Post on 11-Aug-2020
May 2014
ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE)2012 Benchmarking Report
with 2013-2017 outlook
EUROCONTROL
REPORT COMMISSIONED BY THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMISSION
Prepared by the Performance Review Unit (PRU)with the ACE Working Group
May 2014
REPORT COMMISSIONED BY THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMISSION
ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE)2012 Benchmarking Report
with 2013-2017 outlook
COPYRIGHT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
© European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)
This document is published by the Performance Review Commission in the interest of the exchange of information.
It may be copied in whole or in part providing that the copyright notice and disclaimer are included. The information contained in this document may not be modifiedwithout prior written permission from the Performance Review Commission.
The view expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of EUROCONTROL which makes no warranty, either implied or express, for the informationcontained in this document, neither does it assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy completeness or usufulness of this information.
Printed by EUROCONTROL 96, rue de la Fusée, B-1130 Brussels, Belgium. Tel: +32 2 729 3956. Fax: +32 2 729 9108.
ATM
Cos
t-Eff
ectiv
enes
s (A
CE)
201
2 Be
nchm
arki
ng R
epor
t w
ith 2
013-
2017
out
look
Cover ACE Layout A3 2012.indd 1 23/05/14 11:21
BACKGROUND
This report has been commissioned by the Performance Review Commission (PRC).
The PRC was established in 1998 by the Permanent Commission of EUROCONTROL, in accordance with the ECAC Institutional Strategy (1997).
One objective in this Strategy is «to introduce strong, transparent and independent performance review and target setting to facilitate more effective management of the European ATM system, encourage mutual accountability for system performance and provide a better basis for investment analyses and, with reference to existing practice, provide guidelines to States on economic regulation to assist them in carrying out their responsibilities.»
The PRC’s website address is http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc
In September 2010, EUROCONTROL accepted the designation by the European Commission as the SES Performance Review Body(PRB) acting through its Performance Review Commission supported by the Performance Review Unit.
NOTICE
The Performance Review Unit (PRU) has made every effort to ensure that the information and analysis contained in this documentare as accurate and complete as possible. Should you find any errors or inconsistencies we would be grateful if you could please bring them to the PRU’s attention.
The PRU’s e-mail address is pru@eurocontrol.int
Page 2 ACE 2012.indd 1 23/05/14 11:24
Report commissioned by the Performance Review Commission
ATM Cost‐Effectiveness (ACE) 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐
2017 outlook
Prepared by the Performance Review Unit (PRU) with the ACE 2012 Working Group
Final Report
May 2014
ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
BACKGROUND
This Report has been commissioned by the Performance Review Commission (PRC).
The PRC was established in 1998 by the Permanent Commission of EUROCONTROL, in accordance with the ECAC Institutional Strategy (1997).
One objective in this Strategy is "to introduce strong, transparent and independent performance review and target setting to facilitate more effective management of the European ATM system, encourage mutual accountability for system performance and provide a better basis for investment analyses and, with reference to existing practice, provide guidelines to States on economic regulation to assist them in carrying out their responsibilities."
In September 2010, EUROCONTROL accepted the designation by the European Commission as the SES Performance Review Body acting through its Performance Review Commission supported by the Performance Review Unit.
The PRC’s website address is http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc
NOTICE
The Performance Review Unit (PRU) has made every effort to ensure that the information and analysis contained in this document are as accurate and complete as possible. Should you find any errors or inconsistencies we would be grateful if you could please bring them to the PRU’s attention.
The PRU’s e‐mail address is pru@eurocontrol.int
COPYRIGHT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
© European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) EUROCONTROL, 96, rue de la Fusée, B‐1130 Brussels, Belgium
http://www.eurocontrol.int
This document is published in the interest of the exchange of information and may be copied in whole or in part providing that the copyright notice and disclaimer are included. The information contained in this document may not be modified without prior written permission from the Performance Review Unit. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of EUROCONTROL, which makes no warranty, either implied or express, for the information contained in this document, neither does it assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information.
ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION SHEET
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
Document Title
ATM Cost‐Effectiveness (ACE) 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
DOCUMENT REFERENCE EDITION: EDITION DATE:
ACE 2012 Final report May 2014
Abstract
This report is the twelfth in a series of annual reports based on mandatory information disclosure provided by 37 Air Navigation Services Providers (ANSPs) to the EUROCONTROL Performance Review Commission (PRC). This report comprises factual data and analysis on cost‐effectiveness and productivity for 37 ANSPs for the year 2012, including high level trend analysis for the years 2009‐2012. The scope of the report is both en‐route and terminal navigation services (i.e. gate‐to‐gate). The main focus is on the ATM/CNS provision costs as these costs are under the direct control and responsibility of the ANSP. Costs borne by airspace users for less than optimal quality of service are also considered. The report describes a performance framework for the analysis of cost‐effectiveness. The framework highlights 3 key performance drivers contributing to cost‐effectiveness (productivity, employment costs and support costs). The report also analyses forward‐looking information for the years 2013‐2017, inferring on future financial cost‐effectiveness performance at system level, and displays information on future capital expenditures.
Keywords
EUROCONTROL Performance Review Commission ‐ Economic information disclosure – Benchmarking – Target setting – Exogenous factors – Complexity metrics ‐ ATM/CNS cost‐effectiveness comparisons ‐ European Air Navigation Services Providers (ANSPs) – Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs) ‐ Gate‐to‐gate ‐ En‐route and Terminal ANS ‐ Inputs and outputs metrics – Performance framework ‐ Quality of service ‐ 2012 data – Traffic downturn ‐ Factual analysis – Historic trend analysis ‐ Costs drivers ‐ Productivity – Employment costs ‐ Support costs – Area Control Centres (ACCs) productivity comparisons – Current and future capital expenditures – ATM systems – Five years forward‐looking trend analysis (2013‐2017).
CONTACT: Performance Review Unit, EUROCONTROL, 96 Rue de la Fusée, B‐1130 Brussels, Belgium.
Tel: +32 2 729 3956, e‐mail: pru@eurocontrol.int ‐ http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/performance‐review‐commission
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
TYPE STATUS DISTRIBUTION
Performance Review Report Draft General Public
Report commissioned by the PRC Proposed Issue EUROCONTROL Organisation
PRU Technical Note Released Issue Restricted
ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
TABLE OF CONTENTS
READER’S GUIDE .................................................................................................................................... I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... II 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Organisation of the report ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Overview of participating ANSPs .................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Data submission ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Data analysis, processing and reporting ....................................................................................... 4 1.5 ANSPs’ Annual Reports ................................................................................................................. 5 1.6 ANSP benchmarking and the SES Performance Scheme .............................................................. 7
PART I: PAN‐EUROPEAN SYSTEM COST‐EFFECTIVENESS PERFORMANCE IN 2012 AND OUTLOOK FOR 2013‐2017 ............................................................................................................................................. 9 2 PAN‐EUROPEAN SYSTEM COST‐EFFECTIVENESS PERFORMANCE IN 2012 WITH 2013‐2017 OUTLOOK ............................................................................................................................................ 11 PART II: COST‐EFFECTIVENESS PERFORMANCE FOCUS AT ANSP LEVEL ................................................. 37 3 FOCUS ON ANSPS INDIVIDUAL COST‐EFFECTIVENESS PERFORMANCE ......................................... 39 3.1 Objective of this chapter ................................................................................................................. 39 3.2 Historical development of cost‐effectiveness performance, 2009‐2012 ........................................ 39 3.3 ANSP’s cost‐effectiveness within the comparator group, 2009‐2012 ............................................ 40 3.4 Historical and forward‐looking information on capital investment projects .................................. 41 3.5 Cost‐effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level ..................................................................... 42 ANNEX 1 – STATUS OF ANSPS YEAR 2012 ANNUAL REPORTS ............................................................... 119 ANNEX 2 – PERFORMANCE INDICATORS USED FOR THE COMPARISON OF ANSPS ................................ 121 ANNEX 3 – PERFORMANCE RATIOS ..................................................................................................... 123 ANNEX 4 – TRAFFIC COMPLEXITY AND TRAFFIC VARIABILITY INDICATORS ........................................... 125 ANNEX 5 – COST OF CAPITAL REPORTED BY ANSPS ............................................................................. 129 ANNEX 6 – EXCHANGE RATES, INFLATION RATES AND PURCHASING POWER PARITIES (PPPS) 2012 DATA .......................................................................................................................................................... 131 ANNEX 7 – KEY DATA .......................................................................................................................... 133 ANNEX 8 – PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AT FAB LEVEL........................................................................ 141 ANNEX 9 – INDIVIDUAL ANSP FACT SHEETS ........................................................................................ 143 GLOSSARY ..........................................................................................................................................183
ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
TABLES
Table 1.1: States and ANSPs participating in ACE 2012 ...................................................................................... 3 Table 1.2: IFRS reporting status .......................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2.1: Key system data for 2011 and 2012, real terms .............................................................................. 11 Table 2.2: Comparison of ATM/CNS provision costs and composite flight‐hours at system level (figures
provided in Nov. 2011 versus actual data) (€2012) ................................................................................. 19 Table 3.1: ANSPs comparator groups ............................................................................................................... 41 Annex 1 ‐ Table 0.1: Status on ANSP’s 2012 Annual Reports ......................................................................... 119 Annex 2 ‐ Table 0.1: Economic cost‐effectiveness indicator, 2012 ................................................................ 122 Annex 3 ‐ Table 0.1: The components of gate‐to‐gate cost‐effectiveness, 2012 ........................................... 123 Annex 4 ‐ Table 0.1: Traffic complexity indicators at ANSP level, 2012 ......................................................... 125 Annex 4 ‐ Table 0.2: Traffic complexity indicators at ACC level, 2012............................................................ 126 Annex 4 ‐ Table 0.3: Traffic variability indicators at ANSP level, 2012 ........................................................... 127 Annex 5 ‐ Table 0.1: Comments on cost of capital reported by ANSPs, 2012 ................................................ 130 Annex 6 ‐ Table 0.1: 2012 Exchange rates, inflation rates and PPPs data ...................................................... 131 Annex 7 ‐ Table 0.1: Breakdown of total ANS revenues (en‐route, terminal and gate‐to‐gate), 2012 .......... 133 Annex 7 ‐ Table 0.2: Breakdown of total ANS costs (en‐route, terminal and gate‐to‐gate), 2012 ................. 134 Annex 7 ‐ Table 0.3: Breakdown of ATM/CNS provision costs (en‐route, terminal and gate‐to‐gate), 2012 135 Annex 7 ‐ Table 0.4: Balance Sheet data at ANSP level, 2012 ........................................................................ 136 Annex 7 ‐ Table 0.5: Total staff and ATCOs in OPS data, 2012 ....................................................................... 137 Annex 7 ‐ Table 0.6: Operational data (ANSP and State level), 2012 ............................................................. 138 Annex 7 ‐ Table 0.7: Operational data at ACC level, 2012 .............................................................................. 139 Annex 8 ‐ Table 0.1: Breakdown of cost‐effectiveness at FAB level, 2012 ..................................................... 141
ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
FIGURES
Figure 0.1: High level timeframe for RP2 Union‐wide target setting process .................................................... ii Figure 0.2: Changes in unit economic costs, 2009‐2012 (real terms) ................................................................iii Figure 0.3: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic volumes, 2011‐2012 (real terms) ........................ iv Figure 0.4: Changes in the financial cost‐effectiveness indicator, 2011‐2012 (real terms) ............................... iv Figure 0.5: Forward‐looking cost‐effectiveness at European system level (2012‐2017, real terms) ................. v Figure 0.6: Forward‐looking capital expenditures at Pan‐European system level (2009‐2016, real terms) ...... v Figure 1.1: Progress with submission of 2012 data ............................................................................................ 4 Figure 1.2: Data analysis, processing and reporting ........................................................................................... 5 Figure 1.3: Status of 2012 Annual Reports ......................................................................................................... 6 Figure 1.4: High level timeframe for RP2 Union‐wide target setting process .................................................... 7 Figure 2.1: Breakdown of ATM/CNS provision costs, 2012 .............................................................................. 12 Figure 2.2: Exogenous factors measured by the PRU, 2012 ............................................................................. 12 Figure 2.3: Distribution of ATM/CNS provision costs in 2012 .......................................................................... 13 Figure 2.4: Changes in unit economic costs, 2009‐2012 (real terms) .............................................................. 14 Figure 2.5: Changes in economic cost‐effectiveness by ANSP, 2009‐2012 (real terms) ................................... 15 Figure 2.6: ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour, 2012 ........................................................... 16 Figure 2.7: Adjustment of the financial cost‐effectiveness indicator for ANSPs operating in the Four States
airspace, 2012 .......................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 2.8: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic volumes, 2011‐2012 (real terms) ...................... 18 Figure 2.9: Comparison of 2012 actual ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic with ACE 2010 plans (real terms)
................................................................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 2.10: ACE performance framework, 2012 ............................................................................................. 21 Figure 2.11: Changes in the financial cost‐effectiveness indicator, 2011‐2012 (real terms) ........................... 21 Figure 2.12: Changes in ATCO‐hour productivity, 2009‐2012 .......................................................................... 22 Figure 2.13: Changes in average ATCO‐hours on duty, 2009‐2012 .................................................................. 22 Figure 2.14: Annual changes in ATCO‐hour productivity, composite flight‐hours and ATCO‐hours on duty,
2011‐2012 ................................................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 2.15: ATCO‐hour productivity (gate‐to‐gate), 2012 .............................................................................. 24 Figure 2.16: Summary of productivity results at ACC level, 2012 .................................................................... 25 Figure 2.17: ACC sector productivity and staffing per sector, 2012 ................................................................. 26 Figure 2.18: Changes in ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour, 2009‐2012 (real terms) ............................ 27 Figure 2.19: ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour (gate‐to‐gate), 2012 .................................................... 28 Figure 2.20: Employment costs per ATCO‐hour with and without PPPs, 2012 ................................................ 29 Figure 2.21: Convergence in ATCO employment costs for ANSPs operating in Eastern and Western European
countries, 2009‐2012 (real terms) ........................................................................................................... 29 Figure 2.22: Changes in support costs per composite flight‐hour, 2009‐2012 (real terms) ............................. 30 Figure 2.23: Framework for support costs analysis, 2012 ................................................................................ 30 Figure 2.24: Changes in the components of support costs, 2011‐2012 (real terms) ....................................... 31 Figure 2.25: Difference between actual and planned capex for 2012 (real terms) .......................................... 32 Figure 2.26: Support costs per composite flight‐hour at ANSP level, 2012 ...................................................... 33 Figure 2.27: Support costs per composite flight‐hour at FAB level, 2012 ........................................................ 34 Figure 2.28: Forward‐looking cost‐effectiveness at European system level (2012‐2017, real terms) ............. 35 Figure 2.29: Forward‐looking capital expenditures at Pan‐European system level (2009‐2016, real terms) .. 35
Reader’s guide i ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
READER’S GUIDE
This table indicates which chapters of the report are likely to be of most interest to particular readers and stakeholders.
Executive summary All stakeholders with an interest in ATM who want to know what this report is about, or want an overview of the main findings.
Chapter 1:
Introduction
Those wanting a short overview of the structure of the report, the list of participating ANSPs, and the process to analyse the data comprised in this report.
Part I: ‐ Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 and outlook for 2013‐2017
Chapter 2:
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐2017 outlook
All those who are interested in a high level analysis of economic and financial cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 at Pan‐European system and ANSP level. This chapter also includes a trend analysis of ATM/CNS cost‐effectiveness performance over the 2009‐2012 period, and an analysis focusing on its three main economic drivers (productivity, employment costs and support costs).
Finally, this chapter comprises a forward‐looking analysis of ATM/CNS performance over the 2013‐2017 period, including capital investment projections.
This chapter is particularly relevant to ANSPs’ management, regulators and NSAs in order to identify best practices, areas for improvement, and to understand how cost‐effectiveness performance has evolved over time.
Part II: ‐ Cost‐effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level
Chapter 3:
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance
All those who are interested in obtaining an independent and comparable analysis of individual ANSP historic performance (2009‐2012) in terms of economic and financial cost‐effectiveness.
This chapter is particularly relevant to ANSPs’ management, airspace users, regulators and NSAs in order to identify how cost‐effectiveness performance has evolved and which have been the sources of improvement. This chapter also includes information on ANSPs historic and planned capital investments.
This chapter should provide useful insights and information to NSAs for the drawing up of RP2 performance plans during the first half of 2014. In particular, it includes a benchmarking analysis of financial cost‐effectiveness with a set of comparators for each ANSP.
Annexes: With a view to increase transparency, this report comprises several annexes including the data used in the report.
Executive summary ii ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This ATM Cost‐Effectiveness (ACE) 2012 Benchmarking Report, the twelfth in the series, presents a review and comparison of ATM cost‐effectiveness for 37 Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) in Europe. The ACE benchmarking work is carried out by the Performance Review Commission (PRC) supported by the Performance Review Unit (PRU) and is based on information provided by ANSPs in compliance with Decision No. 88 of the Permanent Commission of EUROCONTROL on economic information disclosure and in the context of Annex IV 2.1(a) of EC Regulation N°691/2010 (Performance Scheme) recently amended by EC Regulation N°390/2013.
The data processing, analysis and reporting were conducted with the assistance of the ACE Working Group, which comprises representatives from participating ANSPs, airspace users, regulatory authorities and the Performance Review Unit (PRU). This enabled participants to share experiences and gain an improved common understanding of underlying assumptions and limitations of the data.
ACE 2012 presents information on performance indicators relating to cost‐effectiveness and productivity for the year 2012, and how they changed over time (2009‐2012). It examines both individual ANSPs and the Pan‐European ATM/CNS system as a whole. In addition, ACE 2012 analyses forward‐looking information covering the 2013‐2017 period based on information provided by ANSPs in November 2013.
The ACE factual and independent benchmarking has set the foundation for a normative analysis to quantify the potential scope of cost‐efficiency improvements for ANSPs. The ACE data analysis and the gathering of “intelligence” on ANSPs cost‐efficiency performance directly feed core processes of the Single European Sky (SES) performance scheme. In September 2013, after an extensive public consultation, the PRB published recommendations to the EC for the Union‐wide targets covering RP2 (2015‐2019). ANSP benchmarking was one of the key evidences used to assess the scope for future performance improvements at Union‐wide level and to build up the proposal for the cost‐efficiency targets.
Union‐wide performance targets for RP2 were adopted during the Single Sky Committee ad‐hoc meeting held on the 4th February 2014. These targets imply a ‐3.3% annual decrease in the en‐route Union‐wide determined unit costs over 2015‐2019. These targets were based on the following assumptions: a planned decrease in en‐route determined costs (‐2.1% p.a.) and an expected traffic growth (in terms of service units) of +1.2% p.a. between 2014 and 2019.
Figure 0.1: High level timeframe for RP2 Union‐wide target setting process
As indicated in Figure 0.1 above, National Supervisory Authorities (NSAs) will draw up Performance Plans for RP2 during the first half of 2014. In this context, the information disclosed in Part II of the
Executive summary iii ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report (already available in the first draft released in December 2013) provided useful insight and information to interested parties, including the consultations of the Performance Plan with airspace users which are taking place between February and June 2014.
Another important milestone in the Union‐wide cost‐efficiency target setting process will be the assessment of the Performance Plans for RP2 during the Summer 2014. The ACE 2012 data analysis will be an important input to be considered in this context.
For ANSPs operating in SES States, the year 2012 marks the start of RP1 and the end of the “full cost‐recovery” mechanism for en‐route ANS. Over RP1, SES States/ANSPs operate under the “determined costs” method which comprises specific risk‐sharing arrangements aiming at incentivising ANSPs economic performance. The PRB released in September 2013 a report on the monitoring of SES performance targets for the first year of RP1 (2012) based on information provided in June 2013. This ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report complements the PRB monitoring activity by providing a detailed benchmarking of cost‐effectiveness performance at ANSP level including a trend analysis of three main economic drivers (productivity, employment costs and support costs) over the 2009‐2012 period.
The PRC introduced in its ACE Benchmarking Reports the concept of economic cost‐effectiveness KPI. This indicator is defined as gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs plus the costs of ground ATFM delays for both en‐route and airport, all expressed per composite flight‐hour (a metric combining en‐route flight‐hours and airport movements). This economic performance indicator is meant to capture trade‐offs between ATC capacity and costs.
In 2012, ATM/CNS provision costs remained fairly constant (‐0.2%) while composite flight‐hours decreased by ‐1.9%, resulting in an increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs (+1.7%) compared to 2011. In the meantime, for the second year in a row, the unit costs of ATFM delays significantly fell (‐39.3%) contributing to the substantial decrease in unit economic costs observed in 2012 (‐4.8%). As a result, unit economic costs amounted to €492 in 2012. This is lower than the level achieved before the financial crisis and subsequent economic recession (i.e. unit economic costs amounted to €544 in 2008).
Figure 0.2: Changes in unit economic costs, 2009‐2012 (real terms)
The chart on the right‐hand side of Figure 0.2 shows that after a rebound in 2010 (+2.1%) and 2011 (+3.9%), traffic growth was negative in 2012 at Pan‐European system level (‐1.9%) mainly reflecting the uncertainties affecting the European economies and the Eurozone in particular.
In 2012, 22 out of 37 ANSPs could reduce ATM/CNS provision costs compared to 2011. For 18 of these ANSPs, the lower ATM/CNS costs were associated with a reduction in traffic volumes. In most of the cases, the reduction in ATM/CNS provision costs could compensate for the fall in traffic and therefore these ANSPs could avoid an increase in unit costs. At face value, this indicates for these ANSPs a certain degree of reactivity in adjusting costs downwards in a context of traffic decrease.
5.0%
‐10.1%‐4.8%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour Unit costs of en‐route ATFM delays Unit costs of airport ATFM delays
‐4.3%
+1.9%
‐0.2%
+2.1% +3.9%
‐1.9%
‐37.6% ‐39.3%‐40%
‐20%
0%
20%
40%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hours Unit costs of ATFM delays
77.4%
Executive summary iv ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
On the other hand, Figure 0.3 shows that between 2011 and 2012 ATM/CNS provision costs increased by more than +5.0% for six ANSPs including ARMATS (+8.5%), DFS (+5.6%), LFV (+12.8%), MoldATSA (+14.5%), MUAC (+6.4%) and ROMATSA (+20.5%). The main drivers for these substantial increases in ATM/CNS provision costs are provided in Part I of this report.
Figure 0.3: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic volumes, 2011‐2012 (real terms)
Figure 0.4 shows that the increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs observed at Pan‐European system level in 2012 (+1.7%) is partly due to the fact that employment costs per ATCO‐hour rose by +1.3% while ATCO‐hour productivity remained fairly constant (+0.3%). Overall, in 2012 Pan‐European ANSPs could limit the impact of the traffic decrease on productivity through a more effective use of available ATC capacity and existing resources. In the meantime, unit support costs rose by +2.0% mainly reflecting the fact that at Pan‐European system level support costs were not adjusted downwards compared to 2011 (+0.1%) while the number of composite flight‐hours reduced by ‐1.9%.
Figure 0.4: Changes in the financial cost‐effectiveness indicator, 2011‐2012 (real terms)
DSNA
DFS
Aena
NATS (Continental)
ENAV
DHMI
Skyguide
UkSATSE
LFV
Avinor (Continental)
Austro Control
ROMATSA
LVNL
HCAABelgocontrol
PANSA
MUAC
NAV Portugal (Continental)
ANS CR
NAVIAIR
IAA
HungaroControl
Croatia Control
SMATSA
BULATSA
Finavia
LPS
DCAC Cyprus
Slovenia Control
Oro Navigacija
LGS
NATA Albania EANS
MATSM‐NAV
MoldATSA
ARMATS
‐20%
‐15%
‐10%
‐5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
‐10% ‐5% 0% 5% 10% 15%
Changes in ATM
/CNS provision costs (2011
‐2012)
Changes in composite flight‐hours (2011‐2012)
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs
+0.3%
+1.3%+1.0%
+1.7%+2.0%
+0.1%
‐1.9%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
Increase inunit ATM/CNS provision costs2011‐2012
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per ATCO‐hour
ATCO employment costs per
composite flight‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐
hour
Weight 70%
Weight 30%
Executive summary v ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
At European system level, after the +1.7% increase in 2012, gate‐to‐gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to further rise by +2.8% in 2013 and then to decrease by ‐2.9% in 2014. Overall, gate‐to‐gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are expected to remain fairly constant between 2012 and 2014.
Gate‐to‐gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are then expected to increase in 2015 (+0.8%) and to decrease in 2016 (‐1.9%) and 2017 (‐2.6%). Overall, unit costs are planned to decrease by ‐0.8% p.a. over the 2012‐2017 period.
Figure 0.5: Forward‐looking cost‐effectiveness at European system level (2012‐2017, real terms)
For most of the ANSPs, the planned en‐route costs data reported in their ACE 2012 data submission are based on the information provided in June 2013 in the context of the Enlarged Committee for Route Charges. The en‐route determined costs provided in the RP2 Performance Plans which will be submitted end of June 2014 are likely to be based on different planning assumptions.
In 2012, ANSPs capital expenditures amounted to some €1 075M. The right hand‐side of Figure 0.6 compares the capex planned in ACE 2011 with the plans provided in ACE 2012. Figure 0.6 shows that 2012 actual capital expenditures are some ‐16% lower than planned in ACE 2011 for 2012. This mainly reflects the postponement of non‐crucial investment projects to future years, in particular 2015 and 2016.
Figure 0.6: Forward‐looking capital expenditures at Pan‐European system level (2009‐2016, real terms)
Overall, the cumulative capex planned for the period 2013‐2016 amounts to some €4 488M and represents 50% of the 2012 total ANS revenues. A significant proportion of these investments relate to major upgrades or to the replacement of existing ATM systems.
+2.8% ‐2.9% +0.8% ‐1.9% ‐2.6%
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2012 2013P 2014P 2015P 2016P 2017P
Index of costs and traffic
€per composite flight‐hour (2012
prices)
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour ATM/CNS provision costs index Composite flight‐hours index
‐18%
‐10% +2% +4%+4%
‐4%‐6%
+1% ‐1% ‐3%
+23% ‐1%
‐16% +2%
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
0
300
600
900
1 200
1 500
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Capex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
‐16.5% ‐9.2%
‐3.5% +3.6%+3.4%
600
700
800
900
1 000
1 100
1 200
1 300
1 400
2012 2013P 2014P 2015P 2016P
Gate‐to‐gate capex (M€)
Planned capex (ACE 2011) Planned capex (ACE 2012)
Introduction ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
1
1 INTRODUCTION
The Air Traffic Management Cost‐Effectiveness (ACE) 2012 Benchmarking Report commissioned by EUROCONTROL's independent Performance Review Commission (PRC) is the twelfth in a series of reports comparing the ATM cost‐effectiveness of EUROCONTROL Member States’ Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs)1.
In September 2010, the PRC, supported by the EUROCONTROL Performance Review Unit (PRU), was designated Performance Review Body (PRB) of the European Commission (EC).
The ACE benchmarking work is carried out by the PRC in the context of Articles 3.3(i), 3.6(b)(c), and 3.8 of EC regulation N°691/2010 (Performance Scheme) recently amended by EC Regulation N°390/2013.
The report is based on information provided by ANSPs in compliance with Decision No. 88 of the Permanent Commission of EUROCONTROL, which makes annual disclosure of ANS information mandatory, according to the Specification for Economic Information Disclosure2 (SEID), in all EUROCONTROL Member States.
Since these services are outside the PRC’s terms of reference, this report does not address performance relating to:
oceanic ANS;
services provided to military operational air traffic (OAT); or,
airport (landside) management operations.
The focus of this report is primarily on a cross‐sectional analysis of ANSPs for the year 2012. However, the aviation community is also interested in measuring how cost‐effectiveness and productivity at the European and ANSP levels varies over time, and in understanding the reasons why variations occur. Hence, this report makes use of previous years’ data from 2009 onwards to examine changes over time, where relevant and valid. It is particularly relevant to have a medium‐term perspective given the characteristics of the ANS industry which requires a long lead time to develop ATC capacity and infrastructure. In 2009, the economic recession affected the aviation industry with an unprecedented ‐7% traffic decrease at system level, basically cancelling three years of traffic growth. It is therefore interesting to look at the changes in performance over the 2009‐2012 period to understand how the ATM industry reacted to this sharp decrease in traffic demand.
1.1 Organisation of the report
This report follows a different structure than the ACE 2011 report. This year, it was decided to streamline the Report and to focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance. It is expected that this piece of analysis will be particularly informative for the ATM stakeholders involved in the setting up of performance plans for the second Reference Period (RP2) of the Single European Sky (SES) Performance Scheme.
The structure of the present ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report is made of two parts and three chapters:
1 Previous reports in the series from ACE 2001 (Sept. 2003) to ACE 2011 (April 2013) can be found on the PRC web site at http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/prc‐and‐prb‐publications. 2 PRC Specification for Economic Information Disclosure ‐ Version 2.6, December 2008, can be found on the PRC web site.
Introduction ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
2
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the participating ANSPs and outlines the processes involved in the production of this report.
Part I and Chapter 2 provide a high level analysis of economic and financial cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 at Pan‐European system and ANSP level. This chapter also analyses changes in ATM/CNS cost‐effectiveness performance between 2009 and 2012. A particular focus is put on the three main economic drivers of cost‐effectiveness (productivity, employment costs and support costs). It should be noted that this year a special emphasis is made on specific productivity analysis at ACC level. Finally, Chapter 2 comprises a forward‐looking analysis of ATM/CNS performance over the 2013‐2017 period, including capital investment projections.
Part II and Chapter 3 provide a two‐page summary for each ANSP. This summary includes an individual trend analysis of ANSPs’ cost‐effectiveness performance between 2009 and 2012, and comprises a benchmarking analysis of each ANSP’s financial cost‐effectiveness with a set of comparators. It also examines the capital expenditure planned by each ANSP for the period 2013‐2017. This chapter should provide useful insights and information to NSAs for the drawing up of RP2 performance plans during the first half of 2014. This information could also be used to support the consultation process of the RP2 Performance Plans with airspace users.
Finally, this report also comprises several annexes which include statistical data used in the report, and individual ANSP Fact Sheets comprising a factual description of the governance and institutional arrangements in which the ANSP operates.
1.2 Overview of participating ANSPs
In total, 37 ANSPs reported 2012 data in compliance with the requirement from Decision No. 88 of the Permanent Commission of EUROCONTROL (see Table 1.1). In addition to the EUROCONTROL Member States, the en‐route ANSP of Estonia provided data in compliance with the Performance Scheme Regulation. All the reported information relates to the calendar year 2012. Table 1.1 shows the list of participating ANSPs, describing both their organisational and corporate arrangements, and the scope of ANS services provided.
Table 1.1 below indicates (coloured yellow) which ANSPs were at 1 January 2012 part of the SES, and hence subject to relevant SES regulations and obligations3. In addition to SES members, a number of States (coloured blue) are committed, following the signing of an agreement relating to the establishment of a European Common Aviation Area (ECAA)4, to cooperate in the field of ATM, with a view to extending the SES regulations5 to the ECAA States. Hence, in principle all the en‐route ANSPs of EUROCONTROL States and other States disclosing information to the PRC are covered by the SES regulations, except Armenia, Moldova, Turkey and Ukraine.
