Performance Review Commission
ATM
ATM Performance
Performance Framework
Framework
NAS Performance Workshop
5 September 2007
Xavier FRON
Performance Review Unit
EUROCONTROL
2
Role of performance review
Legislation
Institutions
Industrial Organisation
Policy
makers
Advice on
performance
issues
Policy
objectives
Performance
information
Airspace
users
Airport
operators
Air Navigation
ANS Providers
Supervisory authorities
Common functions
Performance
Review
Achieved
Performance
Consultation
Raw
information
• Provide independent advice on ANS/ATM performance to policy makers and relevant
information to all stakeholders (e.g. benchmarking and best practice), based on observation
of achieved performance, consultation and information provided by relevant parties;
• Performance review closes the performance loop;
• It is the least intrusive form of regulation;
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
3
Performance Review Commission (PRC)
Independent advisory role to EUROCONTROL
governing bodies
Twelve commissioners supported by the PRU
Objective
“to introduce strong, transparent and independent
performance review and target setting to facilitate more
effective management of the European ATM system…”
37 States
9.6 M flights
Annual Performance Review Reports (PRR)
– Traffic
– Key ATM Performance Areas
•
•
•
•
Safety
Cost-effectiveness
Quality of service/ Environment
Capacity
ANSP benchmarking reports (ACE)
Special reports
– Evaluation of SES impact on ATM performance
– Fragmentation
– Punctuality drivers, etc.
– US/Europe comparison
– Comparison of aeronautical MET costs
PRR 2006 just published
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
4
Overview of ATM performance measurement framework
Political &
SocioEconomic
Expectations
SAFETY
ECONOMY
ENVIRONMENT
SECURITY
PRC
Key performance areas
Safety
Airspace
user
needs and
requirements
Service Provider
Perspective/
ATM contribution
Service Quality
User
charges
Safety
•Efficiency
•Predictability
•Flexibility
Security
Cost
Effectiveness
Quality of
service
Safety
management
Costeffectiveness
Capacity
Security
management
Environment
Capacity
Performance
affecting
factors
Technical
innovations
Network effects &
fragmentation
Traffic
volume, variability,
complexity)
Weather
Regulations/ restrictions
(Political & Environmental)
Prevailing
economic
conditions
• Various perspectives on ATM performance (Political/ Social, User, Service provider);
• The PRC focuses on: Safety, Cost-effectiveness, Service Quality (Delays, flight efficiency) , Capacity
and Environment (Global aspects)
• ATM performance is affected by trade-offs (capacity vs. delay, etc.) and a number of performance
affecting factors (weather, complexity, etc.) which need to be captured in a balanced view
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
5
How the PRC analyses ANS performance
Performance
Drivers
Performance
Indicators
Legislative
framework
Safety maturity
Culture
Safety
Management
Systems
Accidents
En-route delays
Capacity
Airport delays
Cost of living
Fragmentation
Airspace design &
use
Civil/Military use
of airspace
(Chapter 7)
Safety
(Chapter 3)
Air Transport
performance
Airline Performance
Incidents
(a/c proximities)
Traffic demand
(Chapter 2)
Complexity
ANS
Key Performance
Areas
Punctuality &
Predictability
(Chapter 4)
ATFM
Delays
(Chapter 5)
Productivity
AIS, MET costs
ATCO Unit Costs
ANSP costs
Support Costs
Horizontal Flight
efficiency
ANS
Performance
Cost
Effectiveness
(Chapter 8)
Airport Performance
EUROCONTROL
costs
Flight
Efficiency
(Chapter 6)
Vertical Flight
Efficiency
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
6
Air traffic demand in Europe
Annual growth in IFR Movements 2006
10
8
Below 0%
2007 Forecas t
Traffic
0% to 3%
6
4
2
3% to 6%
6%
6%
2%
2%
9% to 12%
3 % 5% 4 % 4 % 4 % 3 %3% 3%3 % 3 %
6% 4%
0%
Year o n year variatio n
6% to 9%
2%
6 % 5% 6%
7%
4%
5%
5%
Above 12%
-2%
0
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
11%
1990
13%
11%
2%
5%
( before 1997, estimation based on Euro 88 traffic variation)
3%
19%
6%
5%
4%
so urce : EUR OC ON TR OL
13%
0%
6%
Sustained growth continued in 2006
4%
4%
2%
7%
5%
1%
4%4%
• Average annual growth +4.1%;
6%
5% 9%
Azores
• Between 0% and 19% at State level;
4%
6%
2%
7%
2%
5%
• +24% for “low fare” airlines (16% of traffic)
8%
3%
5%
• +11% for business aviation (7% of traffic)
Canarias
3%
0%
Produced by the D ata Information & Analysis (DIA) Business Division. © EURO C O NT RO L 2006.
