Performance Review Commission
ANS
ANS Productivity,
Productivity, cost-effectiveness
cost-effectiveness
NAS Performance Workshop
5 September 2007
Xavier FRON
Performance Review Unit
EUROCONTROL
2
A cost-effective system?
US-Europe comparisons
13.8 M km²
851 km/flight
Gate-to-gate ANS costs
(without MET)
IFR flights
Costs per IFR flight
10.8 M km²
826 km/flight
US ATO (FY2005)
European Area (2005)
US$ 8 900M
€7 100M
18.3M
9M
US$ 486
US$ ~ 1000
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
3
ANSP benchmarking
• Analytic benchmarking
– What are the respective performance indicators?
– Facts, no judgement
– Detailed analytic benchmarking of European ANSPs
in ACE reports
– Outcome benchmarking
(black box + information disclosure: ACE)
– Insider benchmarking (white box, ANSPs, CANSO)
• Normative benchmarking
– What are the actual and expected performance given specific circumstances
(Cost of living, complexity, traffic variability, etc)
– Econometric techniques tried, not conclusive so far
NERA report available
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
4
Framework for cost-effectiveness analysis
Productivity and
factor cost
Costeffectiveness
Flight-hours
controlled
2001 Data
1.29
• ATCO-hour
productivity
ATCO-hours on
operational duty
1.32
• Working hours
per ATCO
• Employment cost
per ATCO-hour
ATCOs in operations
0.71
1.34
Ratios higher than 1: better performance in US
Ratios are multiplicative: 1.62=1.29 x 0.94 x 1.34
1.62
• Operating costs
per flight-hour
controlled
• Employment cost
per ATCO
Employment costs of
operational ATCOs
Total operating costs
(staff and non-staff)
0.94
• Support cost ratio
In the US:
• Higher hourly productivity (1.29)
• Higher employment costs
compensated by more hours (0.94)
• Lower support costs (1.34)
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
5
Productivity
Composite
flightflight-hours
Average hours
on duty
Employment costs
per ATCOATCO-hour
ATCOs in OPS
Employment costs
per ATCO
1.6
Financial
costcost-effectiveness
indicator
Staff costs for
ATCOs in OPS
Raising average productivity
Support cost ratio
to 3rd best: +62%
ATM/CNS
provision costs
1.2
29% of unit costs
0.8
0.4
ATCO-hour productivity 2005
HCAA
MoldATSA
UkSATSE
FYROM CAA
ROMATSA
Oro Navigacija
ATSA Bulgaria
MATS
Slovenia Control
LPS
Croatia Control
NATA Albania
Aena
Avinor
ENAV
Belgocontrol
Finavia
LGS
ANS Sweden
PATA
DSNA
DHMI
IAA
DFS
NAVIAIR
LVNL
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
HungaroControl
DCAC Cyprus
Austro Control
NATS
ANS CR
Skyguide
EANS
0.0
MUAC
Composite flight-hour per ATCO-hour on duty
ATCOATCO-hour
productivity
ATCO hours
on duty
ATCO-hour productivity 2002
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
6
ATCO-hour productivity
3
Average adjusted density for US sample
Density
Adjusted density
• Equivalent densities measured
in the sample of ACCs
Complexity is not a differentiating factor
Average adjusted density for European sample
2
flight-km/
× FL)
(sq km×
*
1
*
180%
160%
ol
is
d
variation from average w eek
Palma
In
di
an
ap
qu
e
Cl
ev
el
an
A
lb
uq
ue
r
Ro
m
a
im
s
Re
ht
str
ic
M
aa
Lo
nd
on
lsr
uh
e
ar
K
Ba
rc
e
lo
na
0
• Traffic variability
Athinai
140%
– Seasonal
Barcelona
120%
Reims
100%
– Weekly
Maastricht
– Daily
80%
Stockholm
60%
40%
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52
w eek
source : EUROCONTROL
10 000
2500
9 000
8 000
2000
Flight
6 000
1500
5 000
4 000
1000
ATCOs
7 000
• Match of resources and traffic appears to
be a key driver of ATCO productivity
3 000
2 000
500
1 000
0
0
Sun
Mon
Tue
Flight
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