3 It should be noted that Croatia joined the European Union in July 2013. 4 Decision 2006/682/EC published on 16 October 2006 in the Official Journal of the European Union. States which have signed this Agreement but are not yet EU members comprise the Republic of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Iceland, the Republic of Montenegro, the Kingdom of Norway, and the Republic of Serbia. 5 This includes the second package of SES regulations (EC No 1070/2009), the amended Performance Scheme Regulation (EC No 390/2013) and amended Charging Scheme Regulation (EC No 391/2013).
Introduction ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
3
Table 1.1: States and ANSPs participating in ACE 2012
Table 1.1 also shows the extent to which the ANSPs incur costs relating to services that are not provided by all ANSPs. In order to enhance cost‐effectiveness comparison across ANSPs, such costs, relating to oceanic ANS, military operational air traffic6 (OAT), airport management operations and payment for delegation of ATM services7 were excluded to the maximum possible extent.
1.3 Data submission
The SEID (see footnote 2) requires that participating ANSPs submit their information to the PRC/PRU by 15 July in the year following the year to which it relates. The SEID became also mandatory as part of the SES II legislation. The ACE 2012 data have been submitted in the SEID Version 2.6 which has been used since ACE 2008.
6 Note that since the 10 February 2014, LPS is not responsible to provide OAT services to military flights. 7 The column 'Delegated ATM' in Table 1.1 relates to the delegation of ATM services to or from other ANSPs, based on financial agreements.
ANSP Code Country Organisational & Corporate Arrangements
OAT Services
Oceanic
MUAC
Delegated
ATM
Internal M
ET
Ownership and
managem
ent of
airports
1 Aena ES Spain State enterprise X
2 ANS CR CZ Czech Republic State enterprise
3 ARMATS AM Armenia Joint‐stock company (State‐owned)
4 Austro Control AT Austria Joint‐stock company (State‐owned) X
5 Avinor NO Norway Joint‐stock company (State‐owned) X X X
6 Belgocontrol BE Belgium State enterprise X X
7 BULATSA BG Bulgaria State enterprise X
8 Croatia Control HR Croatia Joint‐stock company (State‐owned) X X X
9 DCAC Cyprus CY Cyprus State body
10 DFS DE Germany Limited liability company (State‐owned) X X
11 DHMİ TR Turkey State body (autonomous budget) X
12 DSNA FR France State body (autonomous budget) X
13 EANS EE Estonia Joint‐stock company (State‐owned)
14 ENAV IT Italy Joint‐stock company (State‐owned) X
15 Finavia FI Finland State enterprise X X X X
16 HCAA GR Greece State body X
17 HungaroControl HU Hungary State enterprise X
18 IAA IE Ireland Joint‐stock company (State‐owned) X
19 LFV SE Sweden State enterprise X X X
20 LGS LV Latvia Joint‐stock company (State‐owned) X
21 LPS SK Slovak Republic State enterprise X
22 LVNL NL Netherlands Independent administrative body X
23 MATS MT Malta Joint‐stock company (State‐owned)
24 M‐NAV MK F.Y.R. Macedonia Joint‐stock company (State‐owned) X X
25 MoldATSA MD Moldova State enterprise X X
26 MUAC International organisation
27 NATA Albania AL Albania Joint‐stock company (State‐owned) X X
28 NATS UK United Kingdom Joint‐stock company (part‐private) X
29 NAV Portugal PT Portugal State enterprise X
30 NAVIAIR DK Denmark State enterprise X
31 Oro Navigacija LT Lithuania State enterprise
32 PANSA PL Poland State body (acting as a legal entity with an autonomous budget)
33 ROMATSA RO Romania State enterprise X
34 Skyguide CH Switzerland Joint‐stock company (part‐private) X X
35 Slovenia Control SI Slovenia State enterprise X
RS Serbia
ME Montenegro
37 UkSATSE UA Ukraine State enterprise X
States covered by the SES RegulationsStates part of the ECAAStates not covered by the SES Regulations
SMATSA36 Limited liability company X XX
Introduction ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
4
A Version 3.0 of this Specification has been prepared following the formal EUROCONTROL Regulatory and Advisory Framework (ERAF), after consultation and full involvement of the ad‐hoc ACE Working Group using lessons learnt from the use of the SEID V2.6 over a trial period. The SEID V3.0 also reflects recent developments arising from the second package of the SES regulations in 2009, the Performance Scheme Regulation and the amended Charging Scheme Regulation.
The SEID V3.0 shall be used to report 2014 data in July 2015. This will allow ANSPs to have the required time during 2014 to smoothly introduce the changes into their reporting systems. This transition period should ease the administrative burden on the ANSPs and ensure effective and complete implementation of all the new aspects of the SEID V3.0 by 2015.
Figure 1.1 indicates that 28 out of 37 ANSPs provided ACE 2012 data on time (compared to 25 for ACE 2011). It is important that this timely submission of ACE data is sustained and improved. The ACE benchmarking analysis must be seen as timely since several stakeholders, most notably ANSPs’ management, regulatory authorities (e.g. NSAs) and airspace users, have a keen interest in receiving the information in the ACE reports as early as possible. Clearly, the timescale for the production of the ACE Benchmarking Report is inevitably delayed if data are not submitted on time.
Figure 1.1: Progress with submission of 2012 data
The general and gradual improvement in the quality and the timing of the ACE data submission is marred by some problems relating to few individual ANSPs. For instance, even though the quality of HCAA data submissions has recently improved, there are still issues to be addressed. HCAA is still not in a position to provide complete balance‐sheet data, although capital‐related costs are charged to airspace users. Similarly, the quality of the operational data provided by HCAA (in particular staff numbers and working hours) is not satisfactory.
1.4 Data analysis, processing and reporting
The PRU is supported by an ACE Working Group (WG), including ANSPs, regulatory authorities and airspace users’ representatives. The process leading to the production of the ACE report, which comprises data analysis and consultation, is summarised in Figure 1.2 below.
01‐06‐2012
22‐06‐2012
14‐07‐2012
04‐08‐2012
26‐08‐2012
16‐09‐2012
08‐10‐2012
01‐06‐2013
22‐06‐2013
14‐07‐2013
04‐08‐2013
26‐08‐2013
16‐09‐2013
08‐10‐2013
Austro Control
NAVIAIR
UkSATSE
MoldATSA
Finavia
IAA
Oro Navigacija
HungaroControl
Belgocontrol
MUAC
LFV
ANS CR
LVNL
Slovenia Control
ROMATSA
Avinor
MATS
Skyguide
DFS
ENAV
LPS
NATS
NAV Portugal
PANSA
M‐NAV
EANS
Aena
BULATSA
LGS
ARMATS
Croatia Control
DHMI
DSN
ASM
ATSA
DCAC Cyprus
HCAA
NATA
Albania
ACE 2011 data provided
on:
ACE 2012 data provided
on:
Submission of ACE2012 data Submission of ACE2011 data
Introduction ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
5
Figure 1.2: Data analysis, processing and reporting
In order to ensure comparability among ANSPs and quality of analysis, the information submitted by the ANSPs is subject to a thorough analysis which makes extensive use of ANSPs’ Annual Reports and of their statutory financial accounts.
During this process a number of issues emerged:
Annual Reports with disclosure of financial accounts are not available for some ANSPs (see Section 1.5 below). This removes one means of validating the financial data submitted;
ANSPs which are involved in non‐ANS activities (such as airport ownership and management, see Table 1.1) do not necessarily disclose separate accounts for their ANS and non‐ANS activities. This means that the financial data submitted for the ANS activities cannot be validated with the information provided in the Annual Report;
Except for a few ANSPs, Annual Reports do not disclose the separate costs for the various segments of ANS (such as en‐route and terminal ANS) which means that the cost breakdown submitted cannot be reconciled.
As ANSPs progressively comply with the SES Regulation on Service Provision, which requires publication of Annual Reports including statutory accounts, and separation of ANS from non‐ANS activity in ANSPs internal accounts, some of these shortcomings are expected to be gradually overcome (see also Section 1.5 below).
In most cases, data recorded in the Network Manager (NM) database have been used as the basis for the output metrics used in the ACE data analysis, and this practice has been generally accepted, including in cases where in previous years there had been discrepancies.
1.5 ANSPs’ Annual Reports
ANSPs’ Annual Reports provided a valuable means of validating the 2012 information disclosure data.
The SES Service Provision Regulation (SPR) (EC No 550/2004) came into force on 20 April 2004 and is applicable to 2012 Financial Accounts in all EU Member States (plus Switzerland and Norway) and to associated ANSPs. This Regulation is also applicable to States which have signed the ECAA Agreement (see Section 1.2), although the timing of its implementation is not yet decided for individual States. Among other provisions, the SPR requires that ANSPs meet certain standards of information disclosure (transparency) and reporting, and in particular that:
ANSPs should draw up, submit to audit and publish their Financial Accounts (Art.12.1);
in all cases, ANSPs should publish an Annual Report and regularly undergo an independent audit (Art 12.2);
Final ACEReport
(May 2014)
Submissionto PRC
(April 2014)
Second draftACE report (April 2014)
First draftof ACE report(Dec. 2013)
Data analysisand processing
2012 ACE datasubmissions
provided by ANSPs(Jul. 2013)
Validation against:• previous data• CRCO data• Annual Reports
• Consultation of ANSPs for data clarification purposes
ACE consultationmeetings andcomments
on draft report
Including two weeks period
for writtenconsultation
EUROCONTROL/PRU 2013
Introduction ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
6
ANSPs should, in their internal accounting, identify the relevant costs and income for ANS broken down in accordance with EUROCONTROL’s principles for establishing the cost‐base for route facility charges and the calculation of unit rates and, where appropriate, shall keep consolidated accounts for other, non‐air navigation services, as they would be required to do if the services in question were provided by separate undertakings (Art 12.3). The latter requirement is particularly relevant for the ANSPs which are part of an organisation which owns, manages and operates airports, such as Aena8, Avinor, Finavia, HCAA, and DHMI9.
Figure 1.3 displays the status of ANSPs 2012 Annual Reports and indicates that 30 out of 37 participating ANSPs have published an Annual Report for the year 2012.
It is generally considered that an Annual Report produced according to “best practice” should comprise three main components:
a Management Report;
Annual Financial Accounts with relevant business segmentation and explanatory notes; and,
an independent Audit Report.
At the time of writing this report, seven ANSPs10 (including three which are subject to SES Regulations) have not published Annual Reports for 2012.
Figure 1.3: Status of 2012 Annual Reports
ANSPs’ Annual Accounts are drafted in accordance with specific accounting principles. Often, (national) General Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) are used. In the context of the SES, Article 12 of the SPR prescribes that ANSPs Annual Accounts shall comply, to the maximum extent possible, with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Table 1.2 shows the 24 ANSPs whose 2012 Annual Accounts were partly or fully prepared according to IFRS11.
ANSPs reporting according to IFRS in 2012
Aena ARMATS ANS CR Austro Control Avinor BULATSA Croatia Control DFS EANS LGS LPS LVNL
MATS MUAC NATA Albania NATS NAVIAIR NAV Portugal Oro Navigacija PANSA ROMATSA Skyguide SMATSA UkSATSE
Table 1.2: IFRS reporting status
8 In 2011, Aena went through a restructuration process relating to the separation of the airport division of Aena (creation of a new company Aena Aeropuertos S.A.) from the ANS department. 9 Although it should be noted that DHMI is not covered by the SES regulations. 10 At the time of writing this report, DSNA which released Annual Reports in the previous years, has not yet published an Annual Report for the year 2012. 11 Skyguide Annual Accounts are prepared according to the Swiss GAAP which are close to IFRS.
ARMATS
DCAC Cyprus*
DSNA*
HCAA*
M‐NAV
MoldATSA
NATA Albania**
Aena*
ANS CR*
Austro Control*
Avinor*
Belgocontrol*
BULATSA*
CroatiaControl**
DFS*
DHMI
EANS*
ENAV*
Finavia*
LVNL*
MATS*
NAVIAIR*
HungaroControl*
IAA*
LFV*
LGS*
LPS*
MUAC*
PANSA*
ROMATSA*
Slovenia Control*
SMATSA**
UkSATSE
NATS*
NAV Portugal*
Oro Navigacija*
Skyguide*
2012 Annual Report notpublicly available
Separate disclosure of revenues and costs for en‐route and terminal ANS
* ANSPs covered by the SES Regulations
** ANSPs operating in States member of ECAA
Introduction ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
7
It should be noted that in some cases, the implementation of IFRS may have a significant impact on an ANSPs’ cost base12 (such as different treatment of costs related to the pension scheme, and changes in depreciation rules), hence it is very important to identify and understand the impact of changes in the accounting principles used to draw the financial accounts.
1.6 ANSP benchmarking and the SES Performance Scheme
The SES Performance Scheme includes EU‐wide performance targets which are transposed into binding national/FAB targets for which clear accountabilities must be assigned within performance plans. Following the PRB recommendations, EU‐wide targets for Cost‐Efficiency, Capacity and Environment were adopted by the EC on 3 December 2010 for RP1 (2012‐2014). It should be noted that the EU‐wide Cost‐Efficiency target is expressed in terms of en‐route determined costs per service unit, and is computed at Charging zone level (i.e. including ANSPs, MET, EUROCONTROL and NSAs costs).
The ACE factual and independent benchmarking has set the foundation for a normative analysis to quantify the potential scope of cost‐efficiency improvements for ANSPs. Findings from the ACE Benchmarking analysis and the gathering of “intelligence” on ANSPs cost‐efficiency performance directly feed three core processes of the SES Performance Scheme:
1. EU‐wide cost‐efficiency target setting;
2. Assessment of the cost‐efficiency part of FABs/National Performance Plans; and,
3. Monitoring of the cost‐efficiency performance during a Reference Period.
Figure 1.4 below presents the high level timeframe for the Union‐wide target setting process for RP2. In September 2013, after an extensive public consultation, the PRB published recommendations to the EC for the Union‐wide targets covering RP2 (2015‐2019). ANSP benchmarking was one of the key evidences used to assess the scope for future performance improvements at Union‐wide level and to build up the proposal for the Union‐wide cost‐efficiency targets. Union‐wide performance targets for RP2 were adopted during the Single Sky Committee ad‐hoc meeting held on the 4th February 2014.
Figure 1.4: High level timeframe for RP2 Union‐wide target setting process
As indicated in Figure 1.4 above, NSAs will draw up Performance Plans for RP2 during the first half of 2014. In this context, the information disclosed in Part II of the ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
12 From 2007 onwards, this has been the case for the German ANSP, DFS, whose cost base includes costs recognised only since the conversion to IFRS. These costs, mainly due to the revaluation of DFS pension obligations, have been spread over a period of 15 years.
Introduction ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
8
(already available in the first draft released in December 2013) provided useful insight and information to interested parties, including the consultations of the Performance Plan with airspace users which are taking place between February and June 2014.
Another important milestone in the Union‐wide cost‐efficiency target setting process will be the assessment of Performance Plans for RP2 during the Summer 2014. The ACE 2012 data analysis will be an important input to be considered in this context.
For ANSPs operating in SES States, the year 2012 marks the start of RP1 and the end of the “full cost‐recovery” mechanism for en‐route ANS. Under the full cost‐recovery mechanism, all the risks are borne by the airspace users. Moreover, it is considered that ANSPs are not sufficiently incentivised to deliver a better cost‐efficiency performance since they have to return any over‐recoveries, even if these are the result of cost‐savings. Over RP1, SES States/ANSPs operate under the “determined costs” method which comprises specific risk‐sharing arrangements aiming at incentivising ANSPs economic performance. The first year of RP1 can be considered as a “stress test” for the Performance Scheme since at Union‐wide level actual traffic in terms of service units was some ‐6.5% lower than planned for 2012. The first PRB monitoring report on SES targets released in September 2013 showed that at Union‐wide level, actual en‐route costs were ‐3.3% than planned and therefore that SES States showed a certain degree of reactivity to adjust costs downwards in order to adapt to the lower traffic volumes.
This ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report complements the PRB monitoring activity by providing a detailed comparison of cost‐effectiveness performance at ANSP level including a trend analysis of three main economic drivers (productivity, employment costs and support costs) over the 2009‐2012 period.
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
9
PART I: PAN‐EUROPEAN SYSTEM COST‐EFFECTIVENESS PERFORMANCE IN 2012 AND OUTLOOK FOR 2013‐2017
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 10 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 11 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
2 PAN‐EUROPEAN SYSTEM COST‐EFFECTIVENESS PERFORMANCE IN 2012 WITH 2013‐2017 OUTLOOK
The Pan‐European ANS system analysed in this report comprises 37 participating ANSPs, excluding elements related to services provided to military operational air traffic (OAT), oceanic ANS, and landside airport management operations. The Pan‐European ANS system also includes National Supervisory Authorities (NSAs) and other regulatory and governmental authorities, national MET providers and the EUROCONTROL Agency. In 2012, total ANS costs were around €9 200M (see Table 2.1 below), of which some €8 100M related directly to the provision of gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS.
Table 2.1: Key system data for 2011 and 2012, real terms
Total ANS revenues in 2012 amounted to some €8 900M. The European ANSPs employed some 58 000 staff, which is slightly larger than the workforce at Airbus worldwide (55 000 employees). Some 17 400 staff (30%) were ATCOs working on operational duty, compared to some 13 300 in the United States13. On average, 2.3 additional staff are required for every ATCO in OPS in Europe.
ACE also analyses indicators derived from ANSP balance sheets and capital expenditures. The total Net Book Value (NBV) of fixed assets used by the Pan‐European ANSPs to provide ATM/CNS services is valued at some €7 600M, which means that overall €0.85 of fixed assets are required to generate €1 of revenue, an indication of relative capital intensity (this ratio is about 2 for airlines and about 3 for main airports operators). Fixed assets mainly relate to ATM/CNS
13 See the PRC report on the U.S.‐Europe continental comparison of ANS cost‐efficiency trends 2002‐2011 (November 2013) available at http://www.eurocontrol.int/publications/2002‐2011‐US‐europe‐continental‐comparison‐ans‐cost‐efficiency‐trends.
2011 2012 12/11
37 ANSPs 37 ANSPs 37 ANSPs
9 176 8 915 ‐2.8%
En‐route ANS revenues 7 287 7 025 ‐3.6%
Terminal ANS revenues 1 889 1 890 0.1%
9 145 9 153 0.1%
ATM/CNS provision costs 8 078 8 059 ‐0.2%
MET costs 439 439 ‐0.1%
EUROCONTROL Agency costs 469 489 4.3%
Payment to national authorities and irrecoverable VAT 159 167 4.5%
8 078 8 059 ‐0.2%
En‐route ATM/CNS costs 6 241 6 271 0.5%
Terminal ATM/CNS costs 1 837 1 788 ‐2.7%
57 942 58 003 0.1%
ATCOs in OPS 17 208 17 362 0.9%
ACC ATCOs 9 573 9 709 1.4%
APPs + TWRs ATCOs 7 635 7 653 0.2%
7 759 7 612 ‐1.9%
1 052 1 075 2.2%
Distance controlled (km) 10 092 9 899 ‐1.9%
Total flight‐hours controlled 14.5 14.2 ‐1.7%
ACC flight‐hours controlled 12.8 12.7 ‐1.0%
IFR airport movements controlled 15.4 15.0 ‐2.4%
IFR flights controlled 9.8 9.5 ‐2.4%
Gate‐to‐gate ATFM delays ('000 min.) 17 823 10 610 ‐40.5%
Gate‐to‐gate capex (in € M)
Outputs (in M)
Gate‐to‐gate ANS revenues (not adjusted by over/under
recoveries) (in € M):
Gate‐to‐gate ANS costs (in € M):
Gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS costs (in € M):
Gate‐to‐gate ANS staff:
NBV of gate‐to‐gate fixed assets (in € M)
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 12 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
systems and equipment in operation or under construction. In 2012, the total ANSP capex at Pan‐European system level amounted to some €1 100M.
Figure 2.1: Breakdown of ATM/CNS
provision costs, 2012
From a methodological point of view, ACE 2012 first considers the total costs at State level for providing ANS, however, since some elements of ANS provision are outside the control of individual ANSPs, it then focuses on the specific costs of providing gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS (€8 059M). These represent 88% of total ANS costs. Other ANS costs include the costs of aeronautical meteorology services (5%), the costs of the EUROCONTROL Agency (5%) and the costs associated to regulatory and governmental authorities (2%).
Table 2.1 above indicates that while ATM/CNS provision costs remained fairly constant (‐0.2%) in 2012, EUROCONTROL costs increased by +4.3%. It should be noted that the level of 2011 EUROCONTROL costs was exceptionally low reflecting the impact of a one‐off exceptional reduction (€62M) mainly relating to the implementation of IFRS budgeting.
Despite the existence of common general principles, there are inevitably discrepancies in cost‐allocation between en‐route and terminal ANS across the European ANSPs. This lack of consistency might distort performance comparisons carried out separately for en‐route and terminal ANS. For this reason, the focus of the cost‐effectiveness benchmarking analysis in this report is “gate‐to‐gate” ANS.
ANSPs’ ATM/CNS provision costs are then divided by an output metric to obtain a measure of performance – the financial cost‐effectiveness indicator. The output metric is the composite flight‐hour, a “gate‐to‐gate” measure which combines both en‐route flight‐hours controlled and IFR airport movements controlled.
Many factors contribute to observed differences in unit costs between ANSPs. Some of these factors are measurable; others (such as regulatory constraints) are less obviously quantifiable. Currently, three relevant factors that are outside ANSPs control are consistently measured in the ACE Benchmarking Reports. As shown in Figure 2.2 below, these include the traffic complexity and the seasonal traffic variability. The third factor is the cost of living prevailing in the different countries where ANSPs operate.
Figure 2.2: Exogenous factors measured by the PRU, 2012
~€6 271M ~€1 788M
~€348M ~€91M
~€144M ~€22M
~€489M
EUROCONTROL
ATM/CNS
MET
Payment to
regulatory &
governmental
authorities
ATM/CNS
MET
Payment to
regulatory &
governmental
authorities
2012
Gate‐to‐gate ANS costs (European level) ~€9 153M
En‐route ANS costs
(European level)
~€7 252M
Terminal ANS costs
(European level)
~€1 901M
Lower Airspace
Traffic complexity score
<= 2
> 2
> 4
> 6
> 8 Lower Airspace
Traffic variability
<= 1.15
> 1.15
> 1.25
> 1.35
> 1.45
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 13 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Ideally, since the 37 ANSPs operate in very diverse environments across Europe, all the factors affecting performance should be taken into account in making fair performance comparisons, especially since many of these factors are outside the direct control of an ANSP. As in previous years, the analysis undertaken is a purely factual analysis of the cost‐effectiveness indicators – measuring what the indicators are.
Around 56% total European gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs are borne by five ANSPs (Aena, DFS, DSNA, ENAV and NATS).
The impact of size on ANSPs performance is an important policy issue given the infrastructure characteristics of the ANS sector.
The five largest ANSPs bear some 56% of total European gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs, while their share of traffic is 51%. At first sight, this result contrasts with the expectation of some form of increasing returns to scale in the provision of ANS (the performance of larger ANSPs might benefit from their larger size).
Figure 2.3: Distribution of ATM/CNS provision costs in 2012
It should be noted that:
Under the full cost recovery regime that applied to most ANSPs until December 2011, there was little incentive to fully exploit scale effects, hence the difficulty to observe them;
Larger ANSPs tend to develop bespoke ATM systems internally which can be more costly than a commercial off‐the‐shelf (COTS) solution; and,
Size is not the only factor that has an impact on ANSPs costs.
It is expected that with the regulatory regime introduced by the SES II Performance Scheme and the incentive scheme embedded in the Charging Scheme regulation, ANSPs will have stronger incentives to exploit scale effects in future years.
Because of their weight in the Pan‐European system and their relatively similar operational and economic characteristics (size, scope of service provided, economic conditions, presence of major hubs), this ACE report places a particular focus on the results of the five largest ANSPs (Aena, DFS, DSNA, ENAV and NATS).
In 2012, the slight increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs was more than compensated by a substantial decrease in ATFM delays. As a result, 2012 unit economic costs were substantially lower than pre‐recession levels in 2008.
An assessment of ANS performance should take into account the direct costs (user charges) and indirect costs (delays, additional flight time and fuel burn) borne by airspace users, while checking that ANS safety standards are met.
The PRC introduced in its ACE Benchmarking Reports the concept of economic cost‐effectiveness KPI. This indicator is defined as gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs plus the costs of ground
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
960
1 080
1 200
DSN
A
DFS
Aen
a
NATS (Continen
tal)
ENAV
DHMI
Skyguide
UkSATSE
LFV
Avinor (Continen
tal)
Austro Control
ROMATSA
LVNL
HCAA
Belgocontrol
PANSA
MUAC
NAV Portugal (Continen
tal)
ANS CR
NAVIAIR
IAA
HungaroControl
Croatia Control
SMATSA
BULATSA
Finavia
LPS
DCAC Cyprus
Slovenia Control
Oro Navigacija
LGS
NATA
Albania
EANS
MATS
M‐NAV
MoldATSA
ARMATS
M€
Gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs (in M€) Cumulative share ATM/CNS provision costs
56.0% of total European gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS
provision costs
36.2% of total European gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
7.7% of total European gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 14 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ATFM delays14 for both en‐route and airport, all expressed per composite flight‐hour. This economic performance indicator is meant to capture trade‐offs between ATC capacity and costs.
Figure 2.4: Changes in unit economic costs, 2009‐2012 (real terms)
The level of the unit economic costs in 2009 reflects the substantial impact of the economic recession on the ATM industry, when composite flight‐hours sharply reduced by ‐6.7% compared to 2008 and ATM/CNS provision costs rose by +1.3%.
In 2010, composite flight‐hours rose by +2.1% while ATM/CNS provision costs fell by ‐4.3% in real terms. The reduction in ATM/CNS provision costs reflected the impact of cost‐containment measures implemented by several European ANSPs. However, this performance improvement at system level was outweighed by a sharp increase in the unit costs of ATFM delays for a limited number of ANSPs and overall, unit economic costs rose by +5.0% in 2010.
In 2011, composite flight‐hours increased faster (+3.9%) than ATM/CNS provision costs (+1.9%), resulting in a ‐2.0% decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs compared to 2010. In addition, since the unit costs of ATFM delays significantly reduced (‐37.6%), unit economic costs substantially decreased in 2011 (‐10.1%).
In 2012, ATM/CNS provision costs remained fairly constant (‐0.2%) while composite flight‐hours decreased by ‐1.9%, resulting in an increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs (+1.7%) compared to 2011. In the meantime, for the second year in a row, the unit costs of ATFM delays significantly fell (‐39.3%) contributing to the substantial decrease in unit economic costs observed in 2012 (‐4.8%). As a result, unit economic costs amounted to €492 in 2012. This is lower than the level achieved before the economic crisis (i.e. unit economic costs amounted to €544 in 2008).
Figure 2.5 below shows that between 2011 and 2012, economic gate‐to‐gate costs per composite flight‐hour fell for 20 ANSPs. For ten of these ANSPs, the main driver for the decrease in economic gate‐to‐gate unit cost was a reduction in ATFM delays (see red portion of the bar). This is particularly the case for Aena, HCAA and NATA Albania.
14 The cost of ATFM delays (€85 per minute in 2012) is based on the findings of the study “European airline delay cost reference values” realised by the University of Westminster in March 2011. Further details on the computation of the economic costs per composite flight‐hour at ANSP and Pan‐European system level are available in Annex 2 of this report.
5.0%
‐10.1%‐4.8%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
Unit costs of airport ATFM delays Unit costs of en‐route ATFM delays
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
‐4.3%
+1.9%
‐0.2%
+2.1% +3.9%
‐1.9%
‐37.6% ‐39.3%‐40%
‐20%
0%
20%
40%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hours Unit costs of ATFM delays
77.4%
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness perform
ance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook
15
ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Figure 2.5: C
han
ges in economic cost‐effectiveness by ANSP, 2009‐2012 (real term
s)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
Belgocontrol
Skyguide
LVNL
DFS
LPS
Aena
Austro Control
DSN
ASlovenia
Control
ENAV
NATS
(Continental)
ANS CR
Hungaro
Control
Croatia
Control
SMATSA
MUAC
€per composite flight‐hour
ATM
/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
ATFM delays costs per composite flight‐hour
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
20082009201020112012
UkSATSE
DCAC Cyprus
ROMATSA
NATA
Albania
LFV
NAV Portugal
(Continental)
M‐NAV
Avinor
(Continental)
MoldATSA
ARMATS
NAVIAIR
BULATSA
Finavia
Oro Navigacija
PANSA
IAA
HCAA
DHMI
LGS
EANS
MATS
€per composite flight‐hour
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 16 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
The quality of service improvement observed for Aena mainly reflects a substantial reduction of the en‐route ATFM delays generated by the Spanish ACCs. In 2011, ATFM delays represented 25% of Aena economic costs which was substantially higher than the Pan‐European system average (16%). These ATFM delays were partly due to (a) social tensions following the transition period that was ongoing Spain in 2010 and 2011, and (b) to the unexpected impact of the Arab Spring events on the traffic demand which exceeded the capacity available (i.e. this was particularly the case for Barcelona, Palma and Canarias ACCs). In 2012, the share of ATFM delays in Aena unit economic costs reduced to a level (10%) close to those observed in 2008 and 2009. This is an indication that the capacity issues observed for Aena in 2010 and 2011 have been addressed in 2012.
The substantial reduction in ATFM delays for HCAA contributed to the decrease observed at Pan‐European system level. The share of ATFM delays in HCAA economic costs was exceptionally high in 2011 (57%) mainly due to social tensions. In 2012, it appears that this issue was addressed since the share of ATFM delays in HCAA economic costs reduced to 10% in line with the Pan‐European system average.
On the other hand, for two ANSPs (DCAC Cyprus and NAV Portugal) the share of ATFM delays in economic costs accounts for more than 20% in 2012. DCAC Cyprus has had recurrent ATC capacity issues for several years. The implementation of capacity enhancement measures contributed to reduce ATFM delays in 2011‐2012 compared to previous years. However, it should be noted that the share of ATFM delays in DCAC Cyprus unit economic costs remains very high at some 50% in 2012. The higher unit costs of ATFM delays for NAV Portugal in 2012 mainly reflect an increase in ATFM delays in the last months of the year mainly due to ATC staffing issues.
There is a wide range of unit ATM/CNS provision costs amongst ANSPs in 2012.
In 2012, unit ATM/CNS provision costs range from €732 (Belgocontrol) to €174 (EANS), a factor greater than four. Although the five largest ANSPs operate in relatively similar economic and operational environments, there is a substantial variation in unit ATM/CNS provision costs, ranging from DFS (€552) to NATS (€434).