million flights per year
12
data source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
7
Traffic forecasts
• Short, medium , long term forecasts
from EUROCONTROL STATFOR
• Challenges to Growth study (2004)
being updated
• Suppressed demand due to
airport capacity limitations
Heathrow traffic
has grown by filling
the gaps
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
8
Measuring Safety Performance
Airspace
Users
Airports
Safety performance of
air transport
ANS Safety Performance
Accidents
Incidents (a/c proximities)
Reactive
Measurement
(Outcome)
Safety maturity
Legislative
framework
Culture
Proactive
Measurement
(Process, safety
Safety
Enablers)
Management
• Approach to measuring safety is wider than merely focusing on the level of achieved safety of
the existing ATM system under certain conditions (accidents, incidents);
• Maturity of safety processes are as important as the measurement of achieved safety;
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
9
Accidents/incidents
20
Total number of acccidents
16
Direct ATM
Accidents
Accidents
Trend
CLassified events
18
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Data source: Flight Safety Foundation - Aviation Safety Net
A posteriori check
Lagging indicator
It’s too late!
Airspace
Users
1400
1200
Incident reports
Severity C,D,E
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Severity B
Severity A
38%
2002
15 States
28%
2003
21%
2004
23%
% :Proportion of Severity A+B
2005P
Data so urce : EUROCONTROL/SRU
Leading indicator
Informs safety management
Airports
Safety performance of
air transport
Voluntary reports: Useful, but reliable?
Systematic screening
Loss of separation,
runway incursions, etc
ANS Safety Performance
Accidents
Incidents (a/c proximities)
Reactive
Measurement
(Outcome)
Safety maturity
Legislative
framework
Culture
Proactive
Measurement
(Process, safety
Safety
Enablers)
Management
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
10
Safety maturity
ANSPs
100
Legislation
Culture
Austria
█
█
Belgium
█
█
Bulgaria
█
█
Cyprus
█
█
Czech Rep.
█
█
Denmark
█
█
Finland
█
█
France
█
█
Germany
█
█
Greece
█
█
Hungary
█
█
Ireland
█
█
Italy
█
█
Luxembourg
█
█
Netherlands
█
█
Norway
█
█
Poland
█
█
Portugal
█
█
Romania
█
█
Slovakia
█
█
Slovenia
█
█
Spain
█
█
Sweden
█
█
Switzerland
█
█
UK
█
█
2002
90
2004
2006
80
70
Maturity Score
60
50
40
30
20
Maturity surveys
10
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Are safety processes, legislation, culture in place?
Airspace
Users
Airports
Safety performance of
air transport
ANS Safety Performance
Accidents
Incidents (a/c proximities)
Reactive
Measurement
(Outcome)
Safety maturity
Legislative
framework
Culture
Proactive
Measurement
(Process, safety
Safety
Enablers)
Management
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
11
Safety Performance targets
CLassified events
TODAY
Performance to date
1400
1200
Severity C,D,E
1000
800
Severity B
600
400
Severity A
38%
200
0
2002
15 States
28%
2003
23%
21%
2004
% :Proportion of Severity A+B
Data so urce : EUROCONTROL/SRU
OUTLOOK
System risk
is quadratic:
Incidents/hour x4
when traffic x2
3
2
1
0
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Traffic (million flights)
Risk trend
Risk target
15
16
Target (s)
• European (ATM 2000+) objective:
Number of accidents and serious incidents
not to increase: Very challenging!