On_Duty
Traffic and staffing
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
7
Sector productivity and staffing
Productivity and
factor cost
Flight-hours
controlled
Sector productivity
Sector-hours open
• ATCO-hour
productivity
ATCO-hour productivity
Output
per ATCO
Output
(flight-hours controlled)
Costeffectiveness
Staffing per sector
ATCO hours on duty
ATCO-hours on
operational duty
• Working hours
per ATCO
Average hours on duty
• Employment cost
per ATCO-hour
ATCOs in operations
ATCOs in OPS
• Operating costs
per flight-hour
controlled
• Employment cost
per ATCO
Employment costs of
operational ATCOs
• Support cost ratio
Total operating costs
(staff and non-staff)
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
8
Sector productivity and staffing
8.0
8.0
Cluster 1
Sector productivity
Sector productivity
6.0
Average ATCO-hour productivity
5.0
4.0
Manchester
3.0
Berlin
2.0
London TC
1.0
Brussels
Langen
Bremen
Amsterdam
Dublin
Milano
Palma
Maastricht
Average ATCO-hour
productivity
6.0
5.0
Wien
London AC
Geneva
Rhein
Zurich
Padova
Reims
4.0
3.0
2.0
Munchen
Paris
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Staffing per sector
5.0
6.0
7.0
0.0
8.0
Cluster 3a (ACCs ≥ 5 sectors)
6.0
Praha
5.0
Budapest
Ankara
Brest
Lisboa
Shannon Madrid Canarias
Zagreb Roma
Sevilla
Bordeaux
Scottish
Malmo
Barcelona
Bratislava Brindisi
Kobenhavn Marseille
Bucuresti
Stockholm
Istanbul
4.0
3.0
2.0
Oslo
1.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
Staffing per sector
5.0
6.0
7.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Nicosia
Tampere
Tallinn
Varna
Bodo
Riga
Sofia
Malta
Stavanger
Vilnius Ljubljana
Tirana
Skopje
Rovaniemi
L'viv Simferopol
Kharkiv
Dnipropetrovs'k
Odesa
Chisinau
3.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
Average ATCO-hour productivity
0.0
Average ATCO-hour productivity
1.0
3.0
Cluster 3b (ACCs < 5 sectors)
1.0
Kyiv
0.0
0.0
2.0
7.0
Sector productivity
7.0
1.0
Staffing per sector
8.0
Sector productivity
Cluster 2
7.0
7.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Staffing per sector
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
9
160
Composite
flightflight-hours
ATCOATCO-hour
productivity
140
ATCO hours
on duty
Average hours
on duty
120
Employment costs
per ATCOATCO-hour
ATCOs in OPS
Employment costs
per ATCO
100
Financial
costcost-effectiveness
indicator
Staff costs for
ATCOs in OPS
80
Support cost ratio
ATM/CNS
provision costs
60
40
20
Employment costs per ATCO-hour 2005
HCAA
MoldATSA
UkSATSE
DHMI
Oro Navigacija
LGS
FYROM CAA
MATS
NATA Albania
ATSA Bulgaria
EANS
ROMATSA
LPS
Croatia Control
PATA
HungaroControl
DCAC Cyprus
Slovenia Control
ANS CR
Avinor
ANS Sweden
NAVIAIR
DSNA
IAA
Finavia
NATS
LVNL
ENAV
DFS
Austro Control
Belgocontrol
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
MUAC*
Skyguide
0
Aena
€ per ATCO-hour on duty (2005 prices)
Employment costs per ATCO-hour (2005, gate-to-gate)
Employment costs per ATCO-hour 2002
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
10
Support costs
Composite
flightflight-hours
ATCOATCO-hour
productivity
ATCO hours
on duty
Average hours
on duty
• 71% of unit costs
Employment costs
per ATCOATCO-hour
ATCOs in OPS
Employment costs
per ATCO
Financial
costcost-effectiveness
indicator
Staff costs for
ATCOs in OPS
Support cost ratio
ATM/CNS
provision costs
Capital-related costs per composite flight-hour
700
Non-staff operating costs per composite flight-hour
Capital
related cos ts
28.5%
Non-ATCO in OPS staff costs per composite flight-hour
514
Non-ATCO in
OPS s taff
cos ts
44.5%
500
400
Direct (nons taff)