Figure 2.6: ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour, 2012
732
640609
588565552
521502 499489483
451 449443443443 438438 434409393393
371368363357354349332
308302293265252 245
193174
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Belgocontrol
Skyguide
LPS
LVNL
UkSATSE
DFS
Aen
a
ROMATSA
Slovenia Control
Austro Control
ENAV
NATA
Albania
M‐NAV
LFV
DSN
A
MoldATSA
ANS CR
HungaroControl
NATS (Continen
tal)
ARMATS
Avinor (Continental)
NAVIAIR
BULATSA
Oro Navigacija
Croatia Control
NAV Portugal (Continen
tal)
IAA
Finavia
SMATSA
HCAA
PANSA
DHMI
DCAC Cyprus
MUAC
LGS
MATS
EANS
€per composite flight‐hour
Gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNSEuropean system average: €443
DFS
Aena
ENAV
DSN
A
NATS
(Continental)
552521
483 443434
0
200
400
600
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 17 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Belgocontrol and LVNL are amongst the ANSPs with the highest unit costs, ranking first and fourth in Figure 2.6 above. It should be noted that both ANSPs exclusively provide ATC services in lower airspace and own infrastructure which is made available to MUAC. To better assess the cost‐effectiveness of ATM/CNS provided in each of the Four States (Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg) national airspaces, MUAC costs and outputs are consolidated with the costs and outputs of the national providers. This adjustment is presented in Figure 2.7 below.
The bottom of Figure 2.7 shows the figures which have been used for this “adjustment”. The costs figures are based on the cost allocation keys used to establish the Four States cost‐base, while the flight‐hours are based on those controlled by MUAC in the three FIRs (Belgium, Netherlands and Germany).
The top of Figure 2.7 provides a view of this consolidated ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour in the airspace of Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany (see blue bars).
Figure 2.7: Adjustment of the financial cost‐effectiveness indicator for ANSPs operating in the Four States airspace,
2012
Figure 2.6 indicates that in 2012 the unit ATM/CNS provision costs of various ANSPs operating in Central and Eastern European countries (e.g. LPS, UkSATSE, ROMATSA, Slovenia Control, NATA Albania and M‐NAV) are higher than the Pan‐European system average and in the same order of magnitude as the unit costs of ANSPs operating in Western European countries where the cost of living is much higher. For most of these ANSPs, the relatively higher unit costs mainly reflect relatively lower ATCO‐hour productivity (see Figure 2.15 on p.24) and/or relatively higher unit support costs (see Figure 2.26 on p.33).
In 2012, 22 ANSPs could reduce ATM/CNS provision costs compared to 2011 actuals, most of them in a context of traffic decrease. This shows a certain degree of reactivity in adjusting costs downwards in order to adapt to the lower traffic volumes.
At Pan‐European system level, the unit ATM/CNS provision costs reduced by ‐6.6% compared to 2009 and amount to €443 in 2012. This indicates that three years after the sharp traffic decrease experienced in 2009, unit ATM/CNS provision costs reached in 2012 a level close to that achieved before the economic crisis (i.e. €436 in 2008).
Figure 2.8 provides a detailed analysis of the changes in cost‐effectiveness at ANSP level between 2011 and 2012, identifying the cost and the traffic effects. Figure 2.8 shows that 22 ANSPs could reduce their ATM/CNS provision costs between 2011 and 2012 (see lower part of the chart). For 18 ANSPs, the lower ATM/CNS costs were associated with a reduction in traffic volumes. In most of the cases, the reduction in ATM/CNS provision costs could compensate for the fall in traffic and therefore these ANSPs could avoid an increase in unit costs. At face value, this indicates for these ANSPs a certain degree of reactivity in adjusting costs downwards in a context of traffic decrease.
563
318
517
255
441
190
732
552588
0
200
400
600
800
Belgocontrol
Belgian
airspace
MUAC
Belgium
DFS
German
airspace
MUAC
Germany
LVNL
Dutch
airspace
MUAC
Netherlands
€per composite flight‐hour
MUAC Belgium Germany Netherlands
Flight‐hours allocated to: 141 400 257 400 161 600
Costs allocated to: €44.9M €65.6M €30.7M
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 18 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Figure 2.8: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic volumes, 2011‐2012 (real terms)
Figure 2.8 also shows that four ANSPs (DHMI, IAA, MATS and UkSATSE) could reduce ATM/CNS provision costs in a context of traffic increase in 2012.
Out of the five largest ANSPs, Aena (‐2.8%), ENAV (‐4.5%) and DSNA (‐1.4%) could achieve a reduction in ATM/CNS provision costs in 2012 in a context of traffic decrease (‐8.5%, ‐4.4% and ‐0.8%, respectively). For Aena, this performance improvement was not sufficient to avoid an increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs in 2012 (+6.3%). In 2012, unit costs also increased for DFS (+8.3%) and NATS (+2.6%). For DFS, the increase in unit costs reflects an increase in ATM/CNS provision costs (+5.6%) mainly due to higher staff costs (+10% or +€63.8M) while traffic decreased by ‐2.5%. The increase in DFS staff costs observed for the year 2012 mainly reflects (a) an increase in pension costs consecutive to a change in the discount rate for occupational pensions, and (b) higher gross wages and salaries reflecting the collective agreements signed in October 2011. For NATS, the increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs mainly results from higher ATM/CNS provision costs (+1.6%), and in particular higher depreciation costs (+19%) while traffic decreased by ‐1.0%. The higher depreciation costs for NATS in 2012 mainly reflect the first full year of depreciation of iFACTS and the implementation of the Electronic Flight Data feature in the FDP system.
Figure 2.8 also indicates that between 2011 and 2012, ATM/CNS provision costs increased by more than +5.0% for six ANSPs (including DFS):
For MUAC, the increase in ATM/CNS provision costs (+6.4%) mainly reflects higher staff costs which are due to (a) the payment of a bonus to the staff for achieving performance objectives, and (b) to retroactive salary adjustments according to IAS.
The increase in ATM/CNS provision costs for MoldATSA (+14.5%) is due to higher operating costs and depreciation costs while traffic increased by +4.6%.
For ARMATS, ATM/CNS provision costs substantially increased in 2012 (+8.5%) while traffic volumes reduced by ‐2.5%. The rise in ATM/CNS provision costs mainly reflects higher staff costs and capital‐related costs.
DSNA
DFS
Aena
NATS (Continental)
ENAV
DHMI
Skyguide
UkSATSE
LFV
Avinor (Continental)
Austro Control
ROMATSA
LVNL
HCAABelgocontrol
PANSA
MUAC
NAV Portugal (Continental)
ANS CR
NAVIAIR
IAA
HungaroControl
Croatia Control
SMATSA
BULATSA
Finavia
LPS
DCAC Cyprus
Slovenia Control
Oro Navigacija
LGS
NATA Albania EANS
MATSM‐NAV
MoldATSA
ARMATS
‐20%
‐15%
‐10%
‐5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
‐10% ‐5% 0% 5% 10% 15%
Changes in ATM
/CNS provision costs (2011‐2012)
Changes in composite flight‐hours (2011‐2012)
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 19 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
The significant increase in ROMATSA 2012 gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs (+20.5%) mainly reflects the reporting of exceptional costs relating to a provision for employee benefits. Excluding those exceptional costs, ROMATSA 2012 ATM/CNS provision costs would have remained fairly constant (+0.2%) compared to 2011.
LFV ATM/CNS provision costs rose by +12.8% in 2012 while traffic fell by ‐3.4%. The increase in LFV ATM/CNS provision costs mainly reflects significantly higher pension related costs associated with the increase of future pension obligations.
More details on the changes in unit ATM/CNS provision costs for individual ANSPs are provided in Part II of this Report.
In a context of lower traffic growth than expected, actual 2012 ATM/CNS provision costs are some ‐3% lower than planned in November 2011. This is also the case for most of the SES ANSPs: an indication that the financial incentives embedded within the charging scheme already provided some results for the first year of RP1.
Another complementary analysis to assess the degree of ANSPs reactivity to adjust costs downwards in response to the decrease in traffic is to compare the actual 2012 ATM/CNS provision costs with the plans prepared in November 2011 (and reported as part of the ACE 2010 data cycle) 15. For the years 2012‐2014 which correspond to the SES Performance Scheme RP1, the costs and traffic information provided in ACE 2010 by the ANSPs operating in SES States is in line with the information disclosed in adopted National Performance Plans.
Table 2.2 indicates that in 2012, the actual number of composite flight‐hours is ‐5.1% lower than planned in ACE 2010 (November 2011). Table 2.2 also shows that actual 2012 ATM/CNS provision costs are ‐€235M (or ‐3.1%) lower than planned, which is a noteworthy achievement for the ANS industry, although this was not sufficient to compensate for the lower traffic and therefore to avoid higher than planned unit ATM/CNS provision costs (+2.1%).
Table 2.2: Comparison of ATM/CNS provision costs and composite flight‐hours at system level (figures provided in Nov. 2011 versus actual data) (€2012)
Figure 2.9 below shows that for 30 ANSPs, the actual 2012 traffic was lower than planned in November 2011. For eight ANSPs, the actual 2012 traffic was at least ‐10% below ACE 2010 plans. It should be noted that in November 2011 some of these ANSPs planned for a rather optimistic traffic growth which did not materialise in 2012. This is the case for Croatia Control which expected a traffic increase of +10% in 2012.
For MATS, the actual 2012 traffic was +49.2% higher than planned in November 2011. This substantial deviation is due to the fact that in 2012, following the civil war, part of Libyan airspace was closed and flights that used to cross from East to West through the Libyan airspace were passing through the airspace controlled by MATS.
15 Note that the planned en‐route costs provided by NATS in its ACE 2010 submission reflect the figures reported in the UK Performance Plan for RP1. This is different from the methodology used by NATS to report historic and actual ATM/CNS provision costs which are based on IFRS accounting. For this reason, NATS is not included in this analysis.
European system level 2012
Planned composite flight‐hours in Nov. 2011 (M) 17.3
Actual composite flight‐hours (M) 16.5
Difference between actual and planned composite flight‐hours (%) ‐5.1%
Planned ATM/CNS provision costs in Nov. 2011 (M€2012) 7 533
Actual ATM/CNS provision costs (M€2012) 7 298
Difference between actual and planned costs (M€2012) ‐235
Difference between actual and planned costs (%) ‐3.1%
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 20 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Figure 2.9: Comparison of 2012 actual ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic with ACE 2010 plans (real terms)
Figure 2.9 shows that for 28 ANSPs, actual 2012 costs were lower than planned in November 2011. Among the five largest ANSPs, 2012 actual costs were lower than planned for Aena (‐6.6%), DSNA (‐4.8%) and ENAV (‐9.4%). Given their weight in the European system, these ANSPs significantly contributed to reduce actual 2012 ATM/CNS provision costs by ‐3.1% compared to ACE 2010 plans. On the other hand, DFS 2012 actual costs were slightly higher than planned (i.e. +1.1%).
For six ANSPs, 2012 actual costs are more than ‐10% lower than planned in November 2011 (i.e. MATS (‐24.4%), M‐NAV (‐17.7%), DCAC Cyprus (‐16.9%), IAA (‐10.6%), DHMI (‐10.6%) and NATA Albania (‐10.2%). It should be noted, however, that these ANSPs (except DCAC Cyprus and M‐NAV) were planning for significant costs increases compared to their 2010 levels.
The right hand side of Figure 2.9 shows that for eight ANSPs, actual 2012 costs were higher than planned in November 2011. For four of them, NAV Portugal (+6.2%), ROMATSA (+9.6%), LFV (+13.7%) and UkSATSE (+22.9%) actual costs were more than +5% higher than planned.
For ANSPs operating in SES States, the year 2012 marks the start of RP1 with the determined costs “method” and the end of the “full cost‐recovery” mechanism for en‐route ANS. Figure 2.9 shows that for most of the SES ANSPs, ATM/CNS provision costs are lower than planned in November 2011 plans. This is an indication that the financial incentives embedded within the charging scheme already provided some results for the first year of RP1.
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 21 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
At Pan‐European system level, ATCO‐employment costs increased while productivity remained fairly constant and unit support costs rose in a context of traffic decrease. As a result, financial cost‐effectiveness performance slightly deteriorated in 2012.
In 2012 at Pan‐European system level, the average ATM/CNS provision cost per composite flight‐hour is €443. Figure 2.10 shows the analytical framework which is used in the ACE analysis to break down the financial cost‐effectiveness indicator into basic economic drivers.
Figure 2.10: ACE performance framework, 2012
Key drivers for the financial cost‐effectiveness performance include:
a) ATCO‐hour productivity (0.80 composite flight‐hours per ATCO‐hour);
b) ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour (€106); and,
c) support costs per unit output (€310).
Around 30% of ATM/CNS provision directly relates to ATCOs in OPS employment costs while 70% relate to “support” functions including non ATCOs in OPS employment costs, non‐staff operating costs and capital related costs such as depreciation costs and the cost of capital.
At system level, unit ATM/CNS provision costs rose by +1.7% in real terms between 2011 and 2012. Figure 2.11 shows that in 2012, employment costs per ATCO‐hour rose by +1.3% while ATCO‐hour productivity remained fairly constant (+0.3%). In the meantime, unit support costs rose by +2.0% mainly reflecting the fact that at Pan‐European system level support costs were not adjusted downwards compared to 2011 (+0.1%) while the number of composite flight‐hours reduced by ‐1.9%.
Figure 2.11: Changes in the financial cost‐effectiveness indicator, 2011‐2012 (real terms)
A detailed analysis of the changes in the key drivers of cost‐effectiveness between 2009 and 2012 is provided hereafter.
Employment costs for
ATCOs in OPS
€2 417 M
Composite flight‐hours18.2 M
ATCO in OPS hours on duty
22.8 M
ATM/CNS
provision costs€8 059 M
Support cost ratio3.3
ATCO‐hour Productivity
0.80
ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour
€106
Financialcost‐effectiveness
indicator€443
EUROCONTROL/PRU
Support costs€5 642 M
Support costs per unit of output
€310
ATCOs employment costs per
unit of output€133
+0.3%
+1.3%+1.0%
+1.7%+2.0%
+0.1%
‐1.9%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
Increase inunit ATM/CNS provision costs2011‐2012
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per ATCO‐hour
ATCO employment costs per
composite flight‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐
hour
Weight 70%
Weight 30%
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 22 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Overall, in 2012 Pan‐European ANSPs could limit the impact of the traffic decrease onproductivity through a more effective use of available ATC capacity and existing resources.
Over the four years period (2009‐2012), ATCO‐hour productivity rose by +10.1% at Pan‐European system level. Figure 2.12 indicates that starting from a low base in 2009 (reflecting the fall in traffic which resulted from the economic recession), ATCO‐hour productivity substantially increased for two consecutive years (+6.7% in 2010 and +2.9% in 2011) and remained fairly constant in 2012 (+0.3%).
Figure 2.12: Changes in ATCO‐hour productivity, 2009‐2012
The increases in ATCO‐hour productivity observed at Pan‐European system level over the 2009‐2012 period mainly reflect improvements in ANSPs with relatively lower ATCO‐hour productivity levels (see green line in the right‐hand chart of Figure 2.12), while the ATCO‐hour productivity of ANSPs with higher productivity levels remained relatively constant.
Strong productivity increases were mainly achieved by Central and Eastern Europe ANSPs benefiting from higher traffic growth. However, significant improvements in productivity were also achieved by some ANSPs which started from a higher base in 2009 (e.g. IAA).
At Pan‐European system level, the increase in productivity achieved between 2009 and 2012 (+10.1%) is mainly due to the fact that the overall traffic increase (+4.1%) was absorbed with substantially fewer ATCO‐hours on duty (‐5.4%).
Figure 2.13 shows that the reduction of ATCO‐hours on duty between 2009 and 2012 is mainly driven by a significant decrease in overtime hours (‐72.0%) over the whole period.
Figure 2.13: Changes in average ATCO‐hours on duty, 2009‐2012
These results are heavily influenced by the structural changes implemented in 2010‐2011 by Aena following the introduction of Law 9/2010 which was adopted in Spain in 2010. This law introduced new working conditions for Spanish ATCOs, rising contractual working hours and significantly reducing the number of overtime hours, which was one of the main driver for high ATCO employment costs and relatively lower productivity for Aena in the past. Indeed, between 2009 and 2012, Aena ATCO‐hour productivity substantially increased from 0.52 to 0.78 (+50%).
In addition, as shown in Figure 2.14 below, 26 out of 37 ANSPs could reduce ATCO‐hours on duty in 2012. This indicates that overall, in 2012 Pan‐European ANSPs could limit the impact of the traffic
6.7% 2.9% 0.3%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATCO‐
hour on duty
0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89
0.73
0.770.80 0.80
0.53
0.61
0.66 0.66
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATCO‐hour per flight‐hour
Average for ANSPs above the median of the sample
Pan‐European system average
Average for ANSPs below the median of the sample
1 4281 401 1 391
1 352
800
1 000
1 200
1 400
1 600
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year
Average overtime hours on duty per yearAverage ATCO‐hour on duty per year (without overtime)
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 23 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
decrease on productivity through a more effective use of available ATC capacity and existing resources.
Figure 2.14: Annual changes in ATCO‐hour productivity, composite flight‐hours and ATCO‐hours on duty, 2011‐2012
In 2012, the ATCO‐hour productivity of the Pan‐European system as a whole amounted to 0.80 composite flight‐hours per ATCO‐hour. The ATCO‐hour productivity for each ANSP in 2012 is shown in Figure 2.15 below. It is important to note that the metric of ATCO‐hour productivity used in this report reflects the average productivity during a year for a given ANSP and does not give an indication of the productivity at peak times which can be substantially higher.
There is a wide range of ATCO‐hour productivity among ANSPs. The ANSP with the highest ATCO‐hour productivity is MUAC (1.94), which only provides ATC services in upper airspace, while the
(A) (B) (C)
Chan
ges in ATC
O‐
hour productivity
2011‐2012
"Traffic effect"
"ATC
O‐hour
effect"
EANS EE 32.8% 8.5% ‐18.3%
DCAC Cyprus CY 16.6% ‐2.8% ‐16.7%
LGS LV 15.5% ‐0.4% ‐13.8%
DHMI TR 11.1% 5.1% ‐5.5%
M‐NAV MK 7.9% ‐9.1% ‐15.8%
IAA IE 7.5% 0.6% ‐6.4%
Avinor (Continental) NO 6.1% 4.5% ‐1.5%
MoldATSA MD 5.6% 4.6% ‐1.0%
UkSATSE UA 4.0% 3.5% ‐0.5%
DSNA FR 1.8% ‐0.8% ‐2.6%
Croatia Control HR 1.0% ‐0.6% ‐1.6%
PANSA PL 0.1% 5.8% 5.6%
DFS DE 0.1% ‐2.5% ‐2.6%
Aena ES ‐0.3% ‐8.5% ‐8.2%
MUAC ‐0.4% ‐0.7% ‐0.3%
Austro Control AT ‐0.5% ‐2.9% ‐2.4%
ROMATSA RO ‐0.6% ‐1.3% ‐0.7%
LPS SK ‐0.7% ‐1.8% ‐1.1%
NATS (Continental) UK ‐1.1% ‐1.0% 0.1%
LFV SE ‐1.2% ‐3.4% ‐2.3%
NAV Portugal (Continental) PT ‐1.6% ‐1.3% 0.3%
SMATSA SB ‐1.6% ‐5.0% ‐3.4%
ARMATS AM ‐1.7% ‐2.5% ‐0.8%
Slovenia Control SI ‐2.5% ‐0.1% 2.5%
Oro Navigacija LT ‐3.8% 0.1% 4.0%
Skyguide CH ‐3.9% ‐1.2% 2.8%
ANS CR CZ ‐3.9% ‐4.9% ‐1.0%
Belgocontrol BE ‐4.0% ‐4.6% ‐0.6%
NAVIAIR DK ‐4.2% ‐5.3% ‐1.2%
HungaroControl HU ‐4.2% ‐6.6% ‐2.5%
ENAV IT ‐4.2% ‐4.4% ‐0.2%
HCAA GR ‐4.7% ‐4.7% 0.0%
LVNL NL ‐5.9% ‐2.2% 3.9%
Finavia FI ‐7.0% ‐8.6% ‐1.6%
MATS MT ‐8.0% 14.8% 24.7%
NATA Albania AL ‐8.5% ‐3.0% 6.0%
BULATSA BG ‐10.4% ‐2.4% 8.9%
Total Pan‐European System 0.3% ‐1.9% ‐2.1%
ANSPs CountryPositive values in column (A) mean that productivity improved between 2011 and 2012. Positive values in column (B) mean that traffic volumes rose between 2011 and 2012. Positive values in column (C) mean that the number of ATCO‐hours rose between 2011 and 2012. All other things being equal, a positive value contributes to lower productivity (hence the red dot). Productivity improves if traffic grows faster than the ATCO‐hours on duty. For example: IAA’s 2012 productivity is +7.5% higher than in 2011 because while traffic slightly increased by +0.6%, the number of ATCO‐hours decreased by ‐6.4%. Note: By mathematical construction, the % variation in productivity (A) can be approximated as the difference between the “traffic effect” (B) and the “ATCO‐hour effect” (C). The larger the % variations, the less accurate the approximation. This explains why in some cases (A) is not exactly equal to (B) ‐ (C).
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 24 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ANSP with the lowest ATCO‐hour productivity is ARMATS (0.19), i.e. one of the smallest ANSPs in terms of traffic volumes.
Figure 2.15: ATCO‐hour productivity (gate‐to‐gate), 2012
Figure 2.15 also indicates that there are substantial differences in ATCO‐hour productivity even among the five largest ANSPs. Indeed, DFS ATCO‐hour productivity (1.03) is some +49% higher than that of ENAV (0.69).
It is important to mention that significant gains in cost‐effectiveness could be achieved if the European average productivity (0.80) was raised to the level of the top quartile in Figure 2.15 (0.92). Most of the ANSPs that achieve or are close to top quartile ATCO‐hour productivity (ANS CR, Austro Control, DFS, LVNL, MUAC, NATS and Skyguide) are among the ANSPs with the most complex traffic. On the other hand, ARMATS, M‐NAV, MoldATSA and UkSATSE, which belong to the ANSPs with the least complex traffic (see Figure 2.2), show an ATCO‐hour productivity which is lower than the bottom quartile. Low productivity in some of these ANSPs may be a consequence of their small size, and the consequent difficulty in adapting their available ATC capacity and existing infrastructure to low traffic volumes and high seasonal variability.
Improvements in ATCO‐hour productivity can result from more effective OPS room management and by making a better use of existing resources, for example through the adaptation of rosters (preferably individually based to enhance flexibility) and shift times, effective management of overtime, and through the adaptation of sector opening times to traffic demand patterns. Similarly, advanced ATM system functionalities and procedures are drivers for productivity improvements. It is also expected that SES tools such as FABs, the Network Manager, the performance scheme and the technological pillar (SESAR) contribute to increase ATCO productivity by a significant factor while ensuring safety standards.
Latest forecasts indicate that traffic volumes are not expected to be above 2008 levels before 2016. For this reason, there should be an opportunity to maintain the overall amount of ATCO‐hours at Pan‐European system level and, all else equal, increase ATCO‐hour productivity without significantly affecting the quality of service provided and without implementing massive investment programmes.
1.94
1.03 1.03 1.02 1.01 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.94 0.920.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.84 0.84
0.79 0.78 0.76 0.750.71 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.63 0.59
0.530.48
0.45
0.34
0.24 0.240.19
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
MUAC
DFS
Skyguide
IAA
EANS
NATS (Continen
tal)
NAVIAIR
PANSA
Austro Control
NAV Portugal (Continen
tal)
DHMI
ANS CR
LVNL
LGS
DCAC Cyprus
Avinor (Continen
tal)
HungaroControl
Aen
a
DSN
A
SMATSA
HCAA
ENAV
Belgocontrol
MATS
Croatia Control
LFV
BULATSA
LPS
Finavia
ROMATSA
NATA
Albania
Oro Navigacija
Slovenia Control
UkSATSE
M‐NAV
MoldATSA
ARMATS
Composite flight‐hours per ATCO‐hour
European system average: 0.8
DFS
NATS
(Continen
tal)
Aen
a
DSN
A
ENAV
1.030.99
0.78 0.760.69
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 25 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
More details on the changes in ATCO‐hour productivity for individual ANSPs are provided in Part II of this Report.
ATCO‐hour productivity measured at ANSP level reflects an average performance, which canhide large differences among ACCs even for those operating in the same country/ANSP. It is therefore important to analyse and compare productivity at ACC level.
In Figure 2.16, the 63 ACCs part of the ACE 2012 data analysis are grouped in clusters based on three operational characteristics: (1) their complexity scores, (2) the average used flight levels, and (3) their number of sectors. More information on the definition of these clusters can be found in previous ACE reports16.
Figure 2.16: Summary of productivity results at ACC level, 2012
So far, no clear‐cut statistical relationship between ATCO productivity, traffic complexity and traffic variability could be inferred because the relationships and potential trade‐offs between all these metrics are not straightforward. Nevertheless, it is useful to compare the ATCO productivity of ACCs that share similar “operational” characteristics. Each cluster is briefly described below:
Cluster 1 (ACCs serving predominantly lower airspace with relatively high structural complexity) has the lowest average productivity of any of the clusters (0.69 flight‐hour per ATCO‐hour). Palma, with the lowest productivity, has the highest seasonal traffic variability in Cluster 1.
Cluster 2 (ACCs serving dense upper airspace) has an average productivity of 1.11 flight‐hour per ATCO‐hour. Within this cluster, Maastricht has significantly higher productivity (1.94 flight‐hours per ATCO‐hour, some +75% above the average in Cluster 2).
Cluster 3a (ACCs with 7 sectors or more and serving airspace with relatively low complexity) has an average productivity of 1.12 flight‐hour per ATCO‐hour. Within this cluster, Warszawa has significantly higher productivity (2.23 flight‐hours per ATCO‐hour). It
16 See for example the ACE 2008 Benchmarking Report on p.104. Report available on the PRC website: (http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/prc‐and‐prb‐publications).
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
Langen
London TC
Bremen
Amsterdam
Brussels
Milano
Dublin
Palma
Flight‐hours per ATC
O‐hour
Average = 0.69
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
Maastricht
Praha
Wien
Karlsruhe
Munchen
London AC
Paris
Zurich
Reims
Gen
eva
Padova
Ljubljana
Flight‐hours per ATC
O‐hour
Average =1.11
Cluster 1
Stavanger
Tallinn
Bodo
Bratislava
Nicosia
Riga
Tampere
Vilnius
Brindisi
L'viv
Malta
Tirana
Simferopol
Dnipropetrovs'k
Yerevan
Odesa
Skopje
Chisinau
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.8
Flight‐hours per ATCO‐hour
Average = 0.78
Cluster 3b (ACCs < 7 sectors)
Warszaw
aLisboa
Zagreb
Ankara
Shannon
Brest
Athinai+M
acedonia
Sofia
Bordeaux
Budapest
Koben
havn
Roma
Prestwick
Beo
grad
Malmo
Canarias
Bucuresti
Istanbul
Madrid
Sevilla
Marseille
Barcelona
Oslo
Stockholm
Kyiv
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.8
Flight‐hours per ATCO‐hour
Average = 1.12
Cluster 3a (ACCs ≥ 7 sectors)
Cluster 2
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 26 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
should also be noted that within this cluster Brest and Bordeaux have the highest overall complexity, and Canarias, Shannon and Oslo the lowest.
Cluster 3b (ACCs with less than 7 sectors serving airspace with relatively low complexity) has an average productivity of 0.78 flight‐hour per ATCO‐hour. While Chisinau shows the lowest productivity, it also has one of the lowest overall traffic complexity.
The analysis of ATCO‐hour productivity at ACC level would seem to indicate that, whilst complexity measures are helpful in providing a way of clustering ACCs into broadly consistent groups, within these clusters there are still large differences in productivity performance across individual ACCs.
ATCO‐hour productivity, defined as flight‐hours controlled per ATCO‐hour on duty, can be split into two main components:
ACC sector productivity: This is the ratio of the output, measured by the flight‐hours controlled by the ACC, to sector‐hours open. This indicator shows, on average, how many aircraft are simultaneously in a sector for a given ACC. All else being equal, higher sector productivity will improve ATCO‐hour productivity.
ACC staffing per sector: This is the ratio of ATCO‐hours on duty to sector‐hours open. This indicator shows, on average, how many ATCOs are used to man a sector. All else being equal, a reduction in the staffing per sector will increase ATCO‐hour productivity.
Figure 2.17 below displays the breakdown of ATCO‐hour productivity into ACC sector productivity and ACC staffing per sector for each cluster. It also displays a line showing the average ATCO‐hour productivity achieved by the ACCs in the cluster: the greater the slope of the line, the higher the average ATCO‐hour productivity. ACCs below the line have a worse than average ATCO‐hour productivity for the cluster and ACCs above the line have a better than average ATCO‐hour productivity.
Figure 2.17: ACC sector productivity and staffing per sector, 2012
Figure 2.17 indicates that in Cluster 2, the greater ATCO‐hour productivity in Maastricht is mainly the result of significantly higher sector productivity (more than eight aircraft on average
Munchen
Wien
Karlsruhe
Reims
Paris
Maastricht
Praha
London AC
GenevaPadova
LjubljanaZurich
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Sector productivity
Staffing per sector
Cluster 2 Average ATCO‐hour productivity
London TCPalma
Brussels
MilanoLangen
Bremen
Dublin
Amsterdam
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Sector productivity
Staffing per sector
Cluster 1
Average ATCO‐hour productivity
Budapest
Kobenhavn
Zagreb
Lisboa
Ankara
Prestwick
Beograd
Oslo
Warszawa
SevillaCanarias
Istanbul
Shannon
Kyiv
Sofia
Athinai+Macedonia
Malmo
Brest
Stockholm
BucurestiBordeaux
BarcelonaMarseille
Roma
Madrid
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Sector productivity
Staffing per sector
Cluster 3a (ACCs ≥ 7 sectors)
Average ATCO‐hour productivity
TiranaVilnius
Dnipropetrovs'k
Malta
Chisinau
SimferopolSkopje
Nicosia
Riga
Tallinn
Stavanger
Tampere
Bodo
Bratislava
L'viv
Odesa
Brindisi
Yerevan
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Sector productivity
Staffing per sector
Cluster 3b (ACCs < 7 sectors)Average ATCO‐hour
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 27 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
simultaneously present in a sector). It is noteworthy that MUAC sector productivity is two to three times the productivity achieved by ACCs with a similar staffing per sector in Cluster 2.
On the other hand, the graphs for Cluster 3a and Cluster 3b show that in these clusters, similar levels of ACC sector productivity are achieved with very different staffing configuration and practices, or alternatively similar levels of ACC staffing are delivering a wide range of sector productivity.
Several factors are likely to affect ATCO productivity. Low productivity might be due to spare capacity and low utilisation of the available resources, especially in the less dense/complex ACCs. Another explanation might be due to higher seasonal traffic variability.
Other factors as yet unidentified (and not measured) such as the impact of different operational concepts and processes, the operational flexibility, could also affect ATCO productivity performance. There may also be cultural and managerial differences. These elements would deserve further analysis in order to provide some “explanation” of the differences in ATCO‐productivity and identify best practice.
ATCO employment costs are catching up in many Central and Eastern European ANSPs.
At Pan‐European system level, ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour slightly decreased between 2009 and 2012 (‐1.3% or ‐0.4% p.a.).
Figure 2.18 shows that this is driven by:
a significant decrease for the year 2010 (‐5.0%); and,
employment costs per ATCO‐hour increases in 2011 (+2.6%) and 2012 (+1.3%).
Figure 2.18: Changes in ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour, 2009‐2012 (real terms)
Figure 2.18 shows that this overall change is significantly affected by the decrease in Aena ATCO employment costs over the years 2009 and 2010. Indeed excluding Aena, ATCO employment costs have increased in real terms by +2.1% in 2010, +4.8% in 2011 and +2.9% in 2012.