2005P
4
• Increasing number of incidents reports:
more opportunities for learning, prevention
• Severe incidents (A&B) don’t appear to increase
in sample of 15 “mature” European States
Aircraft risk
is linear:
Incidents
per flight-hour x2
when traffic x2
SESAR target
System risk does not increase (no more accidents)
2020: Traffic: +73% => Safety x3 vs trend
Later: Traffic x3 => Safety x10 vs trend
• Current target: <1.55.10-8 accident per flight hour
No corresponding indicator so far
• PRC proposed interim target (maturity)
Future system
• Safety may be the most challenging
• Safety needs to be engineered
in next generation design from the start
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
12
Service quality
Political &
SocioEconomic
Expectations
SAFETY
Airspace
user
needs and
requirements
Service Provider
Perspective/
ATM contribution
Ambient
performance
affecting
factors
ECONOMY
Safety
Costeffectiveness
Safety
management
Costeffectiveness
Technical
innovations
Network effects &
fragmentation
ENVIRONMENT
Service Quality
•Flight efficiency
•Predictability
•Flexibility
Capacity
Traffic
volume, variability,
complexity)
SECURITY
Weather
Security
Security
management
Regulations/ restrictions
(Political & Environmental)
Prevailing
economic
conditions
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
13
Analysis of Air transport delays
12%
5%
3%
5%
3%
1%
1% 1%
>30
28-30
26-28
24-26
22-24
20-22
18-20
16-18
0%
14-16
Early arrival
11%
10%
12-14
Buffer
15%
10-12
Taxi In
18%
20%
6-8
Airborne
ON Time
8-10
Taxi Out
IN
4-6
ON
2-4
Schedule
OFF
22% 22%
0-2
OUT
% of operated services (2004)
"Time to Take-off" distribution - Charles de Gaulle Airport
25%
Time bands in minutes
Data source: EUROCONTROL/ eCODA
Late arrival
Optimising performance
Ahead of
schedule
Delay
Behind
schedule
High added-value:
Compressing half of European flight schedules
by 5 minutes is worth some €1,000M p.a.
Closer to optimum
Mean (50%)
Punctuality
% On-time
80%
Std
Dev
Time
Number of observations
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)
Predictability
Spread
(Standard deviation)
(1)
(1)
Reduce variability
Time
of operation
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
14
69.0%
74.4% 75.2%
82.5% 83.6%
81.8%
79.8%
Departure Punctuality
78.1%
35%
source: AEA
source: eCODA
30%
25%
Punctuality
13%
10%
20%
15%
10%
9%
10%
5%
7.9%
5.6%
2000
7%
9%
10%
7%
6%
8%
8%
8%
9%
10%
1.1%
1.2%
1.2%
1.1%
10%
4.5%
0%
1999
Primary delay
distribution (2006)
9%
2001
9%
79%
2.1%
1.6%
1.4%
1.5%
1.6%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
12%
En-route ATFM regulations due to ATC
Airport ATFM regulations (weather, capacity)
Turn around delays (airline, airport, etc.)
Reactionary delays
• 21.4% of flights arrived late in 2006 (23.1% in US)
• Departure delays originate principally from turnaround processes (79% of primary dep. delays)
• Reactionary delays are increasing
ratio reactionary to primary delay
% of flights with departure delay > 15 min.
Departure punctuality
Sensitivity of the European air transport network to primary delays
0.80
0.75
Reactionary/primary delays
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
1999
2000
AEA data
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
eCODA data
Primary delay includes local turn around delays and en-route and airport ATFM delays
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
15
Arrival and departure delays
Departure punctuality of inbound
flights at departure airports
Departure punctuality of
outbound
flights at analysed airports
Arrival punctuality of inbound
flights at arrival airports
FLIGHT PERSPECTIVE
25%
Dep. to
Arr. at
Dep. from
Dep. to
Arr. at
Dep. from
FCO
FRA
LHR
MAD
MUC
MXP
20%
Dep. to
Arr. at
Dep. from
CDG
19%
Dep. to
Arr. at
Dep. from
20%
20%
Dep. to
Arr. at
Dep. from
BCN
10%
18%
20%
Dep. to
Arr. at
Dep. from
23%
29%
20%
Dep. to
Arr. at
Dep. from
15%
25%
20%
Dep. to
Arr. at
Dep. from
5%
VIE
Dep. to
Arr. at
Dep. from
0%
Dep. to
Arr. at
Dep. from
% of flights departing/ arriving more than
15 min. behind schedule (2005)
30%
ZRH
Drivers of departure delay:
En-route ATFM delay
Airport ATFM delay
Local turn-around delay (airlines, airport, etc.)