operating
cos ts
26.9%
European system average (€281)
407
358 356
350 348
333
300
314 312 311 307
296 295
277 275 267
261 256 251 247 241
230 217
206
200
198 187 187
180 179 175 172
157 153
119
100
EANS
MUAC*
ANS Sweden
HCAA
LGS
HungaroControl
Finavia
PPL/PATA
Avinor
IAA
Slovenia Control
NAVIAIR
Croatia Control
Aena
MATS
DCAC Cyprus
ANS CR
Austro Control
DHMI
UkSATSE
MoldATSA
Oro Navigacija
DSNA
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
LPS
Skyguide
DFS
NATS
NATA Albania
ENAV
FYROM CAA
ROMATSA
ATSA Bulgaria
Belgocontrol
0
LVNL
€ per composite flight-hour
600 590
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
Cost-effectiveness target
11
0.9
250
2005
Gate-to-gate ANS costs (European level)
~€7 460M
Average 1997-2003
PRC
proposed target
0.7
220
190
0.6
160
En-route ANS costs
analysis (Sections
8.2 - 8.5)
Cost Per Km
All States in CRCO system
Total Costs (1997= index 100)
2010P
2009P
2008P
2007P
2006P
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
100
2000
0.4
1999
130
1998
0.5
1997
Euro 2005/ km
0.8
En-route ANS costs
(European level)
~€5 850M
Terminal ANS costs
(European level)
~€1 610M
ATM/CNS
ATM/CNS
~€4 970M
~€1 550M
MET
MET
~€330M
~€60M
Payment to
regulatory &
governmental
authorities
~€60M
Payment to
regulatory &
governmental
authorities
~€2M
ANSP Benchmarking
analysis (Section 8.6)
EUROCONTROL
~€490M
Traffic (1997=index 100)
so urce : EUROCONTROL
• Cost-effectiveness: A major European ATM performance issue
• Clear break in the en-route unit cost trend since 2003
• PRC recommends the formal adoption of a cost-effectiveness target at European system level to reduce
average real unit costs by 3% p.a. until 2010.
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
12
Cost-effectiveness improvements from future developments
€0.8/km
€0.6/km
7.000
6.000
2015
2020
FABs
SESAR
4.000
SESAR
long-term
target
1995
3.000
1990
2.000
Massive value can be generated
with improved cost-effectiveness
1.000
Net Present value (Discount rate: 5%)
0
0
2.000
4.000
6.000
8.000
10.000
12.000
14.000
50
Traffic (Million Km)
Improving economic performance
New generation ATM
Rationalisation of service provision!
16.000
1%
2%
3%
4% Efficiency
40
Billion Euro
Total en-route
ANS costs (Million € 2005)
2003
5.000
€0.4/km
2010
2005
30
20
10
0
5
10
15
20
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
Years
13
Improvements through rationalisation of service provision
Exceptional
Items
0.8%
Costs of capital
6.0%
Depreciation
costs
14.2%
•
Direct (nonstaff) operating
costs
18.3%
Staff costs
60.7%
ATM/CNS provision costs (€ M)
Staff costs
Direct (non-staff) operating costs
Depreciation costs
Costs of capital
Exceptional Items
Total
Total
3 960
1 194
923
392
52
6 520
%
60.7%
18.3%
14.2%
6.0%
0.8%
100.0%
2005 data
Rationalising support staff (35% of costs)
– Opportunity for pooling resources (maintenance teams, etc)
– Costs should not grow in line with traffic
•
Improving ATCO Productivity (25% of costs)
– e.g. better use of resources in low traffic, at night
•
Pooling investments (20% of costs)
– Major opportunity for scale effects in ATM infrastructure (currently 60% of investment)
– Approximately 80% of new systems costs is non-recurring cost (software, certification)
– Joint development (SESAR)
– Joint procurement (in FABs, ANSP groupings)
– Opportunity for scale effects in CNS infrastructure
– SATNAV, joint procurement/outsourcing of CNS infrastructure
•
Rationalising non-staff operating costs (18% of costs)
– Number of facilities, etc
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
14
Scale effects?