In 2012, the average unit ATCO employment costs in the Pan‐European system amount to €106 per ATCO‐hour. Figure 2.19 shows the values for this indicator for all the ANSPs.
There is a wide range of ATCO‐hour employment costs across ANSPs, which is not surprising given the heterogeneity in the social and economic environments across Europe.
In 2012, MUAC ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour (€197) are the highest in Europe, above DFS (€172). MUAC ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour significantly increased in 2012 (+21.9%) mainly reflecting the payment of a bonus to the staff for achieving performance objectives, and retroactive salary adjustments. DFS employment costs per ATCO‐hour also rose in 2012, albeit in a lower proportion (+9.7%), following the implementation of the new collective agreements signed in October 2011.
On the other hand, Aena employment costs per ATCO‐hour which were the highest in 2011, rank fifth (€160) and decreased for the third consecutive year in 2012 (‐5.1% after reductions of ‐13.3% and ‐6.4% in 2010 and 2011, respectively).
‐5.0% 2.6% 1.3%
2.1%4.8% 2.9%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATCO‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
37 ANSPs 36 ANSPs (excl. Aena)
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 28 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Figure 2.19: ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour (gate‐to‐gate), 2012
A major exogenous factor that underlies differences in unit employment costs is the difference in prevailing market wage rates in the national economies in general. This is also associated with differences in the cost of living. To assess the influence of these exogenous differences, employment costs per ATCO‐hour have been examined in the context of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). There are some limitations17 inherent to the use of PPPs and for this reason the ACE data analysis does not put a significant weight on results obtained with PPPs adjustments. PPPs are nevertheless a useful analytical tool in the context of international benchmarking.
Figure 2.20 below shows the ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour both before and after adjustment for PPP. The adjustment reduces the dispersion of this indicator. After PPP adjustment, the average unit employment costs per ATCO‐hour amounts to €112 (compared to €106 without adjustment). For many Central and Eastern European ANSPs (ANS CR, BULATSA, Croatia Control, HungaroControl, LPS, PANSA, ROMATSA, Slovenia Control and SMATSA) the PPP adjustment brings the unit employment costs close to those in Western Europe.
17 For instance, it is possible that, for a given country, the cost of living in regions where the ANSP headquarter and other main buildings (e.g. ACCs) are located is higher than the average value computed at national level.
197
172163161160160
152
135131120
108 10397 97 97 95
8981 81 80 79 79
7366 63
55 53 51 49
40 3932 29 28 25
14 11
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
MUAC
DFS
LVNL
Skyguide
Aen
a
Austro Control
NAV Portugal (Continen
tal)
Belgocontrol
Avinor (Continental)
NATS (Continen
tal)
ENAV
IAA
DSN
A
PANSA
NAVIAIR
LFV
HungaroControl
Croatia Control
ANS CR
Slovenia Control
LPS
HCAA
Finavia
DCAC Cyprus
ROMATSA
BULATSA
EANS
SMATSA
DHMI
LGS
Oro Navigacija
M‐NAV
UkSATSE
NATA
Albania
MATS
MoldATSA
ARMATS
€per hour
European system average: €106
DFS
Aen
a
NATS
(Continen
tal)
ENAV
DSN
A
172 160
120108
97
0
50
100
150
200
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 29 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Figure 2.20: Employment costs per ATCO‐hour with and without PPPs, 2012
Figure 2.21 shows the changes in ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour for ANSPs operating in Central, Eastern and Western European countries18.
Significant increases in ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour are observed for ANSPs operating in Central and Eastern European countries and which started from a relatively low base in 2009.
This illustrates the gradual convergence of employment costs in Central and Eastern European economies following the strengthening of the economic integration and enhanced labour mobility.
Figure 2.21: Convergence in ATCO employment
costs for ANSPs operating in Eastern and Western European countries, 2009‐2012 (real terms)
Employment costs are typically subject to complex bargaining agreements between ANSPs management and staff which usually are embedded into a collective agreement. The duration of the collective agreement, the terms and methods for renegotiation greatly vary across ANSPs. In some cases salary conditions are negotiated every year. High ATCO employment costs may be compensated for by high productivity (e.g. MUAC). Therefore, in the context of staff planning and contract renegotiation, it is important for ANSPs to manage ATCOs employment costs effectively and to set quantitative objectives for ATCO productivity.
More details on the changes in ATCO‐hour employment costs for individual ANSPs are provided in Part II of this Report.
18 In Figure 2.21, the Central and Eastern European countries are those that joined the European Union from 2004 onwards plus Albania, Armenia, Croatia, F.Y.R Macedonia, Moldova, Turkey and Ukraine.
188
179 175167 167
155148 145
129
124 123 122117 115 112
107106 10599 95
88 87 84 82 8175 75 71 71
65 6561 57
4233
25 22
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
NAV Portugal (Continental)
MUAC
Aena
PANSA DFS
HungaroControl
LVNL
Austro Control
ROMATSA
Croatia Control
BULATSA
Belgocontrol
LPS
ANS CR
SMATSA
ENAV
NATS (Continen
tal)
Skyguide
Slovenia Control
IAA
HCAA
DSN
A
Avinor (Continen
tal)
DHMI
M‐NAV
DCAC Cyprus
EANS
LFV
NAVIAIR
Oro Navigacija
NATA
Albania
Finavia
UkSATSE
LGS
MATS
MoldATSA
ARMATS
€per hour
ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour in € adjusted for PPPs
ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour in €
131 124 125 126
107102
105 106
4347
54 55
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATCO employm
ent cost per ATCO‐hour
Western European ANSPs European average
Central and Eastern European ANSPs
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 30 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
After two years of consecutive reductions in 2010 (‐4.1%) and 2011 (‐2.7%), unit support costs rose by +2.0% in 2012 mainly reflecting the impact of the traffic shortfall (‐1.9%).
As indicated in Figure 2.22, support costs per composite flight‐hours reduced (‐4.9% in real terms) between 2009 and 2012 at Pan‐European system level.
Figure 2.22 shows that unit support costs consecutively reduced in 2010 (‐4.1%) and 2011 (‐2.7%) reflecting the impact of the cost‐containment measures implemented by European ANSPs. In 2012, unit support costs rose by +2.0%. This mainly reflects the decrease in traffic (‐1.9%), while support costs remained fairly constant (+0.1%).
Figure 2.22: Changes in support costs per composite flight‐hour, 2009‐2012 (real terms)
Contrary to ATCO employment costs, support costs encompass a variety of cost items which require specific analysis. There is a general acknowledgement that the Pan‐European system has excessive support costs due to its high level of operational, organisational, technical and regulatory fragmentation.
Figure 2.23: Framework for support costs analysis, 2012
‐4.1% ‐2.7% 2.0%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012
prices)
Non‐ATCO in OPS employment
costs per unit of output(48.4%)
Non‐staff operatingcosts per unit of output
(23.8%)
Capital‐relatedcosts per unit of output
(25.7%)
Non‐ATCO in OPS staffper unit of output
Employment costs per non‐ATCO in OPS staff
Exceptionalcosts per unit of output
(2.1%)Depreciation costsper unit of output
Cost of capitalper unit of output
unit of output
Employment costs for
ATCOs in OPS
€2 417 M
Composite flight‐hours18.2 M
ATCO in OPS hours on duty22.8 M
ATM/CNS
provision costs
€8 059 M
Support cost ratio3.3
ATCO‐hour Productivity
0.80
ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour
€106
Financialcost‐effectiveness
indicator€443
EUROCONTROL/PRU
Support costs€5 642 M
Support costs per unit of output
€310
ATCOs employment costs per
unit of output€133
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 31 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
As shown in Figure 2.23, support costs can be broken down into four separate components that provide further insight into the nature of support costs:
a) Employment costs for non‐ATCO in OPS staff; these cover ATCOs on other duties, trainees, technical support and administrative staff (48.4% of total support costs). These costs can be affected by the following factors:
Outsourcing of non‐core activities (such as maintenance of technical equipment, and professional training) could transfer costs from this category to non‐staff costs.
Research & development policies may involve ATM systems either being developed in‐house, or purchased off‐the‐shelf. In principle, either solution could lead to the most cost‐effective outcome, depending on circumstances; this would depend on whether there were, for example, significant economies of scale, or major transaction costs.
Arrangements relating to the collective agreement and the pension scheme for non‐ATCOs in OPS.
b) Non‐staff operating costs mostly comprise expenses for energy, communications, contracted services, rentals, insurance, and taxes (23.8% of total support costs). These costs can be affected by the following factors:
The terms and conditions of contracts for outsourced activities.
Enhancement of the cooperation with other ANSPs to achieve synergies in the context of a FAB (sharing training of ATCOs, joint maintenance, and other matters).
c) Capital‐related costs, comprising depreciation and financing costs for the capital employed (25.7% of total support costs). These costs can be affected by the following factors:
The magnitude of the investment programme.
The accounting life of the assets.
The degree to which assets are owned or rented.
d) Exceptional costs which represent some 2.1% of total support costs.
Figure 2.24 shows the changes in the different components of support costs (see the “support costs effect” bar on the right‐hand side of Figure 2.11) between 2011 and 2012.
In 2012, increases in employment costs for support staff (+€109M) and exceptional costs (+€56M) were compensated by reductions in non‐staff operating costs (‐€85M), depreciation costs (‐€26M), and in the cost of capital19 (‐€51M).
Figure 2.24: Changes in the components of support
costs, 2011‐2012 (real terms)
19 It should be noted that the cost of capital originally reported by DFS in its 2012 data submission was significantly lower (‐€38M or ‐51%) than in 2011. This difference was mainly due to the use of a negative return on equity (i.e. ‐3.16%) to compute the en‐route cost of capital in 2012. It is understood that this negative rate of return on equity reflects the actual return (ex‐post) taking into account the revenue loss incurred on DFS en‐route activity. However, for the purposes of the ACE benchmarking analysis, and in order to ensure consistency with the data provided by the other ANSPs, a return on equity of 7.75% has been used to compute DFS en‐route cost of capital. This figure corresponds to the return on equity that was planned for 2012 in the National Performance Plan for RP1.
+4.2%
‐6.0%
‐2.8%‐8.6%
+86.6%
‐100
‐50
0
50
100
150
200
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperating costs
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 32 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
The significant decrease observed for the cost of capital (‐€51M) is mainly due to a substantial decrease in the cost of capital reported by UkSATSE (‐€50M). It should be noted that the cost of capital reported by UkSATSE includes the total amount of capital expenditures spent during the year, and that particularly high capex were spent in 2011. Excluding UkSATSE, the cost of capital at Pan‐European level in 2012 would be similar to that of 2011 (‐€0.4M) and 2012 support costs would be +0.6% higher than in 2011 (compared to +0.1% when UkSATSE is included).
The reductions achieved in 2012 in terms of non‐staff operating costs (‐6.0%) and depreciation costs (‐2.8%) mainly reflect the impact of the cost‐containment measures implemented by a majority of the Pan‐European ANSPs in order to adapt to lower traffic levels. The lower depreciation costs in 2012 are mainly due to the postponement of non‐crucial investment projects to future years. Figure 2.25 shows that for a majority of ANSPs, actual capital expenditures were lower than planned in ACE 2011 for the year 2012.
Figure 2.25: Difference between actual and planned
capex for 2012 (real terms)
On the other hand, Figure 2.25 indicates that for a few ANSPs (e.g. Aena, Avinor, M‐NAV and Oro Navigacija) actual 2012 capex is higher than planned.
The substantial increase in employment costs for support staff (+€109M) is mainly driven by higher staff costs observed for Aena (+€53M) and DFS (+€43M) compared to 2011.
For Aena, the increase in support staff costs mainly reflects costs associated with the Social Plan for Voluntary Layoffs (SPVL) for non‐ATCO staff (i.e. €32M) which was implemented in 2012. For DFS, these increases are mainly due to (a) higher pension‐related costs consecutive to a change in the discount rate for occupational pensions and (b) higher gross wages and salaries reflecting the collective agreements signed in October 2011, covering the period June 2011 – October 2012.
Employment costs can be significantly affected by the type of pension arrangements, and particularly whether the pension scheme is based on “defined benefits” or “defined contributions”. Some ANSPs have already taken decisive actions to deal with future pension obligations, notably changing the pension scheme for new recruits and moving away from “defined benefits” pension plans.
A revised version of IAS 19 (i.e. “employee benefits”) was implemented in January 2013. One of the main revisions of IAS 19 relates to the departure from the “corridor approach”. This implies that from 2013 onwards, for ANSPs operating under a “defined benefits” pension scheme, any actuarial gains and losses arising from a change in actuarial assumptions will have to be reported in the Balance Sheet financial statements. For those ANSPs, which in the past applied the “corridor approach” to reduce the impact of the changes in actuarial assumptions on ANS charges, the revision of IAS 19 will already affect 2013 costs.
Several ANSPs, like Austro Control and DFS have explicitly flagged this issue as they would be significantly impacted by the implementation of the amended IFRS 19. This issue requires the utmost attention given the long term consequences of pensions‐related decisions and their magnitude in the cost bases and impact on chargeable unit rates.
Lower Airspace
Difference in actual and planned (ACE 2011) capex for 2012< -50%
< -25%
< 0%
>= 0%
> 50%
Data not available
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 33 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
There is a wide range in unit support costs among ANSPs, i.e. a factor greater than four in 2012. When computed at FAB level, differences are becoming less marked since unit support costs range from €356 for the Danube FAB to €212 for the Baltic FAB.
At Pan‐European system level, support costs per composite flight‐hour amount to €310 in 2012. Figure 2.26 shows that the level of unit support costs varies significantly across ANSPs – a factor greater than four between Belgocontrol which has the highest support cost per composite flight‐hour in 2012 (€532) and EANS (€121).
Figure 2.26: Support costs per composite flight‐hour at ANSP level20, 2012
Figure 2.26 indicates that there are significant differences in the composition of support costs amongst the 37 ANSPs, and in particular in the proportion of employment costs (blue bar) and non‐staff operating costs (orange bar). The choice between providing some important operational support functions internally or externally has clearly an impact on the proportion of support costs that is classified as employment costs, non‐staff operating costs, or capital‐related costs. In some cases, the maintenance of ATM systems is outsourced and the corresponding costs are reported as non‐staff operating costs. For other ANSPs, these activities are rather carried out by internal staff and the relating costs appear as employment costs or as capital‐related costs when, according to IFRS, the employment costs of staff working on R&D projects can be capitalised in the balance‐sheet.
More details on the level and changes in support costs for individual ANSPs are provided in Part II of this Report.
Figure 2.27 shows the unit support costs computed at FAB level21. ANSPs which are not participating to the ACE 2012 data analysis or not formally part of a FAB initiative are not included in Figure 2.27.
20 It should be noted that the cost of capital reported by ANS CR in its ACE 2012 data submissions is higher than the costs charged to airspace users. Indeed, ANS CR did not charge any cost of capital to terminal ANS users.
532
487484 479
405397397385383
353 348
327325 321319317 315314313301 294287 286264253 242238237
233202200197192187
156151121
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Belgocontrol
LPS
Skyguide
UkSATSE
LVNL
NATA
Albania
ROMATSA
DFS
MoldATSA
ARMATS
ANS CR
ENAV
HungaroControl
Slovenia Control
Austro Control
Aen
a
M‐NAV
DSN
A
NATS (Continen
tal)
LFV
NAVIAIR
BULATSA
Oro Navigacija
SMATSA
IAA
Croatia Control
DHMI
Avinor (Continen
tal)
Finavia
PANSA LGS
HCAA
NAV Portugal (Continen
tal)
DCAC Cyprus
MATS
MUAC
EANS
€per composite flight‐hour
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) per composite flight‐hour Non‐staff operating costs per composite flight‐hour
Capital‐related costs per composite flight‐hour Exceptional costs per composite flight‐hour
385327 317 314 313
0
100
200
300
400
DFS
ENAV
Aena
DSN
A
NATS
(Continental)
European system average: €310
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 34 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Figure 2.27: Support costs per composite flight‐hour at FAB level, 2012
When computed at FAB level, unit support costs range from €356 for the Danube FAB to €212 for the Baltic FAB, a much lower dispersion than when unit support costs are computed at ANSP level. The Danube FAB (€356), FABEC (€346) and the FAB CE (€325) show unit support costs above the Pan‐European system average (€310).
It should be noted that some 15% of Danube FAB unit support costs relate to exceptional costs associated with employee benefits borne by ROMATSA in 2012. Excluding those exceptional costs, the unit support costs of Danube FAB would amount to €303.
FABEC ANSPs show the second highest unit support costs in 2012 (€346). There is a very wide range in terms of unit support costs within FABEC (from €532 for Belgocontrol to €151 for MUAC22). This reflects a variety of situations with very large ANSPs and smaller ones, some of which exclusively operate in lower airspace (Belgocontrol and LVNL).
The unit support costs for FAB CE amount to €325 which is higher than the UK‐Ireland FAB (€304) and DK‐SE FAB (€299) despite the fact that the cost of living within the FAB CE area tends to be lower than in the UK‐Ireland FAB and the DK‐SE FAB. For instance, Figure 2.26 indicates that for ANSPs part of FAB CE (LPS (€487), ANS CR (€348), HungaroControl (€325) and Slovenia Control (€321)), unit support costs are higher than those of Aena (€317), DSNA (€314), NATS (€313) and NAVIAIR (€294). Further analysis would be required to understand the main drivers underlying these differences.
Support costs amount to 70% of total ATM/CNS provision costs. Effective management of these costs has therefore a major impact on ANSPs cost‐effectiveness performance. In this context, initiatives towards joint procurement and maintenance of ATM infrastructure as well as the rationalisation of investment programmes within FABs are encouraged. For instance, reducing the unit support costs of the Pan‐European system (€310) by some 10% to reach a level in line with that of the Blue Med FAB would generate savings of some €560M.
21 The unit support costs at FAB level displayed in Figure 2.27 are obtained by summing the support costs of all the ANSPs that are part of the FAB initiative and dividing them by the corresponding total number of composite flight‐hours. The result of this computation is the weighted average of ANSPs unit support costs at FAB level. 22 It should also be noted that MUAC support costs do not include the costs relating to the infrastructure which is made available for joint use and provided free of charges by the ANSPs operating in the Four States airspace.
356346
325304 299 296
279
222212
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Danube FA
B
FABEC
FAB CE
UK‐Ireland FAB
DK‐SE FA
B
SW FAB
BLU
E MED
FAB
NEFAB
Baltic FA
B
€per composite flight‐hour
Exceptional costs per composite flight‐hour Capital‐related costs per composite flight‐hour
Non‐staff operating costs per composite flight‐hour Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) per composite flight‐hour
European system average: €310
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 35 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
After an increase of +1.7% in 2012, unit ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to slightly decrease until 2017 (‐0.8% p.a.).
At European system level, after the +1.7% increase in 2012, gate‐to‐gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to further rise by +2.8% in 2013 and then to decrease by ‐2.9% in 2014. As a result, gate‐to‐gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are expected to remain fairly constant between 2012 and 2014.
Gate‐to‐gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are then expected to increase in 2015 (+0.8%) and to decrease in 2016 (‐1.9%) and 2017 (‐2.6%). Overall, unit costs are planned to decrease by ‐0.8% p.a. over 2012‐2017.
Figure 2.28: Forward‐looking cost‐effectiveness at European system level (2012‐2017, real terms)
For most of the ANSPs, the planned en‐route costs data reported in their ACE 2012 data submission are based on the information provided in June 2013 in the context of the Enlarged Committee for Route Charges. The en‐route determined costs provided in the RP2 Performance Plans which will be submitted end of June 2014 are likely to be based on different planning assumptions.
In 2012, ANSPs capital expenditures amounted to some €1 075M. The right hand‐side of Figure 2.29 compares the capex planned in ACE 2011 with the plans provided in ACE 2012 for the ANSPs that consistently reported forward‐looking figures over this period23. Figure 2.29 shows that 2012 actual capital expenditures are ‐16% lower than planned in ACE 2011 for 2012. This mainly reflects the postponement of non‐crucial investment projects to future years, in particular 2015 and 2016.
Figure 2.29: Forward‐looking capital expenditures at Pan‐European system level (2009‐2016, real terms)
Overall, the cumulative capex planned for the period 2013‐2016 amounts to some €4 488M and represents 50% of the 2012 total ANS revenues. A significant proportion of these investments relate to major upgrades or to the replacement of existing ATM systems.
Additional details on the nature of the major investment projects for each ANSPs are provided in Part II of this Report.
23 Note that the decreases in planned capex and depreciation costs observed in 2015 are due to the fact that Aena and HCAA did not provide complete forward‐looking data in their ACE 2012 data submissions.
+2.8% ‐2.9% +0.8% ‐1.9% ‐2.6%
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2012 2013P 2014P 2015P 2016P 2017P
Index of costs and traffic
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour ATM/CNS provision costs index Composite flight‐hours index
‐18%
‐10% +2% +4%+4%
‐4%‐6%
+1% ‐1%‐3%
+23% ‐1%
‐16% +2%
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
0
300
600
900
1 200
1 500
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
‐16.5% ‐9.2%
‐3.5% +3.6%+3.4%
600
700
800
900
1 000
1 100
1 200
1 300
1 400
2012 2013P 2014P 2015P 2016P
Gate‐to‐gate capex (M
€)
Planned capex (ACE 2011) Planned capex (ACE 2012)
Pan‐European system cost‐effectiveness performance in 2012 with 2013‐17 outlook 36 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 37 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
PART II: COST‐EFFECTIVENESS PERFORMANCE FOCUS AT ANSP LEVEL
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 38 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 39 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
3 FOCUS ON ANSPS INDIVIDUAL COST‐EFFECTIVENESS PERFORMANCE
3.1 Objective of this chapter
This chapter comprises two pagers for each ANSP participating to the ACE 2012 analysis. These two pagers include an analysis of the historical development of the financial cost‐effectiveness indicator and its main components over the 2009‐2014 period. Individual ANSP cost‐effectiveness performance is also examined in the context of a group of ANSPs which operate in relatively similar operational and economic environments (comparator groups). Finally, these two pagers comprise historical information and projections about capital expenditures provided by each ANSP.
This chapter should provide useful insights and information to NSAs for the drawing up of the performance plans for RP2 during the first half of 2014.
3.2 Historical development of cost‐effectiveness performance, 2009‐2012
The first page presents, for each ANSP, an assessment of its cost‐effectiveness performance, and how it has developed over the four‐year period 2009‐2012. It examines the overall economic cost‐effectiveness indicator and its two components (ATM/CNS costs per composite flight‐hour, ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour), and their evolution over the period (top left). It puts these in the context of the traffic growth observed in the ANSP’s airspace (top right). In this page, financial data are all expressed in real terms (2012 prices).
Developments in the components of financial cost‐effectiveness (ATCO‐hour productivity, ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour, and support costs per composite flight‐hour) are also examined (middle left), to help understand the underlying causes of changes in overall cost‐effectiveness.
The charts on the middle right provide additional information in order to better understand the drivers behind the changes in the three components of financial cost‐effectiveness. First, the changes in ATCO‐hour productivity are examined in the light of changes in composite flight‐hours, number of FTE ATCOs in OPS and corresponding hours on duty. A second chart focuses on the changes in ATCO‐hours on duty, and in particular on overtime hours. The third chart presents the changes in support costs are broken down into employment costs of staff other than ATCOs in OPS; non‐staff operating costs; capital‐related costs (depreciation and the cost of capital); and exceptional items, where present.
The bottom set of graphs examine how the changes in the components over the whole period contribute to the change in the overall financial cost‐effectiveness indicator. The left‐hand graphs relate to ATCOs in OPS; the right‐hand graphs to other elements of cost (“support costs”). The left‐hand graphs show how the change in ATCO productivity combines with the change in unit ATCO employment costs to make a change in ATCO employment costs per unit output. The right‐hand graphs show how the change in support costs combines with traffic growth to make a change in support costs per composite flight‐hour. The relative contribution of these two effects to the change in the financial cost‐effectiveness indicator depends on the relative weight of ATCO employment costs, on the one hand, and support costs, on the other, in the overall ATM/CNS provision cost.
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 40 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
3.3 ANSP’s cost‐effectiveness within the comparator group, 2009‐2012
The top charts of the second page present the financial cost‐effectiveness indicator and its main components for individual ANSPs in comparison with their respective comparator group. The approach is to consider each ANSP in the context of a group of other ANSPs (comparators) which operate in relatively similar operational and economic environments.
The chart on the top‐left shows the level and changes in unit ATM/CNS provision costs over the 2009‐2012 period for each ANSP part of the comparator group. The chart on the top‐right shows for each ANSP the deviations in unit ATM/CNS provision costs, ATCO‐hour productivity, employment costs per ATCO‐hour and unit support costs from the average of the comparator group at the start (2009) and at the end (2012) of the period considered.
The ANSP comparator groups used for the benchmarking analysis are presented in the table below. These comparator groups were determined for the purposes of the RP2 cost‐efficiency target‐setting process using a two‐step approach combining the use of statistical tools (cluster analysis) with expert judgement. For a full description of the process, methodology and results see Annex I.C of the PRB report on RP2 EU‐Wide Targets Ranges24 released in May 2013.
Nine groups of comparators have been identified, some comprising a relatively large number of ANSPs and others only comprising two organisations. Due to the unique nature of its airspace (upper airspace only, across four States), it was determined that Maastricht (MUAC) should be considered separately and therefore this ANSP was not included in the comparator group benchmarking analysis. Finally, two groups have been designed for the ANSPs not operating in SES States. It should be noted that the names of these groups have been chosen for mnemonic purposes only.
24 This document is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/media/consultations/doc/2013‐07‐03‐sesrp2/report.pdf.
The presentation of financial time‐series data
Presentation and comparison of historical series of financial data from different countries poses problems, especially when different currencies are involved, and inflation rates differ. There is a danger that time‐series comparisons can be distorted by transient variations in exchange rates which happened to be particularly the case in 2009 in the wake of the financial crisis. In this chapter, the focus is on the historical development of financial performance indicators in a given ANSP.
For this reason, the following approach has been adopted for allowing for inflation and exchange rate variation. The financial elements of performance are assessed, for each year, in national currency. They are then converted to national currency in 2012 prices using national inflation rates. Finally, for comparison purposes in 2012, all national currencies are converted to euros using the 2012 exchange rate.
This approach has the virtue that an ANSP’s performance time series is not distorted by transient changes in exchange rates over the period. It does mean, however, that the performance figures for any ANSP in a given year prior to 2012 are not the same as the figures in that year’s ACE report, and cannot legitimately be compared with another ANSP’s figures for the same year. Cross‐sectional comparison using the figures in this report is only appropriate for 2012 data.
The historical inflation figures used in this analysis were obtained from EUROSTAT or from the International Monetary Fund. For the projections, the ANSPs’ own assumptions concerning inflation rates were used. Details of the monetary parameters used for 2012 are given in Annex 6 to this report.
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 41 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Comparator Groups Members
Five Largest
Aena
DFS
DSNA
ENAV
NATS (Continental)
Central Europe
ANS CR
HungaroControl
LPS
Slovenia Control
Croatia Control
PANSA
South Eastern Europe
HCAA
BULATSA
ROMATSA
South Med DCAC Cyprus
MATS
Western Europe
Austro Control
NAVIAIR
Skyguide
Atlantic NAV Portugal (Continental)
IAA
Baltic States
EANS
LGS
Oro Navigacija
Nordic States
Avinor (Continental)
LFV
Finavia
BelNed Belgocontrol
LVNL
Non‐SES 1 DHMI
UkSATSE
Non‐SES 2
ARMATS
M‐NAV
MoldATSA
NATA Albania
SMATSA
Table 3.1: ANSPs comparator groups
3.4 Historical and forward‐looking information on capital investment projects
The charts which are displayed in the middle and the bottom of the second page provide historical information and projections about capital expenditures provided by each ANSP.
The chart on the middle of the page shows the historical and planned evolution of capital expenditure and depreciation, highlighting the ANSP’s investment cycles and their magnitude, across time. The ratio of these quantities (usually greater than one) is an indication of the rate at which the overall asset base is being expanded.
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 42 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Finally, two tables present information on the nature of the main ANSP’s capex projects between 2006 and 2017. The first table provides a high‐level overview of the magnitude of capital expenditures by area (i.e. ATM, Communication, Surveillance, etc.) over the 2006‐2017 period and of the upgrade/replacement cycles of the main ATM systems for each ACC. The last table provides detailed information on the top 5 capex projects in monetary terms including the domain, the financial amount and the time period of the project.
3.5 Cost‐effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level
To facilitate the reading of this section, the table below displays the page number of the individual benchmarking analysis for each ANSP.
ANSP name Country Page
Aena Spain 44
ANS CR Czech Republic 46
ARMATS Armenia 48
Austro Control Austria 50
Avinor (Continental) Norway 52
Belgocontrol Belgium 54
BULATSA Bulgaria 56
Croatia Control Croatia 58
DCAC Cyprus Cyprus 60
DFS Germany 62
DHMİ Turkey 64
DSNA France 66
EANS Estonia 68
ENAV Italy 70
Finavia Finland 72
HCAA Greece 74
HungaroControl Hungary 76
IAA Ireland 78
LFV Sweden 80
LGS Latvia 82
LPS Slovak Republic 84
LVNL Netherlands 86
MATS Malta 88
M‐NAV F.Y.R. Macedonia 90
MoldATSA Moldova 92
MUAC 94
NATA Albania Albania 96
NATS (Continental) United Kingdom 98
NAV Portugal (Continental) Portugal 100
NAVIAIR Denmark 102
Oro Navigacija Lithuania 104
PANSA Poland 106
ROMATSA Romania 108
Skyguide Switzerland 110
Slovenia Control Slovenia 112
SMATSA Serbia and Montenegro 114
UkSATSE Ukraine 116
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 43 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 44 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Aena (Spain) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: Spain is within the EURO Zone
Aena represents 11.1% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€728 €543 €490 €521
€820€758
€655€577
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
‐23.2%
‐6.1%‐2.8%
+3.0% +3.9%
‐8.5%
‐23.4%‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
‐54.6%
+132.7%
‐65.8%
0.52 0.75 0.78 0.78
+44.7%+4.2% ‐0.3%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
‐13.3%‐6.4%
‐5.1%
€207 €180 €168 €160
0
50
100
150
200
250
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices) 1684
1608 1600 1595
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
1 900
2009 2010 2011 2012ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐7.7%‐9.3%
+14.9%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
+18.0%
‐32.3%
‐4.8%
+13.9%
‐60
‐40
‐20
0
20
40
60
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
‐69.0%
‐0.3%
‐5.1% ‐4.8%
+6.3%
+14.9%
+5.1%
‐8.5%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 41%
Weight 59%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 45 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Aena (Spain) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
Note that the capex provided by Aena for the purposes of the ACE 2012 benchmarking analysis only included information relating to the capex spent in 2012. Furthermore, the monetary amounts provided for the five main capex in 2012 only represents some 12% of the total capex spent during that year. Aena was not in a position to provide information on the five main capex projects planned for the 2013‐2017 period. It is expected that in future submissions, more comprehensive actual and planned capex information is provided by Aena for the purposes of the ACE benchmarking analysis.