Reactionary delay
source: eCODA
Arrival delays are mostly driven by departure delays
Departure delays mostly from airlines/airports processes
Amplification of delays at some airports
(Departure delays > arrival delays)
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
16
Air transport predictability
Flights from/to Europe (11%)
17.5
15.0
15.0
12.5
12.5
10.0
10.0
7.5
7.5
5.0
5.0
2.5
2.5
0.0
0.0
2003
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Reduce variability
Taxi out +
holding
Arrival time
Gate-to-gate variability
2002
(2)
(2)
Number of observations
17.5
Closer to optimum
Time
of operation
Arrival time
20.0
Taxi in +
waiting for
gate
20.0
Flight times
(cruising +
terminal)
22.5
Departure
time
22.5
Taxi in +
waiting for
gate
25.0
Flight times
(cruising +
terminal)
27.5
25.0
Taxi out +
holding
27.5
Departure
time
Standard deviation (minutes)
Intra European flights (89%)
Gate-to-gate variability
2004
2005
2006
• Standard deviations of departure and arrival times reached 18 and 20 minutes respectively
• Pre-departure processes play a main role in this poor predictability, and ATM only a minor role.
• Lower punctuality and predictability negatively impacts the ability of airlines and airports to build
and operate reliable and efficient schedules.
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
17
Airport capacity/ delay trade-off
QUEUE LENGTH (units of landing interval)
5
4.5
Variability of TMA entry flow (std. dev.)
=20 MIN
=2 MIN
4
Reduced variability of
landing interval
3.5
3
Reduced variability of
TMA entry flow
2.5
2
1.5
1
Variability of landing interval (std. dev.)
0.5
0
0.8
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.9
0.92
39 Sec.
30 Sec.
18 Sec.
0 Sec.
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
Runway utilisation ratio
• Trade-off airport capacity / airborne delay
• Airport scheduling impacts ATM performance (TMA holding, environmental impact)
• Smoothing arrival flows and landing rates significantly improves the trade-off
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
18
Improving air transport network performance
Network delivery
(volume and variability
of TMA entry flow)
TMA
Departure time
variability
Reactionary
delays
Local
turnaround
delays
Arrival time
variability
Departure airport
Arrival airport
Pre-departure
delays
En-route
ATFM delays
Airborne
holding
Landing interval
(actual throughput)
Management of
arrival flows
Airport
scheduling
(utilisation ratio)
Airport
ATFM delays
•
Air transport punctuality and predictability could be improved in several ways:
- Improving adherence to scheduled departure times
- Maximising the use of airport capacity whilst minimising delays.
- Optimising the ground vs. airborne holding trade-off.
•
SESAR places emphasis on flexibility (ability to recover from non nominal situations)
•
Comparable metrics to be developed and agreed (Punctuality, ATM ground and airborne delay, etc).
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
19
Ground delays managed by ATM
6
TODAY
Summer (May-October)
6.000
ATFM delays (ground)
5.000
Target: 1.0min/flight
4
Actual: 1.4min/flight
3
En route
target
En route
optimum
2
4.000
3.000
2.000
1
1.000
0
2,9
4,1
5,5
3,6
3,1
1,8
1,2
1,2
1,3
1,4
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
0,8
Flights in Summer ('000)
minutes per flight
5
0
-1
• Flows essentially controlled
through ground delays in Europe, MIT in US
• Major improvement in Europe since 1999
• 2002-05 ATFM en-route target met;
• ATFM delays increasing again since 2004;
• Estimated en-route ATFM delay costs:
€ 550 M in 2006
-1.000
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
En-route ATFM delay per flight (May-Oct.)
Airport ATFM delay per flight (May-Oct.)