Fixed costs to build, equip,
and operate ACCs
5
30
European ACCs (2003 data)
25
Annualised capital costs
Annual
centre 3
cost
per
sector 2
(€m)
Equipment
Buildings
Management
Development
Maintenance
Number of ACCs
US ACCs (2000 data)
4
20
15
10
5
0
1
Operating costs
ATCOs
0-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30 31-35
36-40
41-45 45-50
Number of sectors
0
10
15
20
Sectors
25
30
47 European ACCs operating 10
sectors or fewer at maximum
configuration
Generic study on fragmentation
Some evidence of scale effects
But some small ANSPs are efficient
Other sources of inefficiencies and factors influencing economic performance
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
50+
15
ATM infrastructure: How big is it? (2003 data)
Number
VHF ground stations
250
Capital costs of new ACCs : Fixed costs
1123
COM Ground-ground voice links
ACC links (inter-State)
ACC links (intra-State)
NAV DME
NDB
VOR
SUR En-route primary plus Mode S
En-route Primary plus MSSR
Approach primary plus MSSR
Approach primary only
MSSR only
ATM ACCs
Sectors
2246
160
386
601
349
617
63
5
92
43
140
68
792
Capital
Annual
replacement operating
costs
costs
200
Langen
Prestwick
150
CEATS
Barcelona
€m
Malmö
Prague
100
Shannon
Sofia
Marseille-Aix
Bucharest
Zagreb
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Maximum sectors
Total
annual
costs
COM (outside ACC)
€560m
€60m
€110m
NAV (en-route)
€230m
€10m
€30m
SUR (en-route)
€3,000m
€210m
€500m
ACCs & ATM systems
€4,900m
€2,100m
€2,500m
Associated support
€1,000m
€1,100
€1,200m
Total
€9,690m
€3,480m
€4,340m
ATM systems
Replacement of the current system worth ~ €10B
Total annual en-route service provision costs ~ €4.4B
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
16
Some factors affecting performance
Fragmentation of service provision, infrastructure,
airspace, regulation, decision making
Fragmentation report (2006)
Cost of living, Traffic complexity, variability
Benchmarking report ACE 2005 (2007)
Traffic complexity score
Cost of living
Traffic variability
<= 200
<= 0.04
<= 1.15
<= 300
<= 0.08
<= 1.25
<= 400
<= 0.12
<= 1.35
<= 500
<= 0.16
> 500
Lower Airspace
Cost of living
> 0.16
<= 1.45
Lower Airspace
Traffic complexity
Lower Airspace
> 1.45
Traffic variability
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
17
Structural effect
Density effect
Complexity indicators
Complexity
Dimension
Indicator
Description
Traffic density
Adjusted density
Traffic in evolution
Potential vertical
interactions (VDIF)
A measure of the potential
number of interactions between
aircraft in a given volume of
airspace
Captures the potential
interactions between climbing,
cruising and descending aircraft
–
Flow structure
Potential horizontal
interactions (HDIF)
Provides a measure of the
potential interactions based on
the aircraft headings
Traffic mix
Potential Speed
interactions (SDIF)
Provides a measure of the
potential interactions between
aircraft of different performances
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
18
How are they computed?