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
Aena DFS DSNA ENAV NATS (Continental)
+39.4%
‐30.9%
+49.0%
‐2.3%
+7.7%
‐5.9%
+25.5%
‐4.1%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
0
40
80
120
160
200
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2006
(all ACCs)*
C: 2006
(all ACCs)*
C: 2006
(all ACCs)*
C: 2000 (All ACCs‐
TMA)
2002 (All ACCs‐En‐
route)*
2006
2007
2008
2009 Canarias, Palma
2010 All ACCs All ACCs All ACCs Barcelona
2011 Madrid, Sevilla
2012 All ACCs All ACCs All ACCs
2013
2014 All ACCs All ACCs All ACCs Canarias
2015 Madrid
2016
2017 Barcelona
NAV YearsOtherSUR BuildingATM COM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 46 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ANS CR (Czech Republic) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 25.102 CZK
ANS CR represents 1.4% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min Max
€454 €446 €446 €438
€520€489
€453 €440
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (201
2 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+0.7% +1.2%
‐6.6%
+2.5% +1.1%
‐4.9%
‐35.2% ‐83.9% ‐77.9%‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
0.94 0.94 0.93 0.89
+0.3% ‐1.1%‐3.9%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
98
100
102
104
106
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+8.6% +0.4%
‐12.6%
€85 €92 €93 €81
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices) 1523 1541 1534 1495
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
2009 2010 2011 2012ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐4.4% ‐0.3% +0.3%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
+1.5%
‐13.8%
‐23.8%
+35.4%
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
‐3.9%
‐12.6%‐9.0%
‐1.8%
+0.3%
‐4.6% ‐4.9%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 22%
Weight 78%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 47 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ANS CR (Czech Republic) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
ANS CR Croatia Control HungaroControl
LPS PANSA Slovenia Control
+15.0%
+22.0%
+10.7%
+23.2%
+12.4% +11.1%
‐6.9%
+23.4%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1994* C: 2000* C: 2007* C: 2007*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Building YearsOtherSUR
€5.1M €22.0M
€2.9M
ATM COM NAV
€102.0M
(2008‐2019)
€15.4M
(2011‐2019)
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1Replacement of RDP and FDP systems in Praha ACC
(Neopteryx)ATM 48.1 2011 2019
2 Upgrade of RDP and FDP systems ATM 38.0 2010 2016
3“TB 2007” Project involving the complete renovation of the
“Technical Block Building” at Prague airport Buildings 13.0 2008 2011
4Replacement of radio communication equipment and
Replacement of VCS COM 10.3 2012 2017
5 Building of the security centre in Ostrava airport Buildings 5.9 2011 2015
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 48 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ARMATS (Armenia) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 515.287 AMD
ARMATS represents 0.1% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score:
Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min Max
€446 €413 €368 €409
€446€413
€368€409
0
100
200
300
400
500
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+2.3%
‐0.9%
+8.5%+10.4%
+11.4%
‐2.5%
‐15%
‐5%
5%
15%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hours
0.12 0.14 0.19 0.19
+20.6%
+38.3% ‐1.7%
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
2009 2010 2011 2012Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+37.1%
+45.0%
‐17.5%
€7 €9 €13 €11
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
1479 1478 1480 1468
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐10.4%
‐13.9%
+17.4%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
+20.9%
‐4.1%
+12.2%
+1.8%
‐0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
The percentage variation is not
applicable since no exceptional costs were recorded in
2012
‐1.7%
‐17.5% ‐16.1%
+11.3%+17.4% +14.4%
‐2.5%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 16%
Weight 84%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 49 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ARMATS (Armenia) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
300
350
400
450
500
550
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
ARMATS M‐NAV MoldATSA NATA Albania SMATSA
+22.1%
‐74.8% ‐77.1%
+28.4%
+11.4%
‐62.0%‐69.2%
+18.4%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.7
1.4
2.1
2.8
3.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2000 C: 2000 C: 2000 C: 2000
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
€0.2M 2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Years
€4.2M
SUR Building Other
€1.2M
COM
€1.3M
NAV
€3.7M
ATM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1Modernisation of ATC centre / ATC automated system,
VCSS ATM 2.4 2012 2013
2 Modernisation of secondary en‐route radar TRLK‐11 SUR 1.8 2011 2012
3 Acquisition of a monopulse radar SUR 1.6 2016 2017
4 Modernisation of P3D system ATM 1.0 2014 2015
5 Replacement of the en‐route radar antenna SUR 0.9 2015 2016
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 50 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Austro Control (Austria) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: Austria is within the EURO Zone
Austro Control represents 2.3% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min Max
€463 €473 €481 €489
€713
€791
€569 €550
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+1.6% +1.6%
‐1.2%‐0.5% ‐0.2%‐2.9%
+27.3%
‐72.3% ‐30.3%‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
‐54.6%
0.95 0.96 0.94 0.94
+1.3% ‐2.0% ‐0.5%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
90
95
100
105
110
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
‐1.9% +1.5% ‐0.3%
€161 €158 €160 €160
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
15361486 1486
1389
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
+5.2% +0.7% +2.5%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
+4.3%
+16.2%
‐6.3%
+15.1%
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
4
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
‐0.5% ‐0.3%
+0.2%+1.7% +2.5%
‐0.5%
‐2.9%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 35%
Weight 65%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 51 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Austro Control (Austria) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
Austro Control NAVIAIR Skyguide
‐9.5%
‐4.5%
+16.6%
‐21.3%
‐7.0%‐4.7%
+11.0%
‐16.1%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1986* C: 1986* C: 1986* C: 1996*
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
€4.3M 2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Years
€108.4M
Other
€13.6M
BuildingSUR
€10.9M
NAV
€5.2M
COMATM
€36.1M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 Commissioning of the ATM System New Generation ATM 36.1 2010 2015
2 Construction of the new tower in Salzburg (LOWS) airport Building 13.6 2010 2013
3 Expenditures in Surveillance infrastructure SUR 6.7 2011 2015
4 Expenditures in Navigation NAV 5.2 2011 2015
5 Communication COM 4.3 2013 2013
6 Other capex Other 108.4 2011 2015
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 52 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Avinor Continental (Norway) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 7.474 NOK
Avinor Continental represents 2.6% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€414 €429 €401 €393
€435 €442 €439 €446
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+5.3%+0.1% +2.4%+1.6%
+7.3%+4.5%
‐36.1%
+194.1% +39.8%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
0.78 0.75 0.79 0.84
‐3.4%+4.7%
+6.1%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
95
100
105
110
115
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+13.7% +3.1%+7.7%
€104 €118 €121 €131
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
1668 1684 16341573
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
1 900
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐3.1%‐9.6% ‐4.1%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
+7.4%
‐22.8%
‐0.5%
+13.6%
‐12
‐8
‐4
0
4
8
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
+6.1% +7.7%
+1.5%
‐1.9%‐4.1%
+0.2%
+4.5%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 39%
Weight 61%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 53 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Avinor Continental (Norway) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
300
350
400
450
500
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
Avinor (Continental) Finavia LFV
+4.6%
+12.6% +11.3%+7.5%
‐3.9%
+15.8%
+25.3%
‐10.5%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.8
1.6
2.4
3.2
4.0
4.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1996 (Oslo)
2004 (Stav.)
2008 (Bodo)*
C: 1996 (Oslo)
2004 (Stav.)
2008 (Bodo)*
C: 2007 (Bodo)
2009 (Oslo)*
2006
2007 Bodo
2008 Bodo Bodo
2009 Oslo Oslo Oslo
2010
2011
2012 Stavanger Stavanger Oslo
2013 Bodo
2014 Stavanger
2015
2016
2017
YearsBuilding Other
€37.6M
(2010‐2018)
ATM COM NAV SUR
€176.9M
(2008‐2024)
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 Replacement of ATM systems ATM 111.7 2012 2021
2
RVT (Remote and Virtual Towers, will replace the
traditional ATC/AFIS TWR with a remotely operated
solution)
ATM 27.7 2015 2024
3NORWAM (Replace existing radars with WAM and ADS‐B
technology)SUR 26.6 2013 2018
4 SNAP (Southern Norway Airspace Project) project ATM 17.2 2008 2014
5
TCI (Target Concept Implementation, will extend life of
existing ATM system and implement government
requirements related to Datalink and Free Route Air
Space)
ATM 15.9 2013 2016
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 54 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Belgocontrol (Belgium) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: Belgium is within the EURO Zone
Belgocontrol represents 1.9% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min Max
€797 €767 €716 €732
€923 €897
€766 €771
0
200
400
600
800
1 000
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
‐4.0%‐1.4% ‐2.5%
‐0.2%
+5.6%
‐4.6%
+2.9%
‐61.4%‐22.4%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
0.68 0.70 0.70 0.68
+2.4% +1.1%‐4.0%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
96
98
100
102
104
106
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+0.8%‐3.7% +0.8%
€138 €139 €134 €135
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices) 1391
13321388 1377
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐4.6%‐7.2% +1.2%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
‐11.6%
‐12.0%‐3.2%
+96.4%
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
‐99.5%
‐4.0%
+0.8%
+5.1%+2.2% +1.2%
‐3.5% ‐4.6%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 27%
Weight 73%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 55 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Belgocontrol (Belgium) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
Belgocontrol LVNL
+5.5%
‐14.3%
+2.3% +1.4%
+12.8%
‐13.9%‐9.5%
+16.0%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2009* C: 2003* C: 2009* C: 2008‐2009*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
€13.5M
NAV
€2.4M
€10.4M
(2010‐2018)
ATM
€27.8M
COM OtherSUR Building Years
(2008‐2009)
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 Canac 2 A/S RFC ATM 13.1 2011 2017
2 Replacement and overhaul of VOR and DME equipment NAV 7.3 2010 2018
3 Purchase of PSR/Mode S radars SUR 6.5 2010 2012
4Replacement and upgrade of approach radars at Charleroi
(EBCI) airport SUR 5.6 2010 2013
5Replacement and upgrade of approach radars at Ostende
(EBOS) airport SUR 5.4 2010 2012
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 56 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
BULATSA (Bulgaria) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 1.955 BGN
BULATSA represents 0.9% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€451 €407 €375 €371
€451€407
€388 €373
0
100
200
300
400
500
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
‐7.5%
‐1.5% ‐3.3%
+2.4%+7.0%
‐2.4%
+0.0%
+0.0%
‐89.8%‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
0.65 0.75 0.74 0.66
+14.7% ‐1.6%
‐10.4%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
88
92
96
100
104
108
112
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
‐2.3% ‐2.3%+5.3%
€55 €54 €53 €55
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices) 1320 1306 1287 1288
500
650
800
950
1 100
1 250
1 400
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐8.5%‐9.5%
‐5.3%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
‐1.9%
‐18.9%
‐29.7% ‐35.9%‐5
‐4
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
‐10.4%
+5.3%
+17.6%
‐0.9%‐5.3% ‐7.6%
‐2.4%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 21%
Weight 79%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 57 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
BULATSA (Bulgaria) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
BULATSA HCAA ROMATSA
+4.4%
+13.9%
‐18.9%
+16.9%
‐2.9%
+0.3%
‐19.2%
+3.2%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0
4
8
12
16
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2005* C: 2005* C: 2005* C: 2003*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
YearsOtherCOM
€8.7M
ATM SURNAV Building
€9.4M€19.6M
€6.1M €4.0M €1.2M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 New en‐route PSR and MSSRs SUR 10.2 2011 2012
2 Extension and upgrade of the SACTAS system ATM 8.7 2009 2015
3 New tower at Sofia airport and its adjacent structure Building 8.1 2009 2013
4 New TMA PSR and MSSR at Sofia Airport SUR 4.1 2011 2012
5 A‐SMGCS at Sofia airport SUR 4.1 2011 2012
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 58 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Croatia Control (Croatia) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 7.515 HRK
Croatia Control represents 1.0% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€350 €347 €365 €363
€475
€543
€466
€414
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+5.4%
+11.8%
‐1.1%
+6.5% +6.3%
‐0.6%
+58.0%
‐48.3% ‐49.5%‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
0.63 0.64 0.67 0.67
+0.8%+4.7% +1.0%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
95
100
105
110
115
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+6.0%
+23.3%‐4.2%
€65 €69 €85 €81
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices) 1383 1384 1404 1394
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐3.6% ‐0.5% +2.0%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
+10.7%
‐9.8%
+26.7%
+48.2%
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
+1.0%
‐4.2% ‐5.2%
‐0.5%
+2.0% +1.4%
‐0.6%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 34%
Weight 66%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 59 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Croatia Control (Croatia) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
ANS CR Croatia Control HungaroControl
LPS PANSA Slovenia Control
‐11.3%
‐18.0%
‐15.2%‐16.2%
‐6.9%
‐16.4%
‐6.4%
‐14.2%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2005* 2005* C: 2005* C: 2005*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
€2.3M€3.3M
ATM BuildingCOM SURNAV Other
€47.6M
€3.9M
Years
€3.4M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 CroATMS/COOPANS Upgrade ATM 35.1 2011 2014
2CroATM (FMTP) Upgrade and Extension to Regional ATC
Centres‐Phase 1ATM 8.1 2009 2011
3 Modernisation and Replacement of VCCs and Redundant VCSs ATM 4.4 2011 2015
4 Pleso Radar Station construction SUR 3.9 2009 2011
5 Replacement and upgrade of the NAV Systems NAV 3.4 2008 2014
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 60 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
DCAC Cyprus (Cyprus) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: Cyprus is within the EURO Zone
DCAC Cyprus represents 0.5% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€323 €294 €258 €265
€712
€874
€521 €529
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
‐2.7%
‐12.5%
+0.1%
+7.0%
‐0.2%‐2.8%
+49.2%
‐54.6%
+0.1%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
‐54.6%‐72.3%
0.76 0.78 0.72 0.84
+2.8%‐7.7%
+16.6%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
80
90
100
110
120
130
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+0.3%
+15.9%
+17.4%
€48 €49 €56 €66
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices) 2675 2697
2457
2024
500
1 000
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐10.6%
‐22.5% +4.0%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
‐32.3%
‐21.5%
‐8.4%
‐50.2%
‐5
‐4
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
+16.6% +17.4%
+0.7%+3.0% +4.0%
+1.0%
‐2.8%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 30%
Weight 70%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 61 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
DCAC Cyprus (Cyprus) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
DCAC Cyprus MATS
+2.2%
+15.9%
+22.7%
+1.3%
+9.9%+8.2%
+31.3%
+5.7%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
0
2
4
6
8
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2000* C: 2000* C: 1998*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
YearsOtherNAV
€23.8M
(2003‐2013)
€1.6M
€4.6M
Building
€8.9M
COM SUR
€7.9M
ATM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1Implementation of new ATM systems and purchase of new
equipment in Nicosia ACC (LEFCO)ATM 20.5 2003 2010
2 New Air Traffic Control Building in Nicosia Building 8.9 2006 2010
3 Replacement of VHF/UHF Radios COM 3.0 2011 2013
4 New SSR Radars in Lara and Pafos SUR 2.8 2013 2014
5 Committment of new ground to air Tx/Rx COM 2.4 2012 2014
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 62 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
DFS (Germany) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: Germany is within the EURO Zone
DFS represents 13.1% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€504 €484 €510 €552
€650
€740€691
€650
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
‐2.3%
+8.7%+5.6%
+1.6% +3.3%
‐2.5%
+74.2%
‐29.0% ‐45.9%‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
1.00 1.03 1.03 1.03
+2.7% +0.3% +0.1%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
98
100
102
104
106
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+5.1%+3.3%
+9.7%
€145 €152 €157 €172
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices) 1134 1129 1143
1079
500
600
700
800
900
1 000
1 100
1 200
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐6.3%+6.2%
+7.8%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
+33.7%
‐6.0% ‐11.2% ‐13.1%
‐40
0
40
80
120
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
‐9.5%
+0.1%
+9.7% +9.6% +8.3% +7.8%+5.1%
‐2.5%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 30%
Weight 70%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 63 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
DFS (Germany) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
Aena DFS DSNA ENAV NATS (Continental)
‐3.6%
+32.9%
+4.1%+6.4%
+14.1%
+24.0%
+35.5%
+16.4%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0
40
80
120
160
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2011 (Karl.)
2004 (Bremen)
1999 (Langen)
1999 (München)*
C: 2011 (Karl.)
2004 (Bremen)
1999 (Langen)
1999 (München)*
C: 2011 (Karl.)
2004 (Bremen)
1999 (Langen)
1999 (München)*
C: 2009 (Karl.)
2003 (Bremen)
2002 (Langen)
2002 (München)*
2006 Karlsruhe
2007
2008Bremen, Langen,
MünchenLangen
2009 Karlsruhe
2010 Bremen
2011 Karlsruhe Karlsruhe Karlsruhe
2012 München
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Building Years
Langen
(2012‐2013)
München
(2013‐2014)
€36.3M
Langen (2015‐2016)
München (2016‐2017)
Bremen (2017‐2018)
Langen (2015‐2016)
München (2016‐2017)
Bremen (2017‐2018)
€114.2M
(2007‐2020)
ATM Other
€298.9M
(2004‐2020)
€77.2M
(2006‐2020)
Langen (2015‐2016)
München (2016‐2017)
Bremen (2017‐2018)
NAV SUR
€179.3M
(2002‐2018)
COM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 Programme iCAS ATM 159.3 2006 2020
2 P2 ATCAS Rehosting ATM 75.2 2007 2019
3 Rasum 8.33 kHz COM 68.8 2007 2020
4 Technikzentrum Campus Langen Buildings 58.2 2009 2016
5 Extension of München ACC Buildings 52.8 2008 2014
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 64 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
DHMI (Turkey) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 2.313 TRY
DHMI represents 4.4% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€318 €274 €312 €293
€416
€354 €365€338
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
‐1.7%
+27.1%
‐1.2%
+14.1% +11.7%
+5.1%
‐18.3%
‐32.6%
‐17.0%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
0.63 0.74 0.81 0.89
+18.4%+8.4%
+11.1%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
90
100
110
120
130
140
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+25.4%
+38.0%+4.5%
€27 €34 €47 €49
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
1858
16371561
1376
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
1 900
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐17.0%+11.1%
‐5.9%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
+50.6%
+13.9%
+7.1%
‐20.9%
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
30
40
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
+11.1%
+4.5%
‐6.0% ‐5.9% ‐5.9%‐1.2%
+5.1%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 19%
Weight 81%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 65 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
DHMI (Turkey) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
DHMI UkSATSE
‐13.2%
+29.7% +28.1%
‐14.9%‐19.9%
+43.5%
+24.3%
‐21.3%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.6
4.2
4.8
5.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2008 (All ACCs)* C: 2008 (All ACCs)* C: 2008 (All ACCs)* C: 2005 (All ACCs)*
2006
2007
2008 All ACCs All ACCs All ACCs
2009
2010
2011 Ankara
2012 All ACCs All ACCs All ACCs Istanbul
2013
2014 All ACCs All ACCs All ACCs All ACCs
2015
2016
2017
YearsOther
€40.6M
SUR
€93.3M€105.5M€93.4M
COM BuildingATM
€15.8M
NAV
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1Replacement of existing radars and procurement of
additional radarsSUR 44.3 2008 2014
2 ATC training complex Building 43.2 2011 2016
3
Purchase of new Radar Data Processing and Flight Data
Processing systems, new Human Machine Interface and
Controller Working Positions
ATM 41.4 2009 2013
4Air navigation communication and terminal systems
periodic modernisationCOM 40.6 2010 2015
5 Central Ankara ACC and ATC Complexes ATM 38.6 2008 2014
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 66 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
DSNA (France) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: France is within the EURO Zone
DSNA represents 14.5% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€454 €461 €446 €443
€494
€721
€507 €510
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+0.3%
‐0.7% ‐1.4%‐1.3%
+2.6%
‐0.8%
+553.4%
‐76.4%
+8.1%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
0.75 0.73 0.74 0.76
‐2.1% +1.2% +1.8%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
‐1.9% ‐1.0% +2.9%
€97 €96 €95 €97
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices) 1304 1304 1304
1258
500
650
800
950
1 100
1 250
1 400
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
+2.2% ‐3.7% ‐1.3%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
‐8.2%
+6.9%
+1.3%+15.5%
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
+1.8%+2.9%
+1.0%
‐0.6% ‐1.3% ‐2.0%‐0.8%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 29%
Weight 71%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 67 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
DSNA (France) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
Aena DFS DSNA ENAV NATS (Continental)
‐13.1%
‐0.6%
‐30.0%
‐4.1%
‐8.4% ‐9.2%
‐23.6%
‐5.0%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
0
40
80
120
160
200
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1982* C: 1982* C: 2000*
C: 2000 (Marseille)
2000/2003 (Brest)
2002/2005 (Reims)
2002/2006 (Paris)
2003 (Bordeaux)*
2006 Paris (2002/2006)
2007 All ACCs
2008
2009 All ACCs
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016Marseille,
Reims
Marseille,
Reims
Marseille,
Reims
2017 Paris Paris Paris
Building Years
€50.0M
(2012‐2017)
**The amount provided under "Other" (i.e. €50.0M) relates to the new airport Notre
Dame de Landes in Nantes and includes capex relating to ATM C/N/S and building
Other**SURATM
€780M‐
€805M
(2003‐2021)
€142.0M
(2005‐2016)
NAVCOM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 4FLIGHT, including COFLIGHT (EFDP) and ERATO (MTCD) ATM 705.0 2003 2019
2 SYSAT: New ATM system for APP and TWR operational units ATM 75‐100 2012 2021
3CSSIP: Renewal of LAN and WAN to use IP standard
(integrates the former project ISOCRATE)COM 92.0 2005 2015
4 Notre Dame Des Landes (New airport for Nantes) Other 50.0 2012 2017
5 VCS : Voice Communication Systems (FABEC cooperation) COM 50.0 2012 2016
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 68 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
EANS (Estonia) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: Estonia is within the EURO Zone
EANS represents 0.2% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€183 €189 €182 €174
€184€195 €187 €196
0
50
100
150
200
250
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+6.3%+11.6%
+3.5%+3.2%
+15.5%
+8.5%
+879.8%
‐28.0%
+359.5%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
0.97 0.90 0.76 1.01
‐6.8%
‐15.4%
+32.8%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
‐3.7%‐9.6%
+35.1%
€45 €44 €39 €53
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
1680 1680 1680 1671
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
1 900
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
+2.9%‐6.9%
‐7.2%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
+28.4%
+24.5%
‐13.2%
+15.9%
‐0.50
‐0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
+32.8% +35.1%
+1.8%
‐4.6% ‐7.2%
+0.7%+8.5%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 29%
Weight 71%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 69 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
EANS (Estonia) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
EANS LGS Oro Navigacija
‐34.2%
+59.6%
+36.0%
‐39.0%‐31.6%
+36.5%+24.8%
‐38.3%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2012* C: 2002* C: 2012* C: 2012*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Years
€2.5M
Other
€0.2M
SUR
€9.0M
ATM COM
€2.9M
BuildingNAV
€2.7M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1Replacement EUROCAT ATM system in Tallinn ACC
(including new ATCO HMI)ATM 8.0 2009 2012
2 Expenses in Surveillance* SUR 2.9 2011 2015
3
Communication*, including:
‐ €0.3M capex related to the new VCS
‐ €0.5M implementation of Aeronautical Message Handling
System (AMHS)
COM 2.7 2010 2015
4 Expenses in Navigation* NAV 1.5 2012 2015
5 New Tallinn TWR ATM system ATM 1.0 2009 2010
*Source: Estonia National Performance Plan (NPP, June 2011).
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 70 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ENAV (Italy) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: Italy is within the EURO Zone
ENAV represents 7.9% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max
€486 €471 €483 €483
€509€485 €494 €489
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+0.7% +2.1%
‐4.5%
+4.0%
‐0.4%‐4.4%
‐38.9%‐21.3%
‐37.8%‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
0.69 0.75 0.72 0.69
+8.2%‐3.5%
‐4.2%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
90
95
100
105
110
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+4.1% +2.5% ‐1.8%
€103 €107 €110 €108
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
14501391 1358 1330
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐2.8% +0.9% ‐1.3%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
‐61.8%
‐8.8%
‐3.7%
+5.8%
‐13.7%
‐15
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
‐4.2%‐1.8%
+2.5%
‐0.1% ‐1.3%‐5.6% ‐4.4%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 32%
Weight 68%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 71 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ENAV (Italy) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
Aena DFS DSNA ENAV NATS (Continental)
‐6.9%‐8.3%
‐26.1%
+0.0%
‐0.2%
‐17.0% ‐15.4%
‐1.2%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1999
(All ACCs)*
C: 1999
(All ACCs)*
C: 1999
(All ACCs)*
C: 2000 (Roma)
2001 (Padova)
2005 (Brindisi, Mil.)*
2006 Roma
2007
2008Brindisi, Milano,
Padova
2009 Roma
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 All ACCs All ACCs All ACCs
2016
2017
NAV SUR
€200.8M€64.7M
ATM
€272.4M €87.5M €10.6M
BuildingCOM
€27.8M
YearsOther
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1
Development of an integrated platform for the
management of ATM procedures and aeronautical data
(program 4‐FLIGHT)
ATM 156.4 2009 2015
2 Realisation of civil infrastructures Building 146.8 2009 2015
3 Modernisation of the radio assistance equipment NAV 64.7 2009 2015
4 Automation of the operating system ATM 64.1 2009 2015
5 Implementation of the new airspace design system ATM 51.9 2009 2015
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 72 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Finavia (Finland) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: Finland is within the EURO Zone
Finavia represents 0.8% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€352 €346 €326 €349
€359 €359
€401€371
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
‐1.0%
+5.0%
‐2.0%
+0.5%
+11.6%
‐8.6%
+85.7% +502.4%
‐70.9%‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
0.61 0.65 0.68 0.63
+6.3%+3.9%
‐7.0%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
90
95
100
105
110
115
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+14.2%‐7.1% +0.7%
€68 €78 €73 €73
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
14801399
1496 1496
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐5.8% ‐3.5%+6.6%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
#DIV/0!‐11.3%
+27.0%
+7.6%
‐42.0%
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
4
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
‐7.0%
+0.7%+8.3% +7.2% +6.6%
‐2.5%‐8.6%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 33%
Weight 67%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 73 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Finavia (Finland) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
300
350
400
450
500
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
Avinor (Continental) Finavia LFV
‐11.2% ‐11.5%
‐26.4%
‐8.2%
‐14.5%‐12.9%
‐29.9%
‐11.9%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.8
1.6
2.4
3.2
4.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2012* C: 2012* C: 2012* C: 2009*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
YearsOther
€14.7M
NAV
€7.0M
BuildingSURATM COM
€6.8M
€4.5M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 Investments to Wide area multilateration technology SUR 7.8 2013 2015
2 ILS/DME renewal (all airports) NAV 7.0 2014 2017
3 VHF‐radiostations (8,33 kHz‐channel spacing) > FL195 COM 4.5 2015 2017
4 EFHK Radar renewal: PSR SUR 3.5 2017 2017
5 MSSR‐renewal SUR 3.4 2015 2016
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 74 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
HCAA (Greece) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: Greece is within the EURO Zone
HCAA represents 1.9% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€369 €318 €306 €308
€588
€474
€713
€343
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
‐11.9%
‐6.0% ‐4.1%
+2.2%
‐2.3%‐4.7%
‐28.7%
+160.5%
‐91.4%‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
0.68 0.69 0.74 0.71
+2.2%+7.9%
‐4.7%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
88
92
96
100
104
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
‐4.5% +0.6% ‐1.0%
€83 €79 €80 €79
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
1470 1470 1470 1470
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐17.4% ‐2.1% ‐1.0%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
#DIV/0!
‐33.2%
+7.4%
‐12.8% ‐8.1%
‐35
‐30
‐25
‐20
‐15
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
‐4.7%
‐1.0%
+3.9%+0.7%
‐1.0%
‐5.7% ‐4.7%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 36%
Weight 64%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 75 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
HCAA (Greece) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
BULATSA HCAA ROMATSA
‐14.6%
+17.9%+22.0%
‐21.5%‐19.4%
+7.6%
+15.0%
‐29.2%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
0
5
10
15
20
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2000* C: 2000* C: 2000* C: 1999*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
€9.3M
Other YearsNAVCOMATM BuildingSUR
€10.7M€15.1M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 Purchase of VCS/RCS systems for Athinai/Makedonia ACC COM 8.5 2013 2015
2 Upgrade of PALLAS system (FDPS, RDPS, ODS, HMI) ATM 8.0 2013 2015
3 Purchase of a surface radar (SMR/A‐SMGCS) at
Thessaloniki/Makedonia International airports SUR 3.8 2009 2013
4 Purchase of Multilateration/WAM equipment SUR 3.1 2013 2015
5 Purchase of VCS/RCS systems for 5 main airports COM 2.9 2013 2015
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 76 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
HungaroControl (Hungary) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1EUR = 288.876 HUF
HungaroControl represents 1.1% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€368 €437 €438 €438
€383
€437 €438 €438
0
100
200
300
400
500
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+18.8%
‐0.1%
‐6.6%
+0.1%
‐0.4%
‐6.6%
‐95.5% ‐86.5%
+419.5%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
0.84 0.79 0.82 0.79
‐5.4%+3.6%
‐4.2%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
90
95
100
105
110
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
‐0.7%
+42.9%
‐20.1%
€79 €78 €112 €89
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices) 1551 1551 1551 1594
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
+23.4%‐10.6%
+7.3%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
#DIV/0!
+21.0%+29.1%
‐18.6% ‐42.8%‐3
‐1
1
3
5
7
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
‐4.2%
‐20.1%‐16.7%
‐0.1%
+7.3%
+0.3%
‐6.6%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 28%
Weight 72%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 77 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
HungaroControl (Hungary) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
ANS CR Croatia Control HungaroControl
LPS PANSA Slovenia Control
‐6.8%
+9.4%
+2.5%
‐7.0%
+12.3%
‐1.9%
+2.5%
+15.2%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1998* C: 1998* C: 1998* C: 2009*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
€1.5M 2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
€20.6M
ATM COM BuildingSURNAV
€23.3M
€28.6M
Other
€2.0M
Years
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 MATIAS SW and HW upgrade (ANS III project) ATM 18.4 2009 2012
2 CPDLC implementation COM 15.1 2012 2014
3 ANS III Building (ANS III project) Building 14.7 2010 2012
4 ANS III Technology (ANS III project) ATM 7.2 2010 2012
5 G/G COM infrastructure deployment COM 6.2 2010 2012
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 78 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
IAA (Ireland) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: Ireland is within the EURO Zone
IAA represents 1.4% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min Max
€341 €377 €392 €354
€347€386 €393
€356
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+7.1% +6.8%
‐9.1%
‐3.0%
+2.8% +0.6%
+56.4%
‐88.7%
+110.7%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
0.87 0.92 0.95 1.02
+6.1% +3.0%+7.5%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
80
85
90
95
100
105
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+5.5%+5.6%
+7.1%
€87 €91 €97 €103
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices) 1578 1573 1569 1526
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
+15.0% +4.4%
‐12.9%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
#DIV/0!
+10.6%
+1.3%
‐9.2%
+24.6%
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
4
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
+7.5% +7.1%
‐0.4%
‐9.6% ‐12.9% ‐12.3%
+0.6%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 27%
Weight 73%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 79 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
IAA (Ireland) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
300
350
400
450
500
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
IAA NAV Portugal (Continental)
‐13.1%
‐2.7%
‐23.5%
‐9.1%
‐0.5%
+6.0%
‐20.6%
+14.5%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2003 (All ACCs)* C: 2003 (All ACCs)* C: 2003 (All ACCs)* C: 2003 (All ACCs)*
2006
2007
2008
2009 All ACCs All ACCs All ACCs
2010
2011 All ACCs All ACCs All ACCs
2012 All ACCs All ACCs
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
All ACCs
YearsOther
€0.8M
€23.0M
€12.0M
BuildingSURNAV
€67.0M
COMATM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1COOPANS (BUILD 1) initiative, including the replacement
of the current FDP and RDP systemsATM 49.0 2006 2012
2 Radar Replacement SUR 20.0 2006 2011
3 Commissioning of Voice Communications System Switch COM 12.0 2010 2016
4 COOPANS (BUILD 2) initiative ATM 8.0 2010 2014
5 COOPANS (BUILD 3) initiative ATM 8.0 2013 2016
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 80 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
LFV (Sweden) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 8.700 SEK
LFV represents 3.0% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max
€395 €435 €380 €443
€401
€456
€396
€455
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+9.7%
‐6.2%
+12.8%
‐0.2%
+7.5%
‐3.4%
+235.7%
‐21.0%
‐28.0%‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
0.66 0.62 0.68 0.67
‐5.9%
+9.5% ‐1.2%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
98
100
102
104
106
108
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+6.5%
+14.5%
‐17.2%
€94 €100 €115 €95
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
1630 1627 1627 1628
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
+8.2%
‐23.0%
+43.5%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
+19.6%
‐7.9% ‐21.0%‐37.1%
‐15
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
15
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
The percentage variation is not
applicable since no exceptional costs were recorded in
2009
‐1.2%‐17.2% ‐16.2%
+16.8%
+43.5% +38.6%
‐3.4%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 38%
Weight 62%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 81 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
LFV (Sweden) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
300
350
400
450
500
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
Avinor (Continental) Finavia LFV
‐0.3%
‐5.2%
+1.1%
‐3.8%
+8.4%
‐7.5%‐8.9%
+13.9%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2012 (Malmo)
2013 (Stokholm)*
C: 2012 (Malmo)
2013 (Stokholm)*
C: 2012 (Malmo)
2013 (Stokholm)*C: 2010 (All ACCs)*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010 All ACCs
2011
2012 Malmo Malmo Malmo
2013 Stockholm Stockholm Stockholm
2014
2015
2016
2017
€11.6M
€6.4M
NAV Building Other YearsSURCOM
€89.9M €9.9M
(2007‐2018)
ATM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 COOPANS ATM 78.6 2006 2017
2 Training and support building in Malmo Buildings 11.6 2007 2011
3 Remote Tower Centre (RTC) ATM 7.1 2010 2014
4 Surveillance Upgrade Program (WAM) SUR 6.4 2009 2014
5 VHF Radio / UHF / 8,33kHz COM 6.1 2007 2018
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 82 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
LGS (Latvia) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 0.703 LVL
LGS represents 0.3% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€276 €283 €259 €245
€276 €283€259
€245
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+6.1% +4.9%
‐5.8%
+3.5%
+14.7%
‐0.4%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hours
0.63 0.67 0.77 0.89
+7.4%
+14.1%
+15.5%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
75
85
95
105
115
125
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+18.2%+10.0%
+28.5%
€24 €28 €31 €40
0
10
20
30
40
50
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
1686
1464 1508
1268
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATCO‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
+1.3%‐9.3%
‐8.5%
0
50
100
150
200
250
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) #DIV/0!
+31.8%
‐23.7%
‐4.6%
‐35.8%‐1.5
‐1.0
‐0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
+15.5%
+28.5%
+11.2%
‐5.4% ‐8.5% ‐8.9%
‐0.4%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 17%
Weight 83%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 83 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
LGS (Latvia) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
EANS LGS Oro Navigacija
‐1.1%
+2.8%
‐28.9%
+6.2%
‐3.8%
+19.1%
‐7.2%
+1.5%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cap
ex to depreciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1999* C: 1999* C: 1999* C: 2004*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
YearsBuilding
€12.6M
SUR
€2.1M
Other
€3.7M
COM
€13.8M
NAV
€2.3M
ATM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1Modernization of surveillance system for provision of ATS in
Latvia (MSSAL project) ‐ 3 radars exchangeSUR 9.2 2007 2009
2 PBN Implementation ATM 4.1 2013 2016
3 Modernization of Automated ATC system (ATRACC) ATM 3.9 2010 2013
4 Modernization of VHF "Air‐Ground"communication system COM 2.3 2012 2013
5 ILS/DME RWY18 Riga NAV 2.3 2008 2009
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 84 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
LPS (Slovak Republic) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: Slovak Republic is within the EURO Zone
LPS represents 0.7% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€582 €576 €569 €609
€601 €609€569
€609
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+4.4%+0.9%
+5.0%+5.6%+2.0%
‐1.8%
+85.6%
‐100.0%
#DIV/0!
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
‐54.6%‐72.3%
0.58 0.62 0.66 0.65
+6.6%+5.6% ‐0.7%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
90
95
100
105
110
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+13.0% +2.8%+3.9%
€66 €74 €76 €79
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
1461 1465 1456 1496
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐2.9% ‐0.7%+7.5%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
+23.9%
+11.7%
‐0.7%
‐26.8%‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
‐0.7%
+3.9% +4.6%+6.9% +7.5% +5.6%
‐1.8%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 20%
Weight 80%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 85 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
LPS (Slovak Republic) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
ANS CR Croatia Control HungaroControl
LPS PANSA Slovenia Control
+47.5%
‐23.9%‐14.4%
+59.3%+56.1%
‐18.8%‐8.8%
+72.9%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.7
1.4
2.1
2.8
3.5
4.2
4.9
5.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1999* C: 2005* C: 1999* C: 2009*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
€2.2M 2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
SUR YearsOtherBuildingNAVCOMATM
€34.2M
€5.1M
€23.5M
(2010‐2018)
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 Construction of the new ACC in Bratislava Building 30.0 2007 2012
2 E2000‐Upgrade ATM 20.0 2015 2018
3Construction of infrastructure related to the new MSSR in
Mošnik Building 4.2 2009 2015
4 Upgrade of communication system COM 2.2 2012 2012
5 Upgrade of the E2000 PLCA system ATM 2.2 2010 2012
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 86 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
LVNL (Netherlands) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: Netherlands is within the EURO Zone
LVNL represents 2.0% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max
€724 €645 €605 €588
€771 €792€744
€710
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
‐10.5%
+1.1%
‐5.0%
+0.3%
+7.9%
‐2.2%
+207.1%
‐5.2%
‐12.2%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
‐54.6%‐72.3%
0.91 0.90 0.95 0.89
‐1.0%+4.7%
‐5.9%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
95
100
105
110
115
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+7.5% ‐0.8%
+16.1%
€131 €141 €140 €163
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
1628 1604 1592 1578
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐15.7%‐6.6%
‐11.3%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
‐39.2%
+20.0%
‐11.2% ‐24.2%
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
‐5.9%
+16.1%
+23.4%
‐2.8%
‐11.3% ‐13.3%
‐2.2%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 28%
Weight 72%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 87 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
LVNL (Netherlands) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
Belgocontrol LVNL
‐4.3%
+14.9%
‐2.4% ‐1.1%
‐9.4%
+13.5%+9.3%
‐11.8%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.7
1.4
2.1
2.8
3.5
4.2
4.9
5.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1998* C: 1998* C: 1998*C: 1988/upgraded in
1995*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
YearsBuilding
€51.4M
Other
€83.0M
€6.0M
SUR
€130.6M
(2009‐2018)
ATM COM NAV
€9.8M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 Replacement AAA ATM 96.0 2011 2018
2 New Building/OPS room Building 50.0 2014 2016
3 Other investments Other 47.9 2009 2015
4 Voice Communication system ATM 25.0 2009 2014
5 Adjustment facilities Building 25.0 2015 2015
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 88 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
MATS (Malta) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: Malta is within the EURO Zone
MATS represents 0.2% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max
€297 €266 €256 €193
€299
€266 €256
€193
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+0.8%+6.3%
‐13.5%
+12.7%+10.4%
+14.8%
‐95.2%
‐19.6%
+23.9%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
‐54.6%
0.47 0.55 0.73 0.67
+16.4%
+33.0%‐8.0%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+10.1%
+20.7%
‐22.4%
€24 €26 €32 €25
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
1851 18251737
2165
500
750
1 000
1 250
1 500
1 750
2 000
2 250
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATCO‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐11.5% ‐2.5%
‐26.5%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
+0.4%
‐14.4%
‐26.3%
+64.4%
‐1.00
‐0.75
‐0.50
‐0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
‐8.0%
‐22.4%‐15.6%
‐24.6% ‐26.5%‐15.6%
+14.8%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 18%
Weight 82%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 89 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
MATS (Malta) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
DCAC Cyprus MATS
‐6.1%
‐27.9%
‐39.7%
‐3.7%
‐20.2%
‐13.3%
‐51.2%
‐11.6%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1996* C: 1996* C: 1996* C: 1996*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
YearsSUR OtherBuildingATM COM NAV
€0.26M€8.2M
€4.8M€1.7M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 ATS system upgrade ATM 7.2 2011 2014
2 Purchase and installation of MSSR (1) SUR 2.4 2009 2013
3 Purchase and installation of MSSR (2) SUR 2.4 2010 2014
4 VCS system upgrade ATM 1.0 2013 2014
5 Extension to technical workshops Building 1.0 2010 2014
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 90 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
M‐NAV (F.Y.R. Macedonia) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 61.231 MKD
M‐NAV represents 0.1% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
€478 €465 €469 €449
€478 €465 €469€449
0
100
200
300
400
500
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
‐4.7%‐3.1%
‐12.9%
‐2.0%‐3.7%
‐9.1%
‐15%
‐10%
‐5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hours‐54.6%
‐72.3%
0.25 0.26 0.22 0.24
+3.4%
‐12.7%+7.9%
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+6.8%‐8.0%
+11.0%
€30 €32 €29 €32
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
14641408
14641415
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐4.7% ‐1.0%‐6.9%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
‐2.3%
‐25.7%
‐69.1%
‐40.6%
‐1.50
‐1.25
‐1.00
‐0.75
‐0.50
‐0.25
0.00
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
+7.9%+11.0%
+2.9%
‐4.2% ‐6.9%
‐15.4%‐9.1%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 29%
Weight 71%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 91 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
M‐NAV (F.Y.R. Macedonia) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
300
350
400
450
500
550
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
ARMATS M‐NAV MoldATSA NATA Albania SMATSA
+30.9%
‐46.2%
+4.5%
+18.1%+22.2%
‐51.9%
‐6.5%
+5.5%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
1.3
2.6
3.9
5.2
6.5
7.8
9.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2002* C: 2002* C: 2002* C: 2002*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
YearsBuildingSUR Other
€1.1M€2.9M€1.1M
€7.9M
ATM COM NAV
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 Procurement of new ATC systems ATM 6.0 2014 2016
2Mode‐S enhanced surveillance ground station
implementationSUR 2.2 2014 2015
3 Construction of new building for ANSP headquarters Building 0.8 2013 2015
4 Purchase of new VHF radio system and MW link COM 0.8 2014 2015
5 Upgrade of MSSR to enhance Mode‐S radar SUR 0.7 2014 2015
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 92 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
MoldATSA (Moldova) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 15.503 MDL
MoldATSA represents 0.1% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min Max
€543 €512 €404 €443
€543€512
€404€443
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+17.1%
‐14.6%
+14.5%
+24.1%
+8.2%+4.6%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hours
‐54.6%‐72.3%
0.18 0.22 0.23 0.24
+25.9% +1.7%+5.6%
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
95
105
115
125
135
145
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+17.3%‐6.8%
+10.3%
€12 €14 €13 €14
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
1477 1482 1495 1507
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATCO‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐5.5%
‐22.8%+10.3%
0
100
200
300
400
500
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
+22.7%+46.5%
+0.9%
‐16.2%
‐0.50
‐0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
+5.6%+10.3%
+4.4%+9.5% +10.3%
+15.4%
+4.6%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 14%
Weight 86%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 93 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
MoldATSA (Moldova) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
300
350
400
450
500
550
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
ARMATS M‐NAV MoldATSA NATA Albania SMATSA
+48.5%
‐61.5% ‐58.1%
+56.5%
+20.5%
‐52.3%‐58.6%
+28.3%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1998* C: 1998* C: 1998* C: 2001*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
** Part of the amount provided under "Other" (i.e. €0.5M) relates to MET
€5.0M
(2013‐2020)
BuildingSUR Other Years
€0.9M**
ATM
€4.2M
€1.1M
COM
€1.0M
€1.5M
NAV
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1Construction and modernisation Tower building in
ChisinauBuildings 5.0 2013 2020
2Replacement of FDP, RDP and HMI systems (Si ATM
Sweden)ATM 2.9 2011 2013
3 Implementation of multilateration equipment SUR 1.5 2012 2017
4 Commissioning of DVOR/DME units NAV 0.6 2013 2014
5 Digital phone station PABX COM 0.6 2012 2013
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 94 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
MUAC (Maastricht) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: Maastricht is within the EURO Zone
MUAC represents 1.8% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€269 €269 €235 €252
€281 €281
€245€261
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+2.2%
‐9.3%
+6.4%+2.1% +3.9%
‐0.7%‐3.5%
‐17.2%
‐5.5%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
‐54.6%‐72.3%
1.83 1.85 1.95 1.94
+1.0%+5.7% ‐0.4%
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
90
95
100
105
110
115
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+5.5% ‐1.8%
+21.9%
€156 €164 €161 €197
0
40
80
120
160
200
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices) 1344
12481206
1168
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐2.0%
‐15.4% ‐1.1%
0
50
100
150
200
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
‐5.9%
‐19.0%
‐35.3%
‐62.4%
‐6
‐5
‐4
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
‐0.4%
+21.9% +22.4%
+7.2%
‐1.1% ‐1.8% ‐0.7%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 38%
Weight 62%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 95 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
MUAC (Maastricht) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Due to the unique nature of its airspace (upper airspace only, across four States), it was determined that Maastricht (MUAC) should be considered separately and therefore this ANSP is not included in the comparator group benchmarking analysis
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2008* C: 2008* C: 2002* C: 1995*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
SUR Building YearsOther
€17.1M
€30.7M
€115.1M
(2003‐2016)
ATM COM NAV
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 Procurement of new FDPS ATM 50.0 2003 2011
2 Other Other 30.7 2012 2016
3 Implementation of the new CWP system ATM 22.3 2012 2016
4 Renewal of infrastructure Building 13.5 2012 2014
5 Replacement of the VCS system ATM 13.3 2011 2016
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 96 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
NATA Albania (Albania) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 139.837 ALL
NATA Albania represents 0.3% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
€422 €424 €422 €451
€463 €470
€593
€472
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+11.2%+7.4%
+3.6%
+10.8%
+7.8%
‐3.0%
+12.5%
+272.0%
‐87.4%‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
‐54.6%
0.57 0.57 0.58 0.53
‐1.4% +1.9%‐8.5%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
95
105
115
125
135
145
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+95.6%
+31.2% ‐0.6%
€11 €22 €29 €28
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
1705 17071599 1573
500
750
1 000
1 250
1 500
1 750
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐4.3% ‐3.4%+6.6%
0
100
200
300
400
500
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
+44.6%
‐0.8%
+31.2%
+1.6%
‐0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
‐8.5%
‐0.6%
+8.6%+6.8% +6.6%
+3.4%
‐3.0%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 12%
Weight 88%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 97 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
NATA Albania (Albania) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
300
350
400
450
500
550
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
ARMATS M‐NAV MoldATSA NATA Albania SMATSA
+15.5%+24.0%
‐61.0%
+32.5%+22.7%
+4.7%
‐18.4%
+33.0%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2004* C: 2004* C: 2004* C: 2008*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
€13.8M
Building
€0.3M
Other Years
€17.7M €2.0M€1.6M
NAV SURATM COM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 Purchase of a new ATM system ATM 14.5 2008 2012
2New joint ACC/APP/TWR building located near Mother
Teresa AirportBuildings 13.5 2008 2011
3 Remote radio facility (RXTX radio for VHF) COM 2.0 2008 2012
4 Purchase of a Voice Communication System ATM 1.8 2008 2011
5 Purchase and installation of the ILS equipment. NAV 1.6 2010 2011
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 98 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
NATS Continental (United Kingdom) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 0.811 GBP
NATS Continental represents 9.4% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min Max
€466 €463 €423 €434
€519 €519€470 €482
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
‐4.9% ‐5.5%
+1.6%
‐4.2%
+3.4%
‐1.0%
+6.6%
‐17.7%
+2.3%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
‐54.6%
1.01 0.99 1.00 0.99
‐2.0% +0.5% ‐1.1%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
‐5.1% ‐2.4% +3.2%
€125 €119 €116 €120
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices) 1247 1234 1246 1246
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
+0.1%
‐10.6% +2.0%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
‐85.1%‐15.0%
‐1.0%
+8.2%
‐1.4%
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
‐85.1%
‐1.1%
+3.2% +4.3%+2.6% +2.0% +1.0%
‐1.0%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 28%
Weight 72%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 99 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
NATS Continental (United Kingdom) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
Aena DFS DSNA ENAV NATS (Continental)
‐10.7%
+34.5%
‐10.0%
+1.5%
‐10.3%
+18.7%
‐5.9% ‐5.4%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0
50
100
150
200
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2001
(London AC , London TC and
Prest.)*
C: 1996 (Lon. AC)
2007 (Lon. TC)
2009 (Prest.)*
C: 2001 (Lon. AC)
2007 (Lon. TC)
2009 (Prest.)*
C: 2002 (Lon. AC)
2007 (Lon. TC)
2008 (Prest.)*
2006
2007 London TC London TC London TC
London AC
Prestwick
London AC
Prestwick
2010 Prestwick London TC London TC
2011 London AC and London TC London AC London TC
2012 London AC
2013
2014 London TC and Prestwick London TC and Prestwick
2015
2016
2017
Building Years
Prestwick
€18.0M
Other
€110.6M
(2015‐2019)
2008
2009
ATM SURNAVCOM
€751.9M
(2003‐2019)
€126.6M
(2015‐2019)
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 ACC systems software development ATM 239.7 2015 2019
2 iTEC ATM 209.3 2015 2019
3 iFACTS ATM 191.0 2003 2011
4 CNS infrastructure ATM 126.6 2015 2019
5 Other capex Other 103.7 2015 2019
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 100 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
NAV Portugal Continental (Portugal) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: Portugal is within the EURO Zone
NAV Portugal Continental represents 1.6% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€442 €368 €385 €357
€455
€380€416
€450
0
100
200
300
400
500
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
‐12.3%
+9.2%
‐8.3%
+5.4% +4.5%
‐1.3%
+1.7%
+147.1% +200.0%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
‐54.6%
0.92 0.93 0.93 0.92
+1.2% +0.4% ‐1.6%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
98
100
102
104
106
108
110
112
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
‐11.5%
+32.0%‐7.5%
€140 €124 €164 €152
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices) 1772 1775 1788 1811
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
1 900
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐19.1%‐10.8%
‐8.1%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
‐85.1%
‐23.4%
‐51.6%
‐27.5%
+12.4%
‐20
‐15
‐10
‐5
0
5
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
‐1.6%
‐7.5% ‐6.0% ‐7.1% ‐8.1% ‐9.3%
‐1.3%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 46%
Weight 54%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 101 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
NAV Portugal Continental (Portugal) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
300
350
400
450
500
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
IAA NAV Portugal (Continental)
+12.7%
+2.7%
+24.0%
+8.8%
+0.4%
‐4.8%
+16.6%
‐13.0%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.9
1.8
2.7
3.6
4.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2001* C: 2001* C: 2001* C: 1999*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Other YearsBuilding
€7.6M€16.1M
SUR
€6.9M
NAVCOM
€55.5M
ATM
€7.1M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1ATM systems program (mainly including the evolution of
the LISATM system into LISATM‐iTEC)ATM 55.5 2011 2016
2
SURVEILLANCE program (mainly including New MLAT
equipment FIR Lisboa and Santa Maria, new MSSRs,
replacement of Lisboa radar)
SUR 16.1 2011 2016
3Building program (mainly including new Tower Centre in
Horta)Building 7.6 2011 2016
4Communication program (mainly including new VCS
system and purchase or tape recorders)COM 7.1 2011 2016
5
NAVAIDS program (mainly including new DMEs and
PRNAV, Replacement of VORs, TACAN and DMEs, precision
approach system in Oporto and Faro and GBAS)
NAV 6.9 2011 2016
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 102 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
NAVIAIR (Denmark) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 7.442 DKK
NAVIAIR represents 1.4% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max
€423 €391 €376 €393
€438€408
€385 €396
0
100
200
300
400
500
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
‐4.3%‐0.9% ‐1.0%
+3.7% +3.0%
‐5.3%
+12.9%
‐47.2% ‐68.6%‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
‐54.6%
0.94 0.96 1.02 0.98
+2.9%+6.1%
‐4.2%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
‐2.8% +1.5% +0.7%
€97 €94 €96 €97
0
20
40
60
80
100
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices) 1567 15551506 1507
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐8.4% ‐3.6%+4.3%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
‐85.1%
‐4.2%
‐24.6%
‐16.7%
+43.3%
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
‐4.2%
+0.7%
+5.1% +4.5% +4.3%
‐1.2%
‐5.3%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 25%
Weight 75%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 103 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
NAVIAIR (Denmark) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
NAVIAIR did not provide the list of main projects relating to the capex for the period 2012‐2017
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
Austro Control NAVIAIR Skyguide
‐17.3%
‐5.7%
‐29.5%
‐14.3%
‐25.3%
‐0.5%
‐32.8%
‐22.6%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
0
5
10
15
20
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2007* C: 2007* C: 2007* C: 2007*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
YearsBuilding
€11.7M €9.8M
OtherCOM NAVATM
€7.7M €0.2M€27.7M €4.3M
SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 104 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Oro Navigacija (Lithuania) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 3.453 LTL
Oro Navigacija represents 0.3% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€395 €389 €361 €368
€395 €389€361 €368
0
100
200
300
400
500
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+10.3%
+1.5% +2.0%
+11.9%+9.6%
+0.1%
‐15%
‐5%
5%
15%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hours‐54.6%
0.41 0.44 0.49 0.48
+8.0%
+11.5%‐3.8%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+0.6%+4.7% +0.4%
€37 €37 €39 €39
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices) 1563 15891539 1568
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
1 700
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
+0.2%‐7.8% +1.2%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
‐85.1%+1.0%
+20.1%
+49.0%
+1.7%0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
‐3.8%
+0.4%
+4.4%+1.9% +1.2% +1.3% +0.1%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 22%
Weight 78%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 105 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Oro Navigacija (Lithuania) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
EANS LGS Oro Navigacija
+41.8%
‐32.4%
+10.5%
+36.5%+44.6%
‐36.0%
‐8.8%
+45.2%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2005* C: 2005* C: 2005* C: 2005*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
YearsOther
€16.6M
SUR
(2016‐2018) (2016‐2018) (2016‐2018) (2016‐2018)
€1.4M
€8.7M
BuildingATM NAV
€13.0M
€3.3M
€3.2M
COM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 New ACC/administrative centre Building 8.7 2014 2017
2 New ATC system ATM 7.2 2016 2017
3 Replacement of radar (Kaunas) SUR 4.8 2008 2010
4 Replacement of radar (Palanga) SUR 4.8 2008 2010
5 Replacement of radar (Vilnius ‐ 2007/2008) SUR 3.7 2007 2008
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 106 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
PANSA (Poland) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EURO = 4.179 PLN
PANSA represents 1.8% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min Max
€337 €311 €316 €302
€535
€447€397
€363
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
‐2.7%
+11.0%
+0.9%+5.7%
+9.1%+5.8%
‐31.0% ‐41.1%‐23.1%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
‐54.6%
0.88 0.91 0.97 0.97
+4.3%+6.5% +0.1%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+1.4%
+18.1% ‐1.5%
€82 €83 €98 €97
0
20
40
60
80
100
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
11941145 1120 1132
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐9.8% ‐2.1%‐6.0%
0
50
100
150
200
250
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
‐85.1%+0.2%
+11.9%
‐7.2%
‐4.1%
‐1.0
‐0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
#DIV/0!
+0.1%
‐1.5% ‐1.7%‐4.6% ‐6.0%
‐0.5%
+5.8%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 32%
Weight 68%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 107 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
PANSA (Poland) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
ANS CR Croatia Control HungaroControl
LPS PANSA Slovenia Control
‐14.6%
+14.2%
+7.0%
‐17.3%‐22.6%
+21.3%
+11.3%
‐28.2%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2001* C: 2001* C: 2001* C: 2001*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
€4.6M
€26.5M
YearsOtherBuilding
€24.0M€14.4M€37.4M
ATM
€18.1M
SURNAVCOM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1Purchase of new PSR MSSR radars at Warszawa, Poznań,
Kraków, Wrocław, and North‐East PolandSUR 23.1 2009 2016
2Replacement of the ATM systems (FDP, RDP, HMI and
VoIP) with the new PEGASUS 21 systemATM 23.0 2008 2013
3TWRs in Lodz, Rzeszow, Poznan and Kraków ‐ Land
purchase, construction and design processBuilding 18.0 2009 2015
4
Modernization and develop of the navigation
infrastructure in FIR Warsaw (modernization 4 DME and 2
DVOR/DME; develop 9 DME and 5 DVOR/DME)
NAV 11.6 2010 2014
5 Construction of 17 ground stations COM 10.5 2009 2013
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 108 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ROMATSA (Romania) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 4.454 RON
ROMATSA represents 2.0% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€529 €446 €411 €502
€529
€447€411
€503
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
‐9.6%‐7.1%
+20.5%
+7.1%
+0.8%
‐1.3%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hours
‐54.6%
0.43 0.55 0.60 0.59
+27.1%+9.2% ‐0.6%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
70
80
90
100
110
120
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
‐6.9%+7.8%
+9.8%
€57 €53 €57 €63
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices) 1397 13721296
1254
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐11.8%‐9.7%
+25.7%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
+194.2%
+12.3%
‐44.9%
‐6.1%
+2.4%
‐25
‐15
‐5
5
15
25
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
+194.2%
‐0.6%
+9.8% +10.4%
+22.1% +25.7% +24.0%
‐1.3%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 22%
Weight 78%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 109 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ROMATSA (Romania) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
BULATSA HCAA ROMATSA
+22.3%
‐24.9%‐16.4%
+26.5%+31.4%
‐9.9% ‐8.7%
+42.6%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2003* C: 2003* C: 2003* C: 2004*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
COM NAVATM
€64.4M
(2008‐2020)
€1.2M
€8.3M€17.3M
€0.4M
€3.4M
BuildingSUR Other Years
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 ATM System ROMATSA 2015+ Phase I ATM 35.8 2011 2015
2 ATM System ROMATSA 2015+ Phase II ATM 15.8 2015 2018
3 ATM System ROMATSA 2015+ Phase III ATM 10.5 2017 2020
4 Mode S radars installation SUR 7.5 2011 2015
5 VCSS Replacement COM 6.5 2012 2014
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 110 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Skyguide (Switzerland) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 1.205 CHF
Skyguide represents 3.6% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max
€609 €616 €609 €640
€772 €794€725 €755
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+0.5% +2.7% +3.9%
‐0.6%
+4.0%
‐1.2%
+8.9%
‐34.8%
‐0.5%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
‐54.6%
1.08 1.08 1.07 1.03
+0.2% ‐0.9%‐3.9%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
95
100
105
110
115
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+3.4% +0.2%+7.1%
€145 €150 €150 €161
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
1279 1264 1246 1227
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
+0.6% ‐1.9% +3.2%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
‐95.1%
+20.1%
+4.5%
‐20.0%
‐18.8%
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
30
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
‐95.1%
‐3.9%
+7.1%+11.4%
+5.1% +3.2% +2.0%
‐1.2%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 24%
Weight 76%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 111 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Skyguide (Switzerland) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
Austro Control NAVIAIR Skyguide
+19.2%
+8.6%+5.2%
+27.5%
+21.7%
+4.6%
+11.9%
+27.4%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1999 (Geneva)
2007 (Zurich)*
C: 2004
(All ACCs)*C: 2003/06 (All ACCs)* C: 2004/05 (All ACCs)*
2006 Geneva All ACCs
2007 Zurich
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012 All ACCs All ACCs All ACCs All ACCs
2013
2014
2015 All ACCs
2016
2017
**Expenses relating to AIS
€58.7M
Building
€9.0M
(2005‐2013)
NAV Years
€6.4M**
Other
€3.6M
COM SURATM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1 Implementation of stripless environment ATM 30.8 2011 2017
2TACO (Tower – Approach – Communication) system
integration into the new FDP in ZurichATM 18.8 2008 2014
3 Realisation of web Portal IBS Other 6.4 2010 2013
4MESANGE (implementation of Aeronautical Message Handling
Service)COM 4.5 2005 2010
5Implementation of LINK2K+/CPDLC (Controller Pilot Data Link
Communications)COM 4.5 2011 2013
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 112 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Slovenia Control (Slovenia) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: Slovenia is within the EURO Zone
Slovenia Control represents 0.3% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
Min MaxMin Max Min MaxMin Max
€503 €508 €527 €499
€512 €510 €528€499
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+4.4%+10.0%
‐5.5%
+3.3%+6.0%
‐0.1%
‐83.8% ‐41.5% ‐38.3%‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
‐54.6%
0.40 0.41 0.46 0.45
+2.9%
+12.7% ‐2.5%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
90
95
100
105
110
115
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+4.6%+6.0%
‐5.2%
€76 €79 €84 €80
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices) 1442 1442 1427 1419
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
+0.8%+9.7%
‐6.9%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
+141.1%+10.9%
+10.5%
‐38.0%
+148.6%
‐1.5
‐1.0
‐0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
+141.1%
‐2.5%‐5.2%
‐2.8%‐5.5% ‐6.9% ‐7.0%
‐0.1%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 35%
Weight 65%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 113 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Slovenia Control (Slovenia) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
ANS CR Croatia Control HungaroControl
LPS PANSA Slovenia Control
+27.3%
‐48.2%
‐1.0%
+5.7%
+27.9%
‐44.0%
‐8.1%
+14.0%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2007* C: 2000* C: 2000* C: 1998*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
NAV
€18.4M
€2.7M€1.5M
YearsOtherCOM Building
€2.3M
SUR
€12.2M
ATM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1New ATCC building in Ljubljana (including general
equipment)Buildings 18.4 2006 2013
2 New ATCC technical systems ATM 8.7 2006 2013
3 Upgrade of FDP system, including simulator ATM 3.5 2008 2017
4 Changing location of radars SUR 1.5 2011 2015
5 Implementation of Datalink/CPDLC COM 1.5 2013 2015
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 114 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
SMATSA (Serbia and Montenegro) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 112.961 RSD
SMATSA represents 0.9% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
€326 €347 €343 €332
€326€349 €353
€333
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+11.5%
+0.5%
‐7.9%
+4.7%+1.6%
‐5.0%
+142.9% +425.9%
‐96.5%‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
‐54.6%
0.75 0.78 0.77 0.75
+4.9% ‐2.0% ‐1.6%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
98
100
102
104
106
108
110
112
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+5.8% ‐1.5%+4.9%
€47 €50 €49 €51
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATC
O‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
13391290 1273
1224
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
+7.9% ‐1.5%‐5.3%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
+3.3%
‐3.7%
+21.0%
+5.8%
‐12.1%‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
4
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
+3.3%
‐1.6%
+4.9% +6.6%
‐3.1% ‐5.3%‐10.0%
‐5.0%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 19%
Weight 81%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 115 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
SMATSA (Serbia and Montenegro) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
300
350
400
450
500
550
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
ARMATS M‐NAV MoldATSA NATA Albania SMATSA
‐10.9%
+61.2% +64.6%
‐13.6%‐9.5%
+49.6% +47.6%
‐11.4%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2011 C: 2011 C: 2011 C: 2011
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Building Years
€0.5M
OtherNAVCOM
19.8M
SUR
€2.3M
€8.5M€44.3M
ATM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1New ATM System for Belgrade ACC and SMATSA
communications networkATM 30.9 2009 2011
2 New ATCC in Belgrade Building 17.6 2009 2010
3 Aircraft equipped with Automatic Flight Inspection System ATM 10.0 2008 2010
4 VHF and UHF radio system for air‐ground communication COM 4.9 2008 2010
5 Procurement and installation of VHF/UHF groun‐air COM 3.3 2012 2015
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 116 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
UkSATSE (Ukraine) – Cost‐effectiveness KPIs (€2012) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 10.270 UAH
UkSATSE represents 3.1% of European system gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability:
Trend in gate‐to‐gate economic cost‐effectiveness (all financial data in €2012 prices)
Trend in gate‐to‐gate ATCO‐hour productivity
Trend in gate‐to‐gate employment costs per ATCO‐hour
Trend in support costs per composite flight‐hour Changes in components of support costs (2009‐2012)
Changes in financial cost‐effectiveness (2011‐2012)
€490 €471 €637 €565
€493 €477
€637
€566
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight‐hour (2012 prices)
ATFM delay costs per composite flight‐hour
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight‐hour
+8.8%
+44.7%
‐8.3%
+13.2%
+7.0%+3.5%
+94.9%
‐100.0%
#DIV/0!
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight‐hoursUnit costs of ATFM delays
‐54.6%‐72.3%
0.30 0.30 0.33 0.34
‐0.2%+7.7% +4.0%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
2009 2010 2011 2012
Composite flight‐hour per ATC
O‐hour on duty
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
2009 2010 2011 2012
Index (2009 = 100)
Index composite flight‐hours Index number of ATCOs in OPS
Index ATCOs in OPS hours on duty
+56.9%
+13.3%
+20.2%
€14 €22 €24 €29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per ATCO‐hour on duty (2012 prices)
1231
1331 1319 1299
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
1 500
2009 2010 2011 2012
ATC
O‐hours on duty per ATC
O per year
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO‐hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
‐10.0%
+40.6%
‐15.0%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012
€per composite flight hour (2012 prices)
Exceptional costs Capital‐related costs
Non‐staff operating costs Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS)
‐91.3%
+35.5%
‐28.3%
+89.0%
+149.4%
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
30
40
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non‐staffoperatingcosts
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Million €
‐91.3%
+4.0%
+20.2% +15.6%
‐11.4% ‐15.0% ‐12.0%
+3.5%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO‐hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costsper ATCO‐hour
Support costs per composite flight‐hour
Weight 13%
Weight 87%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2011‐2012
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 117 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
UkSATSE (Ukraine) – (€2012) Changes in unit gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision costs within comparator group
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
Information on major capex projects and ATM systems upgrades/replacements
Focus on the top five capex projects
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
2009 2010 2011 2012
Unit ATM
/CNS provision costs (€2012)
DHMI UkSATSE
+33.8%
‐36.9% ‐35.0%
+38.0%
+54.4%
‐45.3%
‐25.3%
+58.1%
ATM/CNS provisioncosts per composite
flight hour
ATCO‐hourproductivity
ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO‐
hour
Support costs percomposite flight‐
hour
Deviation from comparators' weighted average
2009 2012
0.0
1.5
3.0
4.5
6.0
7.5
9.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capex to dep
reciation ratio
M€
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:1997 (L'viv)
2000 (Odesa, Kyiv)
2007 (Simf., Kyiv,
Dnip.)*
C: 1997 (L'viv)
2000 (Odesa, Kyiv)
2007 (Simf., Kyiv,
Dnip.)*
C: 1997 (L'viv)
2000 (Odesa, Kyiv)
2007 (Simf., Kyiv,
Dnip.)*
C:2003 (Odesa, L'viv)
2006 (Simf., Dnip.)
2011 (Kyiv)*
2006 S, D
2007 S, K, D S, K, D S, K, D
2008
2009
2010
2011 K
2012 K K K
2013 L
2014 L, O L, O L, O
2015 O
2016
2017 S S S
€2.8M
YearsOtherCOM
€17.0M
ATM
€10.4M
€42.6M
€9.5M
BuildingNAV SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Project
numberName of the project Domain
Capex spent
between start and
end dates (€M)
Start date End date
1
Building of new TOWERs: Donets’k TWR, Zhuliany (Kyiv) TWR,
Kharkiv TWR, Dnipropetrovs’k TWR, Borispil’ TWR and
reconstructing of L’viv TWR
Building 42.6 2008 2013
2
Upgrade of ATM systems for L’viv ACC/APP/TWR, Kyiv
ACC/APP/TWR, Donets’k APP/TWR, Kharkiv APP/TWR,
Dnipropetrovs’k TWR
ATM 17.0 2008 2013
3
Upgrade of radio equipment for Dnipropetrovs’k ACC, L’viv
ACC, Kyiv ACC, Odesa ACC, Zhuliany (Kyiv) TWR, Donets’k
APP/TWR
COM 10.4 2010 2014
4Upgrade of surveillance systems in Borispil’, L’viv, Kharkiv,
Simferopol’, Donets’k, Odesa and Dnipropetrovs’k SUR 9.5 2010 2013
54 stand‐alone Weather Radars (L’viv, Kharkiv and Simferopol’,
Donets’k)Other 2.8 2010 2012
Focus on ANSPs individual cost‐effectiveness performance 118 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Annex 1 – Status on ANSPs Annual Reports 119 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ANNEX 1 – STATUS OF ANSPS YEAR 2012 ANNUAL REPORTS
Availability of a public
Annual Report (AR)
Availability of
Managem
ent Rep
ort
Availability of Annual
Accounts
Indep
enden
t audited
accounts
Separate disclosure of
en‐route and terminal
ANS costs
Inform
ation provided
in English
PRU comments
Aena No
ANS CR No
ARMATS No No No No No NoPRU received an extract of the financial statements comprising an Income and a Balance Sheet statement.
Austro Control No
Avinor No
Belgocontrol No Audit performed by the “board of auditors”. No cash flow statement.
BULATSA No
Croatia Control No
DCAC Cyprus No No No No No NoDCAC annually discloses a report which includes some financial information from Route Charges Document but not Financial Statements.
DFS No Separate accounts are used for internal reporting purposes and charges calculation.
DHMİ No Includes airport activities.
DSNA No No No No No NoAt the time of writing this report, DSNA had not yet released its Annual Report comprising the financial statements for the year 2012.
EANS No
ENAV No
Finavia No Detailed accounts only available for total Finavia.
HCAA No No No No No No
HungaroControl No
IAA No
LFV No
LGS No
LPS No
LVNL No Separate Income Statement for en‐route and terminal ANS
MATS Separate Income Statement for en‐route and terminal ANS.
M‐NAV No No No No No No
MoldATSA No No No No No No PRU received an extract of the Financial Statements.
MUAC n/appl
NATA Albania No No No
At the time of writing this report, NATA Albania had only released a document comprising its Financial Statements, but not a Management Report for the year 2012.
NATS Several ARs for individual group companies.
NAV Portugal NoSeparate disclosure of aggregated revenues and costs for en‐route and terminal ANS.
NAVIAIR
Oro Navigacija Total revenues and costs provided for both en‐route and terminal ANS.
PANSA No
ROMATSA No
Skyguide Separate accounts for en‐route, terminal and military OAT services.
Slovenia Control No
SMATSA No
UkSATSE No
Annual Report does not include a Financial Statements. UkSATSE provided a separate document which comprises Financial Statements.
Annex 1 ‐ Table 0.1: Status on ANSP’s 2012 Annual Reports
Annex 1 – Status on ANSPs Annual Reports 120 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Annex 2 – Performance indicators used for the comparison of ANSPs 121 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ANNEX 2 – PERFORMANCE INDICATORS USED FOR THE COMPARISON OF ANSPS
The output measures for ANS provision are, for en‐route, the en‐route flight‐hours controlled25 and, for terminal ANS, the number of IFR airport movements controlled. In addition to those output metrics, it is important to consider a "gate‐to‐gate" perspective, because the boundaries used to allocate costs between en‐route and terminal ANS vary between ANSPs and might introduce a bias in the cost‐effectiveness analysis26.
For this reason, an indicator combining the two separate output measures for en‐route and terminal ANS provision has been calculated. The "composite gate‐to‐gate flight‐hours" are determined by weighting the output measures by their respective average cost of the service for the whole Pan‐European system. This average weighting factor is based on the total monetary value of the outputs over the period 2002‐2012 and amounts to 0.27.
The composite gate‐to‐gate flight‐hours are consequently defined as:
Composite gate‐to‐gate flight‐hours
= En‐route
flight‐hours + (0.27 x IFR airport movements)
In the ACE 2001‐2006 Reports, two different weighting factors were used to compute ANSPs cost‐effectiveness: one for the year under study and another to examine changes in performance across time. As the ACE data sample became larger in terms of years, the difference between these two weighting factors became insignificant. For the sake of simplicity, it was therefore proposed in the ACE 2007 Benchmarking Report to use only one weighting factor to analyse ANSPs performance for the year and to examine historical changes in cost‐effectiveness.
Although the composite gate‐to‐gate output metric does not fully reflect all aspects of the complexity of the services provided, it is nevertheless the best metric currently available for the analysis of gate‐to‐gate cost‐effectiveness27.
The quality of service provided by ANSPs has an impact on the efficiency of aircraft operations, which carry with them additional costs that need to be taken into consideration for a full economic assessment of ANSP performance. In this ACE Benchmarking Report, an indicator of “economic” cost‐effectiveness is computed at ANSP and Pan‐European system levels by adding the ATM/CNS provision costs and the costs of ATFM ground delay, all expressed per composite flight‐hour. This computation is shown in the Table below (see column 10).
25 Controlled flight‐hours are calculated by the Network Manager (NM) as the difference between the exit time and entry time of any given flight in the controlled airspace of an operational unit. Three types of flight‐hours are currently computed by the NM (filed model, regulated model and current model). The data used for the cost‐effectiveness analysis is based on the current model (Model III or CFTM) and includes flight‐hours controlled in the ACC, APP and FIS operational units which are described in the NM environment. 26 See also working paper on “Cost‐effectiveness and Productivity Key Performance Indicators”, available on the PRC web site at www.eurocontrol.int/prc. 27 Further details on the theoretical background to producing composite indicators can be found in a working paper on “Total Factor Productivity of European ANSPs: basic concepts and application" (Sept. 2005).
Annex 2 – Performance indicators used for the comparison of ANSPs 122 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Annex 2 ‐ Table 0.1: Economic cost‐effectiveness indicator, 2012
The cost of ATFM delay is based on the findings of the study “European airline delay cost reference values” by the University of Westminster in March 2011. The cost of ground ATFM delays amounts to €85 per minute in 2012 (applicable to all ATFM delays), which is close to the €83 used in the ACE 2011 report28.
28 Note that the cost of one minute of ATFM delays has been adjusted to reflect prices inflation in 2012 (+2.6% for the European Union according to EUROSTAT).
(1) (2) (3) (4)=(2)+(3) (5) (6)=(4)x€85 (7) (8)=(1)/(7) (9)=(6)/(7) (10)=(8)+(9)
ANSPs Gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS provision
costs (in €'000)
En‐route ATFM
delays ('000
minutes)
Airport ATFM
delays ('000
minutes)
Total ATFM
delays ('000
minutes)
% share in European system
ATFM
delays
Costs of ATFM
delays (in €'000)
Composite flight‐hours (in '000)
Financial gate‐to‐gate cost‐
effectiveness
Cost of delay per composite
flight‐hour
Economic cost per composite
flight‐hour
Aena 897 063 802 337 1 139 10.7% 96 807 1 721 521 56 577
ANS CR 115 303 2 2 5 0.0% 401 263 438 2 440
ARMATS 8 041 0 0 0 0.0% 0 20 409 0 409
BULATSA 73 948 0 3 3 0.0% 268 199 371 1 373
Austro Control 182 771 118 152 270 2.5% 22 946 374 489 61 550
Avinor (Continental) 207 082 164 165 328 3.1% 27 905 527 393 53 446
Belgocontrol 150 490 15 79 94 0.9% 8 006 206 732 39 771
Croatia Control 78 159 129 1 130 1.2% 11 046 215 363 51 414
DCAC Cyprus 37 981 428 15 444 4.2% 37 729 143 265 264 529
DFS 1 055 191 1 411 796 2 207 20.8% 187 587 1 912 552 98 650
DHMI 352 411 145 489 634 6.0% 53 881 1 203 293 45 338
DSNA 1 164 622 1 535 520 2 055 19.4% 174 675 2 628 443 66 510
EANS 13 573 20 0 20 0.2% 1 687 78 174 22 196
ENAV 638 374 0 103 104 1.0% 8 804 1 322 483 7 489
Finavia 63 052 3 43 46 0.4% 3 925 181 349 22 371
HCAA 154 296 97 110 206 1.9% 17 530 501 308 35 343
HungaroControl 91 324 1 0 1 0.0% 97 209 438 0 438
IAA 112 881 0 8 8 0.1% 707 319 354 2 356
LFV 245 432 27 50 77 0.7% 6 538 554 443 12 455
LGS 22 232 0 0 0 0.0% 21 91 245 0 245
LPS 55 738 0 0 0 0.0% 0 92 609 0 609
LVNL 163 460 92 307 399 3.8% 33 939 278 588 122 710
MATS 13 504 0 0 0 0.0% 9 70 193 0 193
M‐NAV 9 389 0 0 0 0.0% 0 21 449 0 449
MoldATSA 9 145 0 0 0 0.0% 0 21 443 0 443
MUAC 141 228 59 n/appl 59 0.6% 5 016 560 252 9 261
NATA Albania 20 934 12 0 12 0.1% 1 003 46 451 22 472
NATS (Continental) 760 374 155 829 984 9.3% 83 605 1 752 434 48 482
NAV Portugal (Continental) 127 260 281 108 390 3.7% 33 110 356 357 93 450
NAVIAIR 113 103 0 10 10 0.1% 824 288 393 3 396
Oro Navigacija 23 202 0 0 0 0.0% 0 63 368 0 368
PANSA 147 243 352 2 355 3.3% 30 141 488 302 62 363
ROMATSA 165 091 0 1 1 0.0% 57 329 502 0 503
Skyguide 292 730 172 448 620 5.8% 52 662 457 640 115 755
Slovenia Control 28 166 0 0 0 0.0% 30 56 499 1 499
SMATSA 75 420 1 0 1 0.0% 79 227 332 0 333
UkSATSE 248 611 0 10 10 0.1% 823 440 565 2 566
Total European System 8 058 826 6 022 4 589 10 610 100% 901 858 18 210 443 50 492
Annex 3 – Performance ratios 123 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ANNEX 3 – PERFORMANCE RATIOS
The table below summarises the relationship between the three multiplicative components of financial cost‐effectiveness (ATCO‐hour productivity, employment costs per ATCO‐hour and support cost ratio) and the two complementary components (ATCO employment costs per composite flight‐hour and the support cost per composite flight‐hour), described in Chapter 2. To facilitate the interpretation of the results, the concept of the “performance ratio” has been introduced.
The performance ratios represent the relationship between the value for an ANSP of an indicator and the value of that indicator for the Pan‐European system as a whole. Performance ratios are defined such that a value greater than one implies a performance better than the European average, in terms of the positive contribution it makes to cost effectiveness. An ANSP with the same performance as the Pan‐European system will have a performance ratio of one.
Annex 3 ‐ Table 0.1: The components of gate‐to‐gate cost‐effectiveness, 201229
29 For the ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour, the support costs ratio, the ATCO employment costs per composite flight‐hour and the support costs per composite flight‐hour (asterisked in the Table above),
ATCO‐hour productivity
ATCO employment costs per ATC
O‐hour*
Support cost ratio*
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight‐hour*
Support costs per composite flight‐hour*
Aena ES 0.85 0.98 0.66 1.31 0.65 0.98
ANS CR CZ 1.01 1.12 1.31 0.69 1.46 0.89
ARMATS AM 1.08 0.24 9.92 0.46 2.38 0.88
Austro Control AT 0.91 1.17 0.66 1.16 0.78 0.97
Avinor (Continental) NO 1.13 1.05 0.81 1.33 0.85 1.31
Belgocontrol BE 0.60 0.85 0.79 0.91 0.67 0.58
BULATSA BG 1.19 0.83 1.91 0.75 1.58 1.08
Croatia Control HR 1.22 0.84 1.30 1.11 1.10 1.28
DCAC Cyprus CY 1.67 1.05 1.60 0.99 1.69 1.66
DFS DE 0.80 1.29 0.61 1.01 0.79 0.81
DHMI TR 1.51 1.12 2.17 0.62 2.43 1.30
DSNA FR 1.00 0.95 1.09 0.97 1.03 0.99
EANS EE 2.54 1.27 1.99 1.01 2.52 2.55
ENAV IT 0.92 0.87 0.98 1.08 0.85 0.95
Finavia FI 1.27 0.79 1.45 1.11 1.14 1.33
HCAA GR 1.44 0.89 1.34 1.20 1.19 1.57
HungaroControl HU 1.01 0.99 1.19 0.86 1.17 0.95
IAA IE 1.25 1.28 1.02 0.95 1.31 1.22
LFV SE 1.00 0.84 1.12 1.07 0.93 1.03
LGS LV 1.81 1.11 2.67 0.61 2.96 1.55
LPS SK 0.73 0.82 1.34 0.66 1.09 0.64
LVNL NL 0.75 1.11 0.65 1.04 0.73 0.77
MATS MT 2.30 0.84 4.31 0.63 3.64 1.98
M‐NAV MK 0.99 0.30 3.27 1.00 0.99 0.98
MoldATSA MD 1.00 0.30 7.38 0.45 2.22 0.81
MUAC 1.76 2.43 0.54 1.34 1.31 2.06
NATA Albania AL 0.98 0.66 3.74 0.40 2.47 0.78
NATS (Continental) UK 1.02 1.24 0.88 0.93 1.09 0.99
NAV Portugal (Continental) PT 1.24 1.15 0.70 1.54 0.80 1.61
NAVIAIR DK 1.13 1.23 1.10 0.84 1.35 1.05
Oro Navigacija LT 1.20 0.60 2.72 0.74 1.62 1.08
PANSA PL 1.47 1.22 1.10 1.10 1.34 1.53
ROMATSA RO 0.88 0.74 1.69 0.70 1.26 0.78
Skyguide CH 0.69 1.29 0.66 0.81 0.85 0.64
Slovenia Control SI 0.89 0.56 1.33 1.19 0.75 0.96
SMATSA RS/ME 1.33 0.94 2.07 0.68 1.95 1.17
UkSATSE UA 0.78 0.43 3.62 0.51 1.54 0.65
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Total European System
Performance ratiosPerformance ratios
ANSPs Country Financial cost‐effectiveness KPI indexes*
Annex 3 – Performance ratios 124 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ANSPs for which a given component makes a particularly positive contribution to its cost‐effectiveness (more than 1.30) are highlighted in green – those where a given component makes a particularly low contribution (less than 1/1.30) are in orange.
Some ANSPs more than make up for a relatively low contribution from one component by a relatively high contribution from another and, as a result, are more cost‐effective than the average (cost‐effectiveness index greater than 1).
On the left‐hand‐side the three ratios are multiplicative; the product of the ratios for each of the components equals the performance ratio for overall financial cost‐effectiveness (see financial cost‐effectiveness index). The following example for Aena illustrates the interpretation of the performance ratios:
0.85 Aena’s gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS costs per composite flight‐hour are +18% higher (1/0.85 ‐1) than the European average.
= 0.98 ATCO‐hour productivity is ‐2% lower than the European average.
X 0.66 The ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour of Aena are +51% higher (1/0.66 ‐ 1) than the European average.
X 1.31 Support cost ratio is ‐23% lower (1/1.31 ‐ 1) than the European average.
On the right‐hand‐side, the two complementary performance ratios are normalised using the European average (note that these ratios are neither multiplicative nor additive):
0.65 Aena’s ATCOs in OPS employment costs per composite flight‐hour are +54% higher(1/0.65 ‐ 1) than the European average, while
0.98 the support costs per composite flight‐hour are +2% higher (1/0.98 ‐ 1) than the European average.
the inverse ratio is used, since higher unit employment costs and higher support costs imply lower cost‐effectiveness.
Annex 4 – Traffic complexity and traffic variability indicators 125 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ANNEX 4 – TRAFFIC COMPLEXITY AND TRAFFIC VARIABILITY INDICATORS
Annex 4 ‐ Table 0.1: Traffic complexity indicators at ANSP level, 2012
[1] [2] [3] [4][5] =
[2]+[3]+[4]
[6] =
[1]x[5]
ANSPs Adjusted density
Vertical interactions
Horizontal interactions
Speed interactions
Structural com
plexity
indicator
Aggregated complexity
score
Skyguide 10.70 0.28 0.61 0.23 1.12 11.97
DFS 10.28 0.28 0.56 0.25 1.09 11.19
NATS (Continental) 9.81 0.37 0.44 0.30 1.11 10.92
Belgocontrol 7.36 0.41 0.56 0.45 1.42 10.45
MUAC 9.93 0.26 0.54 0.17 0.97 9.68
LVNL 9.80 0.18 0.43 0.36 0.97 9.47
Austro Control 8.23 0.19 0.51 0.20 0.91 7.48
ANS CR 8.54 0.15 0.53 0.19 0.87 7.43
Slovenia Control 9.21 0.12 0.54 0.11 0.77 7.08
DSNA 9.80 0.15 0.42 0.14 0.71 6.93
ENAV 5.20 0.27 0.59 0.18 1.04 5.41
SMATSA 8.58 0.04 0.49 0.07 0.60 5.14
LPS 6.92 0.10 0.48 0.15 0.73 5.08
DHMI 7.49 0.16 0.34 0.15 0.64 4.76
HungaroControl 7.18 0.07 0.45 0.13 0.65 4.67
Croatia Control 7.48 0.05 0.48 0.07 0.61 4.55
Aena 6.54 0.16 0.37 0.13 0.67 4.35
PANSA 4.74 0.14 0.52 0.24 0.90 4.26
NAVIAIR 3.49 0.18 0.57 0.21 0.96 3.36
ROMATSA 5.44 0.05 0.40 0.12 0.58 3.17
LFV 3.05 0.22 0.49 0.25 0.96 2.93
BULATSA 6.70 0.06 0.30 0.06 0.42 2.80
NATA Albania 6.28 0.05 0.35 0.04 0.45 2.80
DCAC Cyprus 4.36 0.14 0.36 0.11 0.61 2.67
M‐NAV 4.49 0.10 0.41 0.06 0.57 2.56
EANS 3.69 0.15 0.30 0.24 0.69 2.55
HCAA 4.31 0.10 0.38 0.08 0.56 2.41
LGS 3.23 0.09 0.46 0.18 0.73 2.34
Avinor (Continental) 2.12 0.29 0.48 0.26 1.04 2.20
NAV Portugal (Continental) 3.61 0.16 0.37 0.08 0.61 2.20
Oro Navigacija 3.08 0.07 0.43 0.19 0.69 2.13
UkSATSE 3.22 0.06 0.39 0.19 0.64 2.06
Finavia 1.76 0.27 0.35 0.38 1.01 1.78
IAA 4.18 0.07 0.23 0.11 0.40 1.68
MoldATSA 2.13 0.03 0.40 0.22 0.65 1.39
MATS 1.43 0.08 0.37 0.15 0.59 0.85
ARMATS 1.37 0.08 0.39 0.15 0.62 0.84
Average 7.31 0.20 0.46 0.18 0.84 6.16
Annex 4 – Traffic complexity and traffic variability indicators 126 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Annex 4 ‐ Table 0.2: Traffic complexity indicators at ACC level, 2012
[1] [2] [3] [4][5] =
[2]+[3]+[4]
[6] =
[1]x[5]
ANSPs ACC name Adjusted density
Vertical interactions
Horizontal interactions
Speed interactions
Structural complexity
Aggregated
complexity
score
NATS (Continental) London TC 25.1 0.46 0.52 0.31 1.29 32.5 148DFS Langen 10.2 0.39 0.55 0.39 1.33 13.5 175DFS Rhein 12.1 0.20 0.60 0.17 0.97 11.7 349Skyguide Zurich 9.5 0.31 0.60 0.26 1.17 11.1 284Skyguide Geneva 11.1 0.22 0.60 0.18 1.00 11.1 311Belgocontrol Brussels 7.4 0.41 0.56 0.45 1.42 10.5 178DFS Munchen 9.5 0.31 0.50 0.29 1.10 10.4 270MUAC Maastricht 9.9 0.26 0.54 0.17 0.97 9.7 343LVNL Amsterdam 9.8 0.18 0.43 0.36 0.97 9.5 167DSNA Paris 10.6 0.24 0.34 0.28 0.87 9.3 233DSNA Reims 11.0 0.19 0.48 0.15 0.82 9.1 334NATS (Continental) London AC 8.7 0.30 0.37 0.24 0.91 7.9 309ENAV Milano 5.4 0.45 0.63 0.39 1.47 7.9 213ANS CR Praha 8.6 0.14 0.53 0.18 0.86 7.4 326ENAV Padova 6.5 0.27 0.66 0.18 1.11 7.3 309Austro Control Wien 8.5 0.17 0.51 0.17 0.85 7.2 327Slovenia Control Ljubljana 9.2 0.12 0.54 0.11 0.77 7.1 324DSNA Bordeaux 10.8 0.11 0.39 0.08 0.58 6.2 338Aena Palma 6.6 0.24 0.40 0.27 0.91 6.0 166DSNA Brest 9.8 0.08 0.45 0.08 0.61 5.9 351IAA Dublin 5.3 0.30 0.40 0.42 1.12 5.9 163DSNA Marseille 8.3 0.16 0.42 0.11 0.70 5.8 322DFS Bremen 4.1 0.31 0.55 0.41 1.27 5.3 182NATS (Continental) Prestwick 4.4 0.34 0.44 0.42 1.20 5.2 258SMATSA Beograd 8.8 0.04 0.49 0.07 0.59 5.2 348LPS Bratislava 7.0 0.10 0.48 0.15 0.73 5.1 329Aena Barcelona 6.6 0.20 0.41 0.12 0.73 4.8 307HungaroControl Budapest 7.3 0.06 0.45 0.12 0.64 4.7 339ENAV Roma 5.1 0.23 0.54 0.13 0.91 4.6 311Croatia Control Zagreb 7.7 0.05 0.48 0.07 0.60 4.6 346Aena Madrid 7.4 0.10 0.35 0.07 0.52 3.9 338PANSA Warszawa 4.6 0.10 0.53 0.19 0.82 3.8 340DHMI Ankara 6.2 0.10 0.35 0.13 0.57 3.5 346DHMI Istanbul 5.8 0.18 0.24 0.13 0.55 3.2 297ROMATSA Bucuresti 5.5 0.05 0.40 0.12 0.58 3.2 342NAVIAIR Kobenhavn 3.3 0.17 0.57 0.19 0.93 3.1 320LFV Malmo 3.4 0.17 0.51 0.17 0.85 2.9 326BULATSA Sofia 6.8 0.06 0.30 0.06 0.41 2.8 348NATA Albania Tirana 6.3 0.05 0.35 0.04 0.45 2.8 342DCAC Cyprus Nicosia 4.4 0.14 0.36 0.11 0.61 2.7 314M‐NAV Skopje 4.6 0.10 0.41 0.06 0.57 2.6 329Aena Sevilla 4.5 0.17 0.31 0.09 0.57 2.6 311EANS Tallinn 3.7 0.15 0.30 0.24 0.69 2.6 309LFV Stockholm 2.1 0.35 0.41 0.39 1.16 2.4 244UkSATSE L'viv 3.1 0.02 0.52 0.22 0.76 2.4 348LGS Riga 3.2 0.09 0.46 0.18 0.73 2.3 323ENAV Brindisi 3.0 0.15 0.50 0.11 0.76 2.3 316HCAA Athinai+Macedonia 4.4 0.08 0.38 0.06 0.52 2.3 331NAV Portugal (Continental) Lisboa 3.7 0.16 0.37 0.07 0.60 2.2 324UkSATSE Simferopol 4.1 0.02 0.36 0.15 0.53 2.2 350Oro Navigacija Vilnius 3.1 0.07 0.43 0.19 0.69 2.1 312UkSATSE Kyiv 2.9 0.11 0.35 0.23 0.68 2.0 330Avinor (Continental) Oslo 2.0 0.27 0.41 0.20 0.88 1.8 273UkSATSE Dnipropetrovs'k 3.4 0.05 0.33 0.15 0.52 1.8 343Aena Canarias 2.6 0.17 0.26 0.13 0.56 1.5 294MoldATSA Chisinau 2.1 0.03 0.40 0.22 0.65 1.4 329Finavia Tampere 1.4 0.29 0.31 0.36 0.95 1.3 260IAA Shannon 4.1 0.04 0.21 0.07 0.32 1.3 346UkSATSE Odesa 2.0 0.04 0.44 0.14 0.63 1.3 337Avinor (Continental) Bodo 1.3 0.24 0.41 0.19 0.85 1.1 258Avinor (Continental) Stavanger 1.1 0.26 0.44 0.27 0.97 1.1 279ARMATS Yerevan 1.4 0.07 0.40 0.15 0.61 0.9 324MATS Malta 1.4 0.06 0.38 0.14 0.58 0.8 332
7.3 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.8 6.0 311European system average
Average used flight level
Annex 4 – Traffic complexity and traffic variability indicators 127 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Annex 4 ‐ Table 0.3: Traffic variability indicators at ANSP level, 2012
ANSPs
Variability
based on three‐
months
periods (2012)
Peak month
/ Average
month
(2012)
Peak week
/ Average
week
(2012)
Aena 1.20 1.23 1.24
ANS CR 1.17 1.20 1.21
ARMATS 1.05 1.07 1.09
Austro Control 1.21 1.22 1.23
Avinor (Continental) 1.04 1.10 1.13
Belgocontrol 1.10 1.12 1.18
BULATSA 1.38 1.43 1.44
Croatia Control 1.40 1.46 1.47
DCAC Cyprus 1.16 1.20 1.26
DFS 1.11 1.13 1.14
DHMI 1.23 1.24 1.26
DSNA 1.17 1.20 1.21
EANS 1.11 1.15 1.16
ENAV 1.26 1.29 1.30
Finavia 1.06 1.08 1.12
HCAA 1.45 1.53 1.55
HungaroControl 1.30 1.35 1.36
IAA 1.12 1.15 1.17
LFV 1.05 1.09 1.15
LGS 1.13 1.16 1.18
LPS 1.33 1.38 1.39
LVNL 1.09 1.10 1.12
MATS 1.24 1.28 1.36
M‐NAV 1.54 1.61 1.67
MoldATSA 1.29 1.31 1.38
MUAC 1.10 1.12 1.13
NATA Albania 1.39 1.46 1.48
NATS (Continental) 1.12 1.14 1.15
NAV Portugal (Continental) 1.11 1.13 1.15
NAVIAIR 1.04 1.09 1.13
Oro Navigacija 1.13 1.15 1.16
PANSA 1.16 1.21 1.24
ROMATSA 1.30 1.35 1.36
Skyguide 1.13 1.15 1.17
Slovenia Control 1.34 1.39 1.41
SMATSA 1.38 1.43 1.44
UkSATSE 1.24 1.26 1.32
Traffic variability indicators
Annex 4 – Traffic complexity and traffic variability indicators 128 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Annex 5 – Cost of capital reported by ANSPs 129 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ANNEX 5 – COST OF CAPITAL REPORTED BY ANSPS
ANSPs Comments
Aena Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets with an average rate of 8.38% for en‐route ANS and 9.21% for terminal ANS.