OUTLOOK
300
Traffic volume (km)
Effective Capacity
En-route ATFM delay
275
source : EUROCONTROL/CFMU
European delay target
ACC capacity targets
European delay forecast
ACC capacity commitments
30
25
225
million minutes
20
200
175
15
150
• Trade-off delay/cost of capacity;
• Set with reference to optimum capacity/delay
• En-route ATFM: 1 minute per flight
• Others (i.e. ACC) to be developed
Management
• Co-operative capacity management;
10
125
100
5
75
Closing
capacity gap
Widening
capacity gap
Closing
capacity gap
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
0
1991
50
1990
km index 1990=100
250
Target (s)
source : EUROCONTROL
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
20
ATFM Delays: Target setting
Trade-off delay/cost of capacity
Target setting based on understanding of optimum
Optimum changes with improved cost-effectiveness (dynamic efficiency)
Yearly costs
•
•
•
Static economic
optimum
Total economic
costs
Cost of capacity
Dynamic
economic
optimum
Delay costs
Capacity/demand ratio
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
21
ATFM delay causes
Annual
12 000
600
10 000
500
8 000
400
6 000
300
4 000
200
2 000
100
MAR
APR
ATC CAPACITY (2006)
ATC STAFFING (2006)
OTHER (2006)
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
ATC IND ACTION (2006)
WEATHER (2006)
Total en-route ATFM delay (2005)
2006
FEB
2005
JAN
2004
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
En-route ATFM delay ('000)
Weekly en-route ATFM delay distribution
700
source: EUROCONTROL
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
22
Service quality (continued)
Political &
SocioEconomic
Expectations
SAFETY
Airspace
user
needs and
requirements
Service Provider
Perspective/
ATM contribution
Ambient
performance
affecting
factors
ECONOMY
Safety
Costeffectiveness
Safety
management
Costeffectiveness
Technical
innovations
Network effects &
fragmentation
ENVIRONMENT
Service Quality
•Flight efficiency
•Predictability
•Flexibility
Capacity
Traffic
volume, variability,
complexity)
SECURITY
Weather
Security
Security
management
Regulations/ restrictions
(Political & Environmental)
Prevailing
economic
conditions
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
23
Flight Efficiency
Actual Route
(A)
G
Direct route
Extension
D
Route
Extension
Direct Course
(D)
A
TMA Interface
30
NM
Great Circle
(G)
ro u t e e x t e n s io n ( k m /f lig h t )
60
50
- 2 km per flight
40
30
PRC uses same framework
as ICAO ANSEP
20
Direct en route
TMA Interface
10
Proposed target
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
24
Flight efficiency (horizontal)
Fuel price
60
40
20
2001
2002
2000
1999
1998
1997
1995
1996
Direct link with environmental impact
1994
4.7 M tons
Additional CO2
emissions
1993
Flight-efficiency is a main issue
1992
€ 2 230 M
1990
1991
Estimated costs to
airspace users
1989
441 M km
1988
Additional distance
1987
48.6 km
2006
0
Extension per flight
2005
5.9%
80
2004
Route Extension (%)
100
2003
Total 2006
US$ 2006 per barrel
120
data so urce : U.S. Department o f Energy (Ro tterdam Jet Fuel Spo t P rice)
• Cost of horizontal route inefficiencies is estimated at 2.2 billion euro,
to which vertical and TMA inefficiencies have to be added.
• Significant environmental impact (4.7 million tons of CO2 per annum)
• Costs increased further due to higher fuel prices in 2006
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
25
Improving Flight-efficiency
Actual route
(A)
874.6 km
ATC routing
- 8.2 km
Filed Route
(F)
-1.0%
882.8 km
En-route
Extension
Route selection
+ 8.7 km
Shortest Route
(S)
1.1%
+ 48.6 km
5.9%
874.1 km
En-route design
+ 48.0 km
Great Circle
(G)
ATC routing
Route selection
En-route design
Total
826.0 km
5.8%
Strategic design and
use
of airspace are
ATC
routing
Route
theselection
main origins of
En-route
routedesign
inefficiencies
Total
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
26
2000 city pairs or 150
Most constraining point
most constraining points
B
Cumulative share of extra miles generated
En-route design
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
50% of the flight
inefficiencies are
generated by 2100
origin-destination
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
A
0
2000
4000
6000
Cumulative share of extra miles generated
Number of origin-destination
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
50% of the flight
inefficiencies are
generated by
150 points
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Number of constraining points
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
27
Flight efficiency (horizontal)
There appears to be room for significant improvements:
5%
4.1%
4.1%
3.8%
4%
3.8%
3%
2005
2006
2%
•Only minimal improvements in flight
efficiency during week-ends
(essentially no airspace restrictions)
=> 130 million Euro could be saved
every year if the route network was one
third more efficient during week-ends.