• Interaction : simultaneous presence of 2 aircraft in a same cell of
20NMx20NMx3000ft
2 interactions
6 interactions
– Vertical interaction: aircraft in different flight phase (cruise- climb – descent)
– Horizontal interaction: aircraft with different heading (difference > 20°)
– Speed Interaction: aircraft with different speed (differences > 35 knots)
• Metrics computed at ACC and ANSP level (all airspace 85#FL#405)
– Results at ANSP level is a consolidation from results at ACC & APP level
– Oceanic airspace excluded
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
19
1.4
Breakdown of traffic complexity indicator at ANSP level (2004 data)
1.2
Belgocontrol
AVINOR
DFS
NATS
1.0
Skyguide
ENAV
Slovenia Control
LVNL
Austro Control
NAVIAIR
FINLAND CAA
0.8
FYROM CAA
DCAC Cyprus
MATS
0.6
MUAC
ANS CR
MoldATSA
Oro Navigacija
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
LGS
LPS
Aena
DSNA
Croatia Control
HCAA
HungaroControl
DHMI
0.4
UkSATSE
EANS
ROMATSA
NATA Albania
ATSA Bulgaria
0.2
IAA
0.0
Structural Index
ANS Sweden
0 .0 0
0 .0 5
0 .1 0
0 .1 5
0 .2 0
A d jus te d d e ns ity
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
20
Any influence of complexity on cost-effectiveness? (1/3)
Cost-effectiveness vs Complexity
Adjusted density
Aggregated complexity indicator
Structural Complexity indicator
Economic cost-effectiveness
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
Cost-effectiveness appears to increase with complexity
100
0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2 0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5 0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Productivity vs Complexity
Adjusted density
Aggregated complexity indicator
Structural Complexity indicator
ATCO-hour productivity
1.8
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2 0.0
0.3
0.6
But productivity increases with complexity
0.9
1.2
1.5 0.0
0.1
0.2
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
0.3
21
Any influence of complexity on cost-effectiveness? (2/3)
Employment costs vs Complexity
Employment costs per ATCO-hour
Adjusted density
Aggregated complexity indicator
Structural Complexity indicator
160
Employment costs are correlated with density, complexity
120
80
40
0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2 0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5 0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Support costs vs Complexity
Adjusted density
Aggregated complexity indicator
Structural Complexity indicator
Support costs per unit output
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2 0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
Weak link between complexity and support costs
1.2
1.5 0.0
0.1
0.2
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
0.3
22
Any influence of complexity on cost-effectiveness? (3/3)
GDP per capita vs Complexity
Adjusted density
Aggregated complexity indicator
Structural Complexity indicator
GDP per capita (€'000)
40
30
20
10
0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2 0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5 0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
• Cost-effectiveness is significantly influenced by cost of living
– Cost of living influences employment costs (60% of costs)
– but some high cost of living ANSPs are cost-efficient (Nordic States)
• Link with complexity is apparent: Complexity is correlated with cost of living,
and cost of living with cost-effectiveness
• Mixed influence of complexity
–
–
Higher density enables better use of human resources, infrastructure
Higher complexity increases work load, but also productivity…
• Econometrics: failed to determine statistically significant influence of complexity on Costs
• Empirical analysis of influence of Complexity, Cost of living, …
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
23
ANS/ATM Cost-effectiveness Performance
0.9
250
TODAY
Average 1997-2003
PRC
proposed target
220
Cost Per Km
Total Costs (1997= index 100)
2010P
2009P
2008P
2007P
2006P
2005
100
2004
0.4
2003
130
2002
0.5
2001
160
2000
0.6
1999
190
1998
0.7
1997
Euro 2005/ km
0.8
Traf f ic (1997=index 100)
All States in CRCO system
so urce : EUR OC ON TROL
OUTLOOK
€0.8/km
€0.6/km
7 000
2010
2005
6 000
€0.4/km
Total en-route
ANS costs (Million € 2005)
2003
5 000
2020
Medium-term
target
4 000
SESAR
long-term
target
1995
3 000
1990
2 000
1 000
Performance to date
• European ANS costs ~ $10.5 billion
• Clear break in unit cost trend since
2003 (Benchmarking has a role!)
• Similar ANS costs in US,
but two times more traffic!
Analysis of performance
• Econometrics: unsuccessful so far
• Empirical analysis of influence of
Complexity, Cost of living
Targets
• Cost-effectiveness target
recommended (reduce average real
unit costs by 3% p.a. until 2010)
but not adopted yet
• SESAR targets in line with PRC’s,
more aggressive beyond 2010 (5%)
Performance improvements
• Rationalisation of service provision
• New generation: one step further!
0
0
2 000
4 000
6 000
8 000
Traffic (Million Km )
10 000
12 000
14 000
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
24
ANS/ATM economic performance
Delays
1b€
Flight
inefficiency
1,5b€
Economic cost
• Total economic cost =
Delays
0,7b€
ANS
Provision
7b€
~9.5b€
– Direct cost of the service
– + Indirect costs (delays, non-optimum
flight profiles, externalities e.g.
environmental impact)
Capacity planning
Flight ineff.
