sough he value of P0 for which he presen value of he resuling presen value of he deermined cos. This goal seek funcion in excel has idenified ha a value of P0 of approximaely 1.3 provides he same presen value across he conrol period as a whole (see figure C.1 below). November 2014 Page 25
Appendix C: Profiling Figure C.1: The Profiling Calculaion Source: CAA calculaion November 2014 Page 26
Appendix D: Summary of building blocks APPENDIX D Summary of building blocks Figure D.1: Assumed CPI CPI 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Index 1.0649 1.0851 1.1068 1.1290 1.1515 Source: IMF April 2014 Figure D.2: Deermined Cos Summary Deermined coss - CY 2012 prices ( m) Opex (excluding excepionals and pensions) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 15.0 15.0 15.0 14.8 14.7 Excepional Coss 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Cash Pensions 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.9 Regulaory Depreciaion 5.3 4.7 4.2 4.0 3.9 Regulaory Reurn 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 Oher Income -0.5-0.5-0.4-0.4-0.4 Toal deermined coss 24.9 24.2 23.5 22.7 22.2 Source: CAA Figure D.3: Assumed capial Expendiure 9 CY 2012 prices ( m) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Toal Capex 1.9 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.2 5.9 Figure D.4: Regulaory Asse Base in Financial Years (year end ouurn prices) Year-End Ouurn Prices ( m) 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Opening RAB 31.2 32.0 29.0 26.2 23.4 20.6 Inflaion of opening RAB 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.9 Toal acual ne capex 4.8 1.2 1.4 0.7 1.0 1.6 9 NB These figures correc hose presened in able 4.8 of he consulaion documen. November 2014 Page 27
Appendix D: Summary of building blocks Pension Conribuion Variance Capialised financing coss (can be negaive or posiive) Acual movemens in working capial 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5-0.1 0.2-0.1-0.1 Allowed Depreciaion -5.9-5.6-5.1-4.6-4.5-4.6 Closing RAB 32.0 29.0 26.2 23.4 20.6 18.4 Average RAB 31.6 30.5 27.6 24.8 22.0 19.5 Source: NERL and CAA analysis November 2014 Page 28
Appendix E: Condiion 22: Proposed licence modificaion APPENDIX E Condiion 22: Proposed licence modificaion Replace condiion 22 wih he following wih effec from 1 January 2015. Condiion 22: Oceanic charges 1. Subjec o paragraph 2 of his Condiion and wihou prejudice o Condiion 25 (Suspension and Modificaion of Charge Conrol Condiions) he Licensee shall use is bes endeavours o ensure ha in each Oceanic Relevan Year beginning on 1 January 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 he Average Charge Per Oceanic Fligh shall no exceed he Maximum Permied Average Charge Per Oceanic Fligh calculaed in accordance wih he following: O = U + L where: O means he Maximum Permied Average Charge Per Oceanic Fligh in Oceanic Relevan Year. O For he Oceanic Relevan Year beginning on 1 January 2015 he value of 2015 shall be 64.93. U For he Oceanic Relevan Year beginning on 1 January 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 he value of O shall be: O = U + L is a base charge per Oceanic Fligh in Oceanic Relevan Year calculaed in accordance wih he following formula: U U = 1 CPI Z 1+ 100 CPI For he purpose of he above calculaion for he Oceanic Relevan Year beginning on 1 January 2016 he value of U 1 shall be 64.93. means he percenage poins change (wheher of a posiive or a negaive value) in he Consumer Price Index beween he index published or deermined wih respec o Augus in Oceanic Relevan Year -1 and he index published or deermined wih respec o November 2014 Page 29
Appendix E: Condiion 22: Proposed licence modificaion Z Augus in Oceanic Relevan Year -2. means a value se by he CAA in respec of each of he Oceanic Relevan Years beginning on 1 January 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 shall have he following values: Year Value of Z 2016 5 2017 5 2018 5 L 2019 5 means he correcion facor (wheher of a posiive or negaive value) which is calculaed in accordance wih he following formula: L = ( QO O ) TO IO + 1 IO + 2 1 100 100 2 2 2 1 QO where: L 2015 Oherwise: = L 2016 = 0 QO 2 means he quaniy of Oceanic Flighs in Oceanic Relevan Year -2 aracing an Oceanic Charge. O means he Maximum Permied Average Charge Per Oceanic Fligh in 2 Oceanic Relevan Year -2. TO means he oal Oceanic Revenue in Oceanic Relevan Year -2. 2 IO 1 means he average of he yield (expressed as an annual percenage ineres rae) on 3 monh Treasury Bills published weekly by he UK Deb Managemen Office, during he 12 monhs from 1 Sepember in Oceanic Relevan Year -2 where he value of ((QO-1O-1) - TO-1 ) is posiive, or 300 basis poins per annum above his average rae where he value is negaive. November 2014 Page 30