1%
0%
W eek Days
W eek End
Direct route efficiency
Domestic
Intra-European
Domestic-AVG
Intra-European-AVG
Direct routeextension (%)
7%
•Intra-European routes are significantly
less efficient than domestic routes.
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
0-400 km
400-800 km
800-1200 km
1200-1600 km
1600 -2000 km
Great Circle Distance (between TMA)
>2000 km
=> If the European route network was
as efficient as the domestic networks,
as one would expect under the SES,
150 to 300 million Euro could be saved
every year.
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
28
Flight efficiency (horizontal)
• Trade-off capacity – flight-efficiency: don’t jeopardize capacity where little margin
• Objective: a more efficient Trans-European network of upper airways
Demand
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
29
Flight-efficiency: Route selection
Example: Amsterdam to Torino
Airspace structure
Actual route
(A)
874.6 km
ATC routing
- 8.2 km
Filed Route
(F)
En-route
congestion
-1.0%
+ 8.7 km
En-route
Extension
1.1%
+ 48.6 km
5.9%
874.1 km
En-route design
+ 48.0 km
Great Circle
(G)
ATC routing
Route selection
En-route design
Total
882.8 km
Route selection
Shortest Route
(S)
826.0 km
Route charge
differentials
5.8%
ATC routing
Route selection
En-route design
Total
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
30
Flight Efficiency (horizontal): Conclusions
Target
Performance to date
• Horizontal en-route flight efficiency is a major
ATM performance issue;
route extension (km/flight)
60
• Cost of horizontal en-route route inefficiencies
is estimated at 2.2 billion Euro;
50
- 2 km per flight
40
• Significant environmental impact (4.7 million
tons of CO2 per annum);
30
20
• Costs increased further due to higher fuel
prices in 2006;
Direct en route
TMA Interface
10
Indicators and trade-offs
Proposed target
9.6
10.0
11.2
• Safety and capacity gains require a certain
level of “inefficiency” in the route network;
• Focus has been on safety and capacity so far;
• Need to develop indicators to measure vertical
flight efficiency and TMA inefficiencies
(airborne holdings);
48.6
46.6
40.6
Target
Distance saved (million km)
0
-20
-90
-216
Cost savings (million euro)
0
-100
-450
-1 080
CO2 savings (million tons)
0
-0.2
-1.0
-2.3
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
OUTLOOK
2006
Number of flights (million)
Target (km per flight)
2007
2010
Total
• Agreed target is to reduce the additional
distance flown due to route extension by 2 km
per flight each year until 2010
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
31
Framework for analysis of ATM performance
Political &
SocioEconomic
perspective
SAFETY
ECONOMY
ENVIRONMENT
Gaseous
emissions
ANS provision
costs
Strategic
costs (buffer)
Costs due to suboptimal operations
MET costs
Airspace
users
perspective
Reg. costs
Costeffectiveness
Eurocontrol
costs
Safety
ATM/CNS
Provision cost
Safety management
Service
provider
perspective
Runway
incursions
Airspace
events
Safety culture
(reporting, etc.)
Ambient
performance
affecting
factors
SECURITY
Technical
innovations
Predictability
Flight
efficiency
Quality of
service
Efficiency
Ground
delay
Flexibility
Cost management
Employment
costs
Support
costs
Airport/TMA
capacity
Use
of
airspace
En-route
capacity
To be
developed
ATFM/ Network
capacity
ATCO
productivity
Traffic (volume,
complexity)
Capacity management
Weather
Network effects &
fragmentation
Political/ Environ.
Regulations/ restrictions
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc