SES Performance Scheme: Driving Performance Improvement in European ATM /ANS CIPFA Meeting Peter Grififths PRB Chairman 15/10/2014 Performance Review Body designated by the European Commission Content of the presentation • • • • • • • • • The Performance Scheme (PS) The Performance Review Body (PRB) The Theory ANS in aviation context Performance Plans US- EU OPS Comparison Future performance improvements Human Factor Conclusions Performance Review Body 2 The Performance Scheme (PS) • One of the key pillars of the SES by setting EU-Wide and Local targets, performance monitoring and corrective actions . • The PS is organised around fixed Reference Periods (RP). RP1 runs 2012-2014, RP2 runs 2015-2019. • • Targets set are legally binding for EU Member States. The Performance Regulation principles: – 4 Key Performance Areas (KPAs): Safety, Capacity, Environment, Cost Efficiency. – Incentives/cost efficiency linked with Charging Sch. – Staff representation consultation . Performance Review Body 3 The Performance Review Body (PRB) • The PRB Reports to the EC in accordance with provisions of 390/2013 (the Performance Regulation). • The purpose of the PRB is to assist the EC in PS implementation and NSAs on request. • • Competence, impartiality and independency. Main key tasks are: – Advise EC in setting EU-wide performance targets. – Asses National/FAB Performance Plans (and the NM). – Monitor the performance of the system in the 4 KPAs. Performance Review Body 4 ANS in aviation context 16 Change 2013 vs. 2012 (min./dep.) 14 > 2250Kg MTOW) 2 1 2 1 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 minutes per departure 1 2012 3 2011 3 2004 3 4 2003 12 Accidents with ANS contribution 2013 (P) Source: EASA 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2002 Number of accidents Total commercial air transport (CAT) accidents and accidents with ANS contribution (fixed wing, weight 10 ATFCM (en route) -0.06 ANS-related (airports) 0.00 ATFCM (Weather) -0.01 Weather (non ATFCM) 0.07 Local Turn around -0.16 (airline, airport, etc.) Reactionary 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 Safety 6% 6-12% Punctuality Environment 6% 6% Financial Estimated share of ANS-related CO2 emissions in Europe (2011) Total anthropogenic CO2 emissions in Europe -0.10 Source. PRU analysis; CODA Orders of magnitude for illustrative purposes Air Transport 6% €200 B 3.5% Share of aviation related CO2 emissions (Europe) Share of aviation emissions actionable by ANS Performance Review Body Airports €40 B ANS €8B MIL GA Orders of magnitude of turnover 5 Reward Management Balancing Process Decisions Unwanted Event’s Basic Adams Model of Risk For further reading the reference text is: Risk John Adams UCL London 1995 ISBN 1-85728-067-9 HB and 1-85728-068-7 PB Performance Review Body 6 We make decisions on opportunities and risks based on perceptions from our culture. These perceptions apply filters to our model. Performance Review Body 7 The operating loops provide mechanisms which provide systemic management of our companies. The two loops must balance within a risk tolerance boundary. Performance Review Body 8 The two loops must balance within a risk tolerance envelope. Corporate reporting systems ensure we remain within the risk tolerance boundaries. Performance Review Body 9 Performance Review Body 10 At the same time others are making similar decisions all of which impact on others and you. Thus constant review is necessary to ensure that the original decisions are still correct. Performance Review Body 11 Reasons causation (Swiss Cheese) model suggests when these events line up unwanted events occur. Along with the Adams model we can see how this would happen. His investigation into accidents holds true for other company internal or external situations. For further reading the reference text is: Reasons Accident Causation Model, Prof Jim Reason, University of Manchester email: reason@psy.man.ac.uk. Performance Review Body 12 ANS in Aviation context Airborne ANS Flight-efficiency En-route: 1.0 B TMA, taxi: 1.2 B ATFM Delays ER: 0.5, Apt: 0.3 Total User cost (ground) ATCO 2.2 B 0.8 B 2.0 B € 10.5 B User Charges Support costs Other staff Other operating 3.5 B €7.5 B All KPAs but Safety expressed in economic terms SES targets address all 3 KPAs (en-route) and Safety Estimated TEC ≈ €10.5 B (SES area, 2012) ANS-related Airborne equipment to be added TEC fully borne by users of European airspace Performance improvements, more accurate data, different area (SES): lower TEC estimates ATFM delay and flight-efficiency cost estimates must not be interpreted as ANS inefficiency Trade-offs between KPAs Optimum is not 0: Minimise TEC within acceptable bounds of safety and security CAPEX Depreciation Cost of capital Other costs ECTL, MET, NSA 1.2 B 0.8 B Estimated TEC 2012 (SES) Performance Review Body 13 Performance Plans 1st Reference period (RP1) Targets set 2010 European targets RP1 (EC/PRB) 2011 2012 2013 Nat./FAB performance plans RP2 (States) National/FAB performance plans RP1 (States) Consistency with European targets (EC/PRB) 2014 European targets RP2 (EC/PRB) Consistency with European targets RP2 2015 SES targets for all 4 KPAs in RP2 (En-route) Performance also monitored in TMA (EC/PRB) Monitoring Performance Review Body 14 Performance Plans 0.9 4.0 0.8 3.0 0.7 2.0 0.6 1.0 Flightefficiency Delays Charges 14 2013 TRAFFIC 9.45 M (-0.8%) 12 0.0 2012 2011 6% 4% 2% 6 0% STATFOR 7-year forecast (SEP. 2013) 4 -4% -6% 2018 2016 2014 2012 2010 2008 2006 2004 2002 -8% 2000 2 1998 data source : EUROCONTROL/CRCO, CFMU (delay) -2% ( before 1997, estimation based on Euro 88 traffic variation) 1996 Start of SES PS RP1 12% 8% 8 1994 2010 2009 2008 2007 Start of SES Performance Scheme Max. (2008) 10 1992 Performance Review Commission 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Single European Sky 1st package 14% STATFOR 7-year forecast (Feb. 2011) 10% IFR flights (million) ECAC Institutional Strategy 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 0.5 16% STATFOR 7-year forecast (Feb. 2008) % annual growth (bars) 5.0 1990 1.0 €2009 per kilometre 6.0 En-route unit costs Traffic in km (index: 1990=1) En-route delay (summer) All States in Route Charges system Minutes of en-route ATFM delay per flight and traffic index 1.1 source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR (ESRA2008) Reactive policy in the 90’s: delays going up while costs going down, and vice-versa Balanced performance-oriented approach; both delays and unit costs down since 2000 Enforceable SES targets apply from 2012 onwards Fast traffic growth until 2008: challenge for capacity, but helps cost-efficiency Traffic growth much lower now, even negative: Easier for capacity, harder for cost-efficiency Performance Review Body 15 Performance plans Flightefficiency Delays SES States Charges Challenging SES targets for 2012-2013 were met and even exceeded Best level ever achieved in ATFM delays! Challenging target for 2014 and beyond (0.5 min/flight), close to optimum Performance Review Body 16 Performance Plans Target RP1 6.0 5.42 inefficiency (%) 5.0 5.38 5.18 5.15 Target RP2 5.11 4.67 Indicative KEP profile 4.10 4.0 3.0 3.29 3.17 3.12 2.60 Indicative KEA profile 2.0 1.0 SES area 0.0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Flight plan (KEP) - actual 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Flown trajectory (KEA) - actual Source: PRU analysis Great Circle broken up using Achieved distance • • Excellent routing efficiency of ANS, certainly best of all transport modes (~ 3%) – Yet significant economic impact (fuel burn, flight time) – Impossible to reach 0% with full civil-military traffic load Delays Carbon-neutral growth of aviation (IATA goal due in 2020) already being met by ANS! Network Manager’s flight-efficiency initiative, aimed at reaching SES targets – • Flightefficiency Improvement in KEA compensates traffic growth (-21% from 2011 to 2019) • • KEP (FPL) and KEA (actual) vs great circle Charges Role of airlines in closing gap between FPL and actual route (predictability) Further environmental indicators needed (Vertical, CO2 efficiency…) – Would require inputs on optimum flight from AOC Performance Review Body 17 Performance Plans Higher DUC starting point (€58.1) than DUR arising from aggregated RP1 plans (€54.9) in 2014, mainly due to traffic being significantly lower than planned. 65.0 63.7 60.0 58.4 Flightefficiency 58.1 57.8 56.7 €2009 per SU 2009-2019 2012-2019 2014-2019 % change in Annual % DUC change in DUC -22.9% -2.6% -16.0% -2.5% -15.5% -3.3% 56.6 55.0 54.9 55.0 Delays 53.0 Charges 51.0 49.1 50.0 45.0 40.0 2009A 2010A 2011A 2012 2013 RP1 (2012-2014) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 RP2 (2015-2019) Actual en-route unit costs €2009/SU DURs from RP1 NPPs €2009/SU Adopted RP2 cost-efficiency targets (Feb. 2014) €2009/SU Starting point for RP2 cost-efficiency targets €2009/SU Significant improvement under binding SES cost-efficiency targets Spain played a large role in improvements from 2009 to 2012 Performance Review Body 18 Performance plans TEC/flight (Base Traffic) TEC/flight (Low traffic) €900 TEC per flight (€ 2009) €850 €800 Flightefficiency ~ 7.6B Delays €750 €700 Charges €650 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 €600 Major savings from RP1-2 targets: Some € 7.6B vs. 2012 baseline over RP2 Performance Review Body 19 US-EU OPS comparison Performance Review Body 20 US-EU OPS comparison Performance Review Body 21 US-EU OPS comparison • European unit costs decreased -13% over 2002-2011 • But still some 50% above US in absolute terms (US 34% below Europe) Total ATM/CNS provision Costs per Flight-Hour (€ 2011) (% difference corresponds to US vs SES) 700 € 2011 600 500 55% lower 42% lower 34% lower 400 300 200 100 Source: PRC analysis - 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 US 265 271 260 267 279 285 310 346 358 354 SES 595 596 583 564 548 547 542 592 556 534 Europe 591 591 572 550 533 529 522 567 529 511 Performance Review Body 22 US-EU OPS comparison Flight-hours controlled ATCO-hour productivity +55% in US ATCOs employment Cost / flight-hour ATCO in OPS cost / ATCO-hour -25% in US ATCOs in OPS working hours Flexibility is key to ATCO productivity Support costs: high share, mostly fixed, opportunity for rationalisation, must be addressed! Performance Review Body Support costs per flight-hour Unit ATM/CNS provision costs - 48% in US - 25% in US - 34% in US €85 €163 €269 €348 €354 €511 ATCOs in OPS Employment costs + Support costs ATM/CNS provision costs EUROCONTROL/PRU 23 Future performance improvements Airborne ANS Flight-efficiency En-route: 1.0 B TMA, taxi: 1.2 B ATFM Delays ER: 0.5, Apt: 0.3 Total User cost (ground) ATCO 2.2 B 0.8 B 2.0 B Efficiency gains in individual ANSPs Airspace improvements (e.g. free routes) More flexible management of capacity to match demand (ATCO contracts) New Technology PCP investment mostly on ground, can fit within current CAPEX Main impact expected in TMA, airport traffic Future deployment must have clear positive CBA, including Airborne ANS part of TEC Efficient SESAR deployment, e.g. joint procurement, maintenance € 10.5 B User Charges Support costs Other staff Other operating 3.5 B €7.5 B CAPEX Depreciation Cost of capital Other costs ECTL, MET, NSA 1.2 B 0.8 B Estimated TEC 2012 (SES) Rationalisation of service provision and oversight, including restructuring Very significant further performance improvements achievable in true Single Sky Performance Review Body 24 Human Factor (Cultural Filters) • • • • One of SES 5 pillars Staff consultation principle in PR Key to any system drive to change ATCO active involvement key to PS success: – Consultation process – Participation in safety improvement – Introduction of new technology – Process optimisation Performance Review Body 25 Capacity (1/6) – Jan.-Sep. 2.5 Other [all other codes] 2.0 ATC other [codes IRTV] Capacity/staffing [codes CSG] Reference value (2012,2013), Target (2014) 1.5 1.0 0.5 Performance Review Body 2014 (JANSEP) 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 0.0 2008 En route ATFM delay per flight (min.) Weather [codes W,D] 26 Environment – Jan.-Sep. 5.6% 5.42% 5.38% 5.4% 5.17% 5.2% 5.13% 5.11% 4.91% 5.0% 4.8% 4.6% 4.4% 4.2% Baseline 2013 2012 Target Actual 2014 (Jan.-Sep.) Indicative profile 2011 2010 2009 4.0% MODEL_TYPE SES Area Sum of KPI_CALC 5.4% 5.3% 5.2% 5.1% 5.0% 4.9% AREA_NAME 4.8% RP1 4.7% 4.5% JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 4.6% 2012 Performance Review Body YEAR MONTH 2013 2014 27 Cost-Efficiency – SU’s Jan-AUG JAN-AUG ACT (2014) 2014 vs. 2013 (ACT) ACT vs. PP (2014) Finland Spain Canarias Greece Austria Spain Continental Germany Switzerland United Kingdom Italy Slovenia Estonia Poland Denmark Belgium/Lux Czech Republic Ireland Sweden France Netherlands Romania Latvia Portugal Cyprus Lithuania Slovak Republic Hungary Norway Bulgaria Malta 518,775 991,363 3,040,725 1,746,657 5,927,507 8,561,267 957,830 6,749,403 5,726,059 304,734 518,541 2,712,752 1,030,752 1,575,998 1,628,958 2,640,357 2,179,647 12,549,102 1,854,724 2,726,359 513,440 2,032,428 947,795 322,549 709,424 1,560,582 1,464,654 1,758,499 502,700 1.8% -0.8% 3.7% 5.2% 4.4% 2.2% 2.8% 3.3% 3.6% 7.6% 4.0% -0.3% 2.0% 3.1% 2.4% 2.2% 3.0% 3.6% 3.1% 8.4% 6.5% 7.3% 4.5% 7.4% 7.5% 11.5% 9.3% 27.7% 2.7% -16.6% -16.2% -13.3% -12.3% -10.6% -9.5% -9.0% -8.6% -7.3% -6.7% -6.6% -4.5% -3.2% -3.1% -2.8% -2.6% -2.6% -2.6% -0.3% 1.5% 2.2% 2.3% 3.5% 3.6% 4.1% 7.1% 21.7% 24.1% 24.4% SES AREA (RP1) 73,753,578 4.2% -4.7% Performance Review Body 28 Conclusions • Significant progress in European ANS performance • Best ever ATFM delays achieved in 2013 • 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 • SES targets for RP1-RP2 bring very significant further improvements • Balance between KPAs is essential • Human factor • Staff is the main asset to drive the change • Win-win opportunity • Change management is key to PS success Performance Review Body 29