1b€
Strategic design of airspace
Tactical use of airspace (FUA)
ANS
Provision
4,5b€
Fragmentation (Consolidation)
Low productivity
• In Europe,
user pays both, wants minimum total cost
• In the US, disconnect between ATM costs
(federal budget) and what the user pays
makes the link more remote
Analysis of performance
• Poor quality of service may compromise
benefits from excessive cost savings
~6,2b€
3,3b€
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
Delay costs per composite flight-hour
Yearly costs
800
700
600
Static economic
optimum
Total economic
costs
Cost of capacity
Dynamic
economic
optimum
500
400
300
200
100
Delay costs
Capacity/demand ratio
2002
2005
2002
2005
2002
2005
2002
2005
2002
2005
2002
2005
2002
2005
2002
2005
2002
2005
0
2002
2005
€ per composite flight-hour
900
LVNL
Belgo
control
Skyguide
ENAV
DFS
NATS
Austro
Control
ANS CR
DSNA
MUAC
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
25
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
26
ANS Performance status (2006)
Safety
Delays
Flight efficiency
Performance
targets
-
√
None
Development
agreed
Data flow
-
√
√
√
250
1.2
1.3
0,6
0,7
0,9
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
-1
2006
En-route ATFM delay per flight (summer)
Airport ATFM delay per flight (summer)
Direct en route
TMA Interface
10
Proposed target
0
source : EUROCONTROL
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
130
0.4
100
Cost Per Km
Total Costs (1997= index 100)
All States in CRCO system
2009P
1.2
0,7
2007P
1.8
0,8
2004
3.1
2005P
3.6
0,9
2003
5.5
0,8
160
0.5
2002
4.1
0,9
20
190
0.6
2001
2.9
0,7
30
220
-14%
0.7
2000
En route
optimum
1
40
1999
En route target
2
0.8
- 2 km per flight
1998
3
PC upper bound
50
1997
4
0
0.9
Actual: 1.3min/flight
Euro 2004/ km
minutes per flight
Performance
indicators
60
Target: 1.4min/flight
5
2008 T
Summer (May-October)
Costeffectiveness
2006P
6
r o u t e e x t e n s io n ( k m /f lig h t )
Performance
Processes
Traffic (1997=index 100)
source : EUROCONTROL
Regulation
Well advanced,
not fully applied
Minimal
Incentives
in UK only
Single Europ. Sky
Functional
airspace blocks
Cost recovery
Benchmarking
Incentives (UK)
Performance
management
Safety
Action Plan
Co-operative
capacity
management
European
Co-ordination
Individual plans
Benchmarking
Achieved
performance
No conclusive
information
Strong
improvement
Target nearly met
Very slow
improvement
Progressive
improvement
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
27
A quantum jump in ATM performance
Short-term improvements
– Safety, flight-efficiency, productivity, etc
A quantum jump in performance in medium term
– Safety: x5 for traffic x2, x10 for traffic x3 => SESAR, NEXGEN
– Capacity: x2 (15 years), x3 (30 years)
– Linked with safety for en-route
– Linked with traffic spread for airports
– Cost-effectiveness: >2
At least one solution known: US!
Traffic density and complexity ≥ Europe
Capacity and cost-effectiveness targets met
Equivalent aviation safety levels
Driving ATM performance
Operational and technical improvements
– SESAR, NEXGEN
Service provision
– Organisation, Managerial, Governance, Human resources
Regulation
– Single European Sky, …
Co-operation & co-ordination
– EUROCONTROL
– Improved ATM/Airlines/airports interactions
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
28
Conclusions
• High stakes in ANS performance
• Safety
• Economic impact (billions of € per annum)
• Environmental impact
• Experience with performance-oriented approach in Europe since 1998
• Prerequisites for efficient performance-oriented strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reliable information flow
Target setting, performance monitoring
Adequate regulation
Performance management processes
Independent performance review (with permanent support)
Strong governance of monopoly service providers
Accountability for performance
• ANS “Performance” is the “end product” of a complex interrelated system,
involving a large number of airspace users, airports and ATM units
• Factors driving performance need to be better understood and measured
Performance Review Commission
www.eurocontrol.int/prc