ANS CR Gross cost of capital computed as the product of an average rate of 7.0% and an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets.
ARMATS Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets with an average rate of 12.0%.
Austro Control Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets (excluding assets under construction, land and financial assets) with an average rate of 4.5% for en‐route ANS and 1.49% for terminal ANS.
Avinor Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets (only for en‐route) with a weighted average cost of capital of 7.6%.
Belgocontrol Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets (only for en‐route) with an average rate of 5.73% for en‐route ANS and 3.0% for terminal ANS.
BULATSA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets with an average rate of 7.0%.
Croatia Control Corresponds to the product of the asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and current assets with an average rate of 5.2%.
DCAC Cyprus Corresponds to the product of the asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and current assets with an average rate of 6.0%.
DFS Corresponds to the product of an asset base with an average rate of 5.26% for en‐route ANS and 4.25% for terminal ANS.
DHMİ Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets with an average rate of 5.7%.
DSNA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets with an average rate of 4.66% for en‐route ANS and 2.58% for terminal ANS.
EANS Computed as the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets with an average rate of 8.9%.
ENAV Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets with an average rate of 2.70% for en‐route ANS and 2.31% for terminal ANS.
Finavia Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets with an average rate of 3.7%.
HCAA Corresponds to the product of an asset base with an average rate of 3.2%.
HungaroControl Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets with a return on equity of 10.5% for en‐route ANS and 5.8% for terminal ANS.
IAA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets with an average rate of 7.9%.
LFV Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets with an average rate of 5.4%.
LGS Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and current assets with an average rate of 6.6%.
LPS Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and current assets with an average rate of 6.3%.
LVNL Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and current assets with an average rate of 4.5%.
MATS Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the net current assets with an average rate of 5.2%.
M‐NAV Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets with an average rate of 5.5%.
MoldATSA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and current assets with an average rate of 12.1%, plus a part of the capital expenditures spent during the year.
MUAC Corresponds to the product of the actual interest paid by EUROCONTROL to the banks (0.6%) with the proportion of EUROCONTROL NBV assets belonging to MUAC.
NATA Albania Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets with an average rate of 4.3%.
NATS Economic cost of capital computed as the product of the regulatory rate of return (6.76%) with the average regulatory asset base for en‐route ANS and with the average capital employed for terminal ANS.
Annex 5 – Cost of capital reported by ANSPs 130 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets with an average rate of 6.76%.
NAVIAIR Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and current assets with an average rate of 5.5%.
Oro Navigacija Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the average NBV of fixed assets and average current assets (including “stocks, prepayments and contract in progress” and “amounts receivable within one year”) with an average rate of 3.0%.
PANSA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising long‐term assets and net current assets with an average rate of 3.5% for en‐route ANS and 5.04% for terminal ANS.
ROMATSA Corresponds to the product of an average rate of 8.0% with an asset base comprising the average NBV of fixed assets and average net current assets, excluding interest bearing accounts.
Skyguide Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets with an average WACC capped at 2.5%.
Slovenia Control Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets with an average rate of 6.0%.
SMATSA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets with an average rate of 9.57%.
UkSATSE Includes the amount of capital expenditure spent in 2012.
Annex 5 ‐ Table 0.1: Comments on cost of capital reported by ANSPs, 2012
Annex 6 – Exchange rates, inflation rates and PPPs 2012 data 131 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ANNEX 6 – EXCHANGE RATES, INFLATION RATES AND PURCHASING POWER PARITIES (PPPS) 2012 DATA
ANSPs Countries 2012
Exchange rate (1 €=)
2012Inflation rate (%)
2012 PPPs
Comments
Aena Spain 1 2.4 0.91
ANS CR Czech Republic 25.1 3.5 17.70
ARMATS Armenia 515.3 2.5 253.77 PPPs from IMF database
Austro Control Austria 1 2.6 1.10
Avinor (Continental) Norway 7.5 0.4 11.67
Belgocontrol Belgium 1 2.6 1.11
BULATSA Bulgaria 2.0 2.4 0.88
Croatia Control Croatia 7.5 3.4 4.92
DCAC Cyprus Cyprus 1 3.1 0.88
DFS Germany 1 2.1 1.03
DHMI Turkey 2.3 9.0 1.37
DSNA France 1 2.2 1.12
EANS Estonia 1 4.2 0.71
ENAV Italy 1 3.3 1.00
Finavia Finland 1 3.2 1.21
HCAA Greece 1 1.0 0.89
HungaroControl Hungary 288.9 5.7 166.34
IAA Ireland 1 1.9 1.09
LFV Sweden 8.7 0.9 11.58
LGS Latvia 0.7 2.3 0.66
LPS Slovak Republic 1 3.7 0.68
LVNL Netherlands 1 2.8 1.10
MATS Malta 1 3.2 0.75
M‐NAV F.Y.R. Macedonia 61.2 3.3 24.60
MoldATSA Moldova 15.5 4.6 9.04 PPPs from IMF database
MUAC 1 2.8 1.10 Netherlands PPPs and inflation rate used for MUAC
NATA Albania Albania 139.8 2.0 61.28
NATS (Continental) United Kingdom 0.8 2.8 0.92
NAV Portugal (Continental)
Portugal 1 2.8 0.81
NAVIAIR Denmark 7.4 2.4 10.16
Oro Navigacija Lithuania 3.5 3.2 2.08
PANSA Poland 4.2 3.7 2.42
ROMATSA Romania 4.5 3.4 2.16
Skyguide Switzerland 1.2 ‐0.7 1.85
Slovenia Control Slovenia 1 2.8 0.80
SMATSA Serbia and Montenegro
113.0 7.3 51.46 Data for Serbia only since ACE data is provided in Serbian Dinar
UkSATSE Ukraine 10.3 0.6 5.24 PPPs from IMF database
Annex 6 ‐ Table 0.1: 2012 Exchange rates, inflation rates and PPPs data
Annex 6 – Exchange rates, inflation rates and PPPs 2012 data 132 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Presentation and comparison of historical series of financial data from different countries poses problems, especially when different currencies are involved, and inflation rates differ. There is a danger that time‐series comparisons can be distorted by transient variations in exchange rates.
For this reason, the following approach has been adopted in this Report for allowing for inflation and exchange rate variation. The financial elements of performance are assessed, for each year, in national currency. They are then converted to national currency in 2012 prices using national inflation rates. Finally, for comparison purposes in 2012, all national currencies are converted to Euros using the 2012 exchange rate.
This approach has the virtue that an ANSP’s performance time series is not distorted by transient changes in exchange rates over the period. It does mean, however, that the performance figures for any ANSP in a given year prior to 2011 are not the same as the figures in that year’s ACE report, and cannot legitimately be compared with another ANSP’s figures for the same year. Cross‐sectional comparison using the figures in this report is only appropriate for 2012 data.
The exchange rates used in this Report to convert the 2012 data in Euros are those provided by the ANSPs in their ACE data submission.
The historical inflation figures used in this analysis were obtained from EUROSTAT30 or from the International Monetary Fund31 when the information was not available in EUROSTAT website. For the projections (2013‐2017), the ANSPs’ own assumptions concerning inflation rates were used.
Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) are currency conversion rates that are applied to convert economic indicators in national currency to an artificial common currency (Purchasing Power Standard (PPS) for EUROSTAT statistics). The PPPs data used to adjust most of the ANSPs employment costs in Chapter 2 of this report was extracted from EUROSTAT.
For three countries (Armenia, Moldova and Ukraine), PPP data was not available in the EUROSTAT database. In these cases, the IMF database was used. Since in the IMF database, the PPPs are expressed in local currency per international Dollar rather than PPS, an adjustment has been made so that the figures used for Armenia, MoldATSA and UkSATSE are as consistent as possible with the data used for the rest of the ANSPs. The assumption underlying this adjustment is that the difference in PPPs between two countries shall be the same in the EUROSTAT and in the IMF databases.
According to the IMF database, there is a factor of 4.68 between the PPPs for Ukraine (4.248 UAH per international dollar in 2012) and the PPPs for France (0.908 Euro per international Dollar). This factor is applied to the PPPs for France as disclosed in the EUROSTAT database (i.e. 1.12) to express the PPPs for Ukraine in PPS (5.24 = 1.12 × 4.68). A similar methodology is used to express Moldova and Armenia PPPs in PPS.
30 Latest EUROSTAT database available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home 31 IMF April 2014 database available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/01/weodata/index.aspx.
Annex 7 – Key data
133
ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ANNEX
7 – KEY
DATA
Annex 7 ‐ Tab
le 0.1: B
reakdown of total A
NS revenues (en‐route, term
inal and gate‐to‐gate), 2012
ANSPs
Income from charges
Income for airport operator
Income received from other
States for delegation of ANS
Income from the military
Income in respect of exempted
flights
Other income from domestic
government
Financial income
Other income
Exceptional revenue item
Total revenues
Income from charges
Income for airport operator
Income received from other
States for delegation of ANS
Income from the military
Income in respect of exempted
flights
Other income from domestic
government
Financial income
Other income
Exceptional revenue item
Total revenues
Income from charges
Income for airport operator
Income received from other
States for delegation of ANS
Income from the military
Income in respect of exempted
flights
Other income from domestic
government
Financial income
Other income
Exceptional revenue item
Total revenues
Aena
691 675
00
010 876
6 965
493
25 551
407
735
967
18 388
184
998
00
00
104
13 875
148
217 513
710
063
184 998
00
10 876
6 965
596
39 426
555
953
480
ANS CR
101 388
00
0355
1 092
00
0102
834
20 278
00
044
00
00
20 321
121
666
00
0398
1 092
00
0123
155
ARMATS
4 146
00
04
33
00
04 183
3 900
00
00
00
00
3 900
8 046
00
04
330
00
8 084
Austro Control
172 197
00
0363
1 804
916
00
175
280
38 119
00
00
0510
00
38 629
210
316
00
0363
1 804
1 426
00
213
909
Avinor (Continental)
108 986
00
00
00
00
108
986
0103
618
00
00
04 115
0107 733
108
986
103 618
00
00
04 115
0216
720
Belgocontrol
163 033
00
00
10 847
114
4 370
20178
384
25 871
00
00
062
4 733
13
30 679
188
904
00
00
10 847
176
9 102
33209
063
BULATSA
73 229
00
00
560
00
073
789
8 033
00
00
01 559
797
010 389
81 262
00
00
560
1 559
797
084
178
Croatia Control
59 595
07 176
00
00
00
66 772
7 917
00
00
00
00
7 917
67 513
07 176
00
00
00
74 689
DCAC Cyprus
47 530
00
00
00
00
47 530
00
00
07 647
00
07 647
47 530
00
00
7 647
00
055
177
DFS
753 373
00
00
051 950
00
805
323
218 257
00
00
015 050
00
233 308
971
630
00
00
067
001
00
1 038
630
DHMI
290 187
00
04 932
2 433
00
0297
551
100 487
00
00
00
00
100 487
390
674
00
04 932
2 433
00
0398
039
DSN
A1 118 959
00
018 000
00
12 433
01 149
392
236 529
00
044
263
00
3 298
0284 090
1 355
488
00
062
263
00
15 730
01 433
482
EANS
16 284
00
00
00
00
16 284
1 472
00
00
00
00
1 472
17 756
00
00
00
00
17 756
ENAV
567 621
00
012 340
23 439
07 752
500
611
652
118 210
00
019
255
23 106
01 606
116
162 293
685
830
00
031
595
46 545
09 359
616
773
945
Finavia
39 285
00
346
0440
00
040
071
16 454
00
00
205
01 288
017 947
55 739
00
346
0645
01 288
058
018
HCAA
155 627
00
00
00
00
155
627
9 724
00
00
12 073
00
021 797
165
351
00
00
12 073
00
0177
423
HungaroC
ontrol
84 363
00
01 536
769
4 857
2 093
093
617
15 891
00
058
0915
308
017 172
100
254
00
01 593
769
5 771
2 401
0110
789
IAA
112 900
00
01 713
0305
00
114
918
20 771
00
00
0174
00
20 945
133
671
00
01 713
0479
00
135
863
LFV
221 142
01 063
0950
05 155
00
228
309
18 625
14 093
00
00
329
00
33 047
239
767
14 093
1 063
0950
05 484
00
261
356
LGS
21 110
00
00
06
201
021
316
2 817
00
00
04
1 005
03 826
23 927
00
00
010
1 205
025
142
LPS
55 269
00
705
1 154
431
941 075
858
736
4 241
00
0104
010
113
14 469
59 510
00
705
1 258
431
104
1 188
963
205
LVNL
169 707
00
00
8 258
38899
0178
902
53 600
00
00
016
729
054 345
223
307
00
00
8 258
54
1 628
0233
247
MATS
16 387
00
00
00
00
16 387
00
00
02 132
00
02 132
16 387
00
00
2 132
00
018
519
M‐NAV
9 007
00
00
027
00
9 034
847
00
40
00
00
851
9 854
00
40
027
00
9 885
MoldA
TSA
8 693
00
00
56
50
08 754
1 934
00
00
00
00
1 934
10 627
00
00
565
00
10 689
MUAC
n/appl
n/appl
n/appl
n/appl
n/appl
n/appl
n/appl
n/appl
n/appl
n/appl
NATA Albania
19 212
00
00
0147
215
019
575
1 105
00
00
026
38
01 169
20 317
00
00
0173
253
020
743
NATS (Continental)
714 080
00
00
03 942
0‐2 005
716
017
13 718
207
730
00
00
1 221
00
222 669
727
798
207 730
00
00
5 164
0‐2 005
938
687
NAV Portugal (Continental)
90 390
00
00
1 084
02 625
094
099
22 317
00
00
00
961
023 278
112
707
00
00
1 084
03 587
0117
377
NAVIAIR
85 520
00
01 631
072
1 361
088
585
28 501
3 010
00
92
09
25
031 638
114
022
3 010
00
1 724
081
1 386
0120
223
Oro navigacija
20 322
00
172
700
78191
020
834
3 987
00
34184
016
38
04 260
24 310
00
206
254
094
230
025
094
PANSA
141 877
00
0677
0235
697
0143
487
27 683
00
0646
046
135
028 511
169
560
00
01 323
0281
833
0171
997
ROMATSA
140 947
00
03 268
1 246
3 204
338
18 263
167
266
14 208
00
00
02
00
14 210
155
155
00
03 268
1 246
3 206
338
18 263
181
477
Skyguide
140 659
041 831
00
35 107
117
2 421
0220
134
83 799
00
00
21 102
434 063
0109 007
224
457
041 831
00
56 209
160
6 484
0329
141
Slovenia Control
30 107
00
0104
016
195
568
30 990
2 862
110
0212
36
00
326
03 546
32 969
110
0212
140
016
521
568
34 537
SMATSA
62 747
07 188
00
03 899
00
73 833
4 884
00
00
0821
02 755
8 460
67 631
07 188
00
04 720
02 755
82 293
UkSATSE
208 065
00
00
00
00
208
065
38 337
00
00
00
00
38 337
246
402
00
00
00
00
246
402
En‐route ANS revenues (in €'000)
Terminal A
NS reven
ues (in €'000)
Gate‐to‐gate ANS revenues (in €'000)
Annex 7 – Key data
134
ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Annex 7 ‐ Tab
le 0.2: B
reakdown of total A
NS costs (en‐route, term
inal and gate‐to‐gate), 2012
ANSPs
ATM/CNS provision costs
MET costs
Payment for regulatory and
supervisory services
Payment ot the State for
provision of other services
Eurocontrol costs
Payments for delegation of
ANS
Irrecoverable value added
tax (VAT)
Total costs
ATM/CNS provision costs
MET costs
Payment for regulatory and
supervisory services
Payment ot the State for
provision of other services
Eurocontrol costs
Payments for delegation of
ANS
Irrecoverable value added
tax (VAT)
Total costs
ATM/CNS provision costs
MET costs
Payment for regulatory and
supervisory services
Payment ot the State for
provision of other services
Eurocontrol costs
Payments for delegation of
ANS
Irrecoverable value added
tax (VAT)
Total costs
Aena
660 685
35 085
7 544
15 880
51 843
00
771 037
236 378
00
00
00
236
378
897
063
35 085
7 544
15 880
51 843
00
1 007 415
ANS CR
93 034
2 219
386
06 677
00
102 316
22 269
606
72
00
00
22 947
115
303
2 825
458
06 677
00
125 263
ARMATS
4 291
00
0287
00
4 577
3 751
00
00
00
3 751
8 041
00
0287
00
8 328
Austro Control
149 247
16 716
458
011 460
00
177 881
33 524
3 565
110
00
00
37 199
182
771
20 281
568
011 460
00
215 080
Avinor (Continental)
93 237
0318
07 347
00
100 902
113 846
0562
00
00
114
408
207
082
0880
07 347
00
215 310
Belgocontrol
97 674
7 309
1 334
011 622
44 592
0162 531
52 816
4 141
716
00
00
57 673
150
490
11 450
2 050
011 622
44 592
0220 204
BULATSA
63 849
5 304
472
04 175
02
73 801
10 099
1 438
150
00
00
11 687
73 948
6 742
622
04 175
02
85 488
Croatia Control
69 272
4 303
00
00
073 575
8 887
00
00
00
8 887
78 159
4 303
00
00
082 462
DCAC Cyprus
33 204
4 101
8 053
02 488
00
47 846
4 777
876
1 995
00
00
7 647
37 981
4 976
10 048
02 488
00
55 493
DFS
827 762
32 647
00
00
0860 409
227 429
8 064
694
00
00
236
187
1 055 191
40 711
694
00
00
1 096 596
DHMI
269 333
22 294
2 527
018 107
00
312 261
83 078
00
00
00
83 078
352
411
22 294
2 527
018 107
00
395 339
DSN
A926 092
62 782
7 300
079 661
48 731
36 699
1 161 264
238 530
23 846
1 714
00
09 991
274
081
1 164 622
86 628
9 013
079 661
48 731
46 690
1 435 345
EANS
12 170
109
00
00
012 279
1 403
88
00
00
01 491
13 573
197
00
00
013 770
ENAV
525 795
37 539
3 158
048 588
00
615 080
112 579
14 114
595
00
00
127
288
638
374
51 653
3 753
048 588
00
742 368
Finavia
37 409
3 115
179
00
213
040 916
25 643
3 262
560
00
00
29 465
63 052
6 377
739
00
213
070 381
HCAA
135 113
8 581
00
11 071
00
154 765
19 183
208
303
00
00
19 694
154
296
8 789
303
011 071
00
174 458
HungaroControl
75 691
2 596
1 487
05 489
00
85 263
15 633
419
243
00
00
16 295
91 324
3 014
1 731
05 489
00
101 558
IAA
91 989
6 541
1 636
2 216
7 595
00
109 977
20 892
1 635
327
309
00
023
163
112
881
8 176
1 963
2 525
7 595
00
133 140
LFV
210 480
7 769
463
00
00
218 712
34 952
0226
00
00
35 178
245
432
7 769
689
00
00
253 890
LGS
16 917
824
1 059
01 197
00
19 996
5 316
504
353
00
00
6 172
22 232
1 328
1 411
01 197
00
26 168
LPS
50 511
1 549
1 083
03 212
00
56 355
5 226
607
45
00
00
5 878
55 738
2 156
1 128
03 212
00
62 234
LVNL
113 648
7 368
1 734
015 903
31 889
‐4 950
165 592
49 812
1 611
00
00
‐2 260
49 163
163
460
8 979
1 734
015 903
31 889
‐7 210
214 755
MATS
11 290
0449
0704
00
12 444
2 214
00
00
00
2 214
13 504
0449
0704
00
14 658
M‐NAV
8 318
687
100
00
00
9 105
1 070
96
25
00
00
1 191
9 389
782
125
00
00
10 296
MoldATSA
7 204
688
79
0414
00
8 385
1 941
352
39
00
00
2 331
9 145
1 039
118
0414
00
10 716
MUAC
141 228
00
00
07
141 235
n/appl
n/appl
n/appln/appln/appl
n/appl
n/appl
n/appl
141
228
00
00
07
141 235
NATA Albania
17 612
392
719
0854
00
19 577
3 322
131
00
00
03 453
20 934
523
719
0854
00
23 030
NATS (Continental)
583 338
35 309
00
784
0589 433
177 036
23
3 422
00
00
180
482
760
374
26
8 731
00
784
0769 915
NAV Portugal (Continental)
100 440
5 161
620
3 987
7 854
00
118 061
26 819
00
00
00
26 819
127
260
5 161
620
3 987
7 854
00
144 880
NAVIAIR
81 481
01 381
00
00
82 862
31 622
00
00
00
31 622
113
103
01 381
00
00
114 484
Oro navigacija
19 335
513
307
01 244
00
21 400
3 867
80
64
00
00
4 010
23 202
593
371
01 244
00
25 410
PANSA
125 702
4 104
1 458
08 579
740
0140 582
21 542
3 390
1 135
00
00
26 067
147
243
7 494
2 593
08 579
740
0166 649
ROMATSA
140 030
7 243
2 864
08 697
00
158 834
25 061
1 347
96
00
00
26 503
165
091
8 590
2 960
08 697
00
185 338
Skyguide
194 519
9 516
00
9 673
00
213 708
98 211
4 440
00
0207
0102
859
292
730
13 956
00
9 673
207
0316 566
Slovenia Control
24 452
1 241
441
01 468
00
27 603
3 714
499
78
00
00
4 291
28 166
1 740
519
01 468
00
31 894
SMATSA
62 412
4 566
00
3 296
00
70 273
13 008
841
00
00
013
850
75 420
5 407
00
3 296
00
84 123
UkSATSE
195 991
2 533
1 933
08 678
00
209 136
52 621
0473
00
00
53 093
248
611
2 533
2 406
08 678
00
262 229
En‐route ANS costs (in €'000)
Term
inal ANS costs (in €'000)
Gate‐to‐gate ANS costs (in €'000)
Annex 7 – Key data
135
ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Annex 7 ‐ Tab
le 0.3: B
reakdown of ATM/CNS provision costs (en‐route, term
inal and gate‐to‐gate), 2012
ANSPs
Staff costs
Non‐staff operating costs
Depreciation costs
Cost of capital
Exceptional items
ATM/CNS provision costs
Staff costs
Non‐staff operating costs
Depreciation costs
Cost of capital
Exceptional items
ATM/CNS provision costs
Staff costs
Non‐staff operating costs
Depreciation costs
Cost of capital
Exceptional items
ATM/CNS provision costs
Aena
404
694
87 925
106
353
55 687
6 026
660 685
179 942
23 128
20 105
11 295
1 907
236
378
584 636
111 053
126 459
66 982
7 933
897 063
ANS CR
51 985
14 226
17 234
9 589
093 034
14 461
2 924
3 060
1 825
022
269
66 446
17 150
20 294
11 414
0115 303
ARMATS
2 315
857
500
619
04 291
1 958
784
426
583
03 751
4 273
1 641
926
1 202
08 041
Austro Control
109
151
20 491
15 599
4 006
0149 247
23 181
4 091
5 781
471
033
524
132 332
24 582
21 380
4 477
0182 771
Avinor (Continental)
66 929
15 909
6 031
4 368
093 237
86 689
21 672
4 381
1 103
0113
846
153 618
37 581
10 412
5 471
0207 082
Belgocontrol
70 957
9 585
11 198
5 915
1897 674
40 001
4 475
6 858
1 479
352
816
110 958
14 060
18 056
7 394
22150 490
BULATSA
41 104
6 665
8 914
7 166
063 849
7 330
1 094
1 161
515
010
099
48 433
7 759
10 075
7 681
073
948
Croatia Control
44 570
11 716
8 962
4 024
069 272
5 756
944
1 144
1 043
08 887
50 326
12 660
10 105
5 067
078
159
DCAC Cyprus
13 020
13 095
4 840
2 249
033 204
2 220
1 512
664
380
04 777
15 241
14 607
5 504
2 629
037
981
DFS
568
999
84 246
74 016
66 944
33 556
827 762
153 434
31 336
18 909
13 989
9 760
227
429
722 434
115 582
92 926
80 933
43 316
1 055 191
DHMI
129
035
81 295
28 306
30 697
0269 333
39 064
22 414
14 560
7 040
083
078
168 099
103 709
42 866
37 738
0352 411
DSN
A630
693
176 582
86 941
31 876
0926 092
162 302
47 158
24 189
4 882
0238
530
792 995
223 740
111 130
36 758
01 164 622
EANS
7 183
2 621
1 438
927
012 170
381
247
371
405
01 403
7 564
2 868
1 809
1 332
013
573
ENAV
290
209
109 538
97 326
28 090
632
525 795
53 539
29 419
24 732
4 652
238
112
579
343 748
138 957
122 057
32 742
871
638 374
Finavia
23 240
8 863
4 203
1 103
037 409
16 678
5 407
2 834
724
025
643
39 918
14 270
7 037
1 827
063
052
HCAA
104
772
20 026
6 907
3 409
0135 113
13 174
3 978
1 266
765
019
183
117 946
24 004
8 173
4 174
0154 296
HungaroControl
42 365
22 525
8 141
2 660
075 691
10 455
3 212
1 430
536
015
633
52 820
25 737
9 572
3 196
091
324
IAA
55 107
20 364
9 995
6 523
091 989
9 569
4 164
4 390
2 769
020
892
64 676
24 528
14 385
9 292
0112 881
LFV
109
257
46 732
16 772
4 246
33 472
210 480
30 200
4 752
00
034
952
139 458
51 484
16 772
4 246
33 472
245 432
LGS
9 842
2 723
3 172
1 180
016 917
2 782
542
1 467
525
05 316
12 624
3 265
4 639
1 705
022
232
LPS
27 745
13 043
6 512
3 211
050 511
3 219
982
686
339
05 226
30 964
14 025
7 198
3 551
055
738
LVNL
81 242
22 673
6 706
3 027
0113 648
35 609
9 937
2 939
1 327
049
812
116 851
32 610
9 645
4 354
0163 460
MATS
4 570
4 740
1 400
581
011 290
1 202
505
267
240
02 214
5 772
5 245
1 666
821
013
504
M‐NAV
6 470
948
564
337
08 318
783
185
7230
01 070
7 253
1 132
636
367
09 389
MoldA
TSA
3 483
1 598
855
1 268
07 204
743
490
339
368
01 941
4 227
2 088
1 194
1 636
09 145
MUAC
118
067
12 791
9 669
701
0141 228
n/appl
n/appl
n/appl
n/appl
n/appl
n/appl
118 067
12 791
9 669
701
0141 228
NATA
Albania
4 641
6 639
3 877
2 455
017 612
2 116
754
289
163
03 322
6 757
7 393
4 166
2 617
020
934
NATS (Continental)
302
003
94 565
97 169
84 012
5 589
583 338
123 849
44 337
5 706
3 229
‐85
177
036
425 852
138 902
102 874
87 242
5 504
760 374
NAV Portugal (Continental)
85 550
7 165
5 202
2 523
0100 440
23 345
1 205
1 675
595
026
819
108 895
8 370
6 877
3 118
0127 260
NAVIAIR
49 690
12 256
11 461
8 074
081 481
20 506
4 301
2 262
4 553
031
622
70 196
16 557
13 723
12 627
0113 103
Oro navigacija
11 034
3 733
3 605
962
019 335
2 057
744
842
225
03 867
13 091
4 477
4 447
1 187
023
202
PANSA
95 065
17 085
9 144
4 408
0125 702
16 065
2 805
1 537
1 135
021
542
111 130
19 889
10 681
5 543
0147 243
ROMATSA
78 702
16 084
8 931
10 717
25 596
140 030
15 982
4 112
1 230
1 476
2 260
25 061
94 684
20 197
10 161
12 193
27 857
165 091
Skyguide
137
934
21 367
30 347
4 766
106
194 519
70 711
11 728
13 523
2 190
5898
211
208 645
33 095
43 870
6 956
164
292 730
Slovenia Control
16 876
3 830
1 524
1 643
579
24 452
2 691
270
9745
611
3 714
19 567
4 100
1 621
1 688
1 190
28 166
SMATSA
32 557
13 911
7 337
8 473
134
62 412
6 421
2 660
1 631
2 268
2813
008
38 978
16 571
8 968
10 741
161
75 420
UkSATSE
109
867
26 991
13 096
45 937
100
195 991
30 826
6 930
3 385
11 446
3352
621
140 693
33 920
16 481
57 383
133
248 611
Total
3 940
924
1 035 402
734
245
454 374
105 809
6 270 754
1 209
241
305
197
174
209
84 611
14 814
1 788
072
5 150 165
1 340
599
908 454
538 985
120 623
8 058 826
En‐route ATM/CNS costs (in €'000)
Term
inal A
TM/CNS costs (in €'000)
Gate‐to‐gate ATM/CNS costs (in €'000)
Annex 7 – Key data
136
ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Annex 7 ‐ Tab
le 0.4: B
alan
ce Sheet data at ANSP
level, 2012
ANSPs
NBV fixed assets in operation
NBV fixed assets under
construction
Long‐term financial assets
Current assets
Total assets
Capital and reserves
Long‐term liabilities
Current liabilities
Total liabilities
Aena
663 063
176 912
133
422
237 712
1 211 109
582 246
240
443
388 420
1 211 109
ANS CR
118 869
20 090
11 573
58 666
209 198
186 641
10 752
11 804
209 198
ARMATS
9 036
985
182 225
12 265
10 165
867
1 234
12 265
Austro Control
202 137
36 852
31 092
85 373
355 454
73 555
215
433
66 466
355 454
Avinor (Continental)
82 527
17 048
00
99 575
Belgocontrol
143 682
7 210
487
82 234
233 613
147 732
25 926
59 955
233 613
BULATSA
88 736
4 851
1 292
91 971
186 851
150 630
10 026
26 195
186 851
Croatia Control
48 092
34 685
5 444
29 441
117 662
60 044
42 140
15 479
117 662
DCAC Cyprus
21 610
7 713
016 228
45 551
22 726
22 825
045 551
DFS
692 307
53 253
176
635
910 904
1 833 099
623 148
988
511
221 440
1 833 099
DHMI
530 195
100 457
1 141
55 937
687 730
622 668
24 574
40 488
687 730
DSN
A590 802
247 557
00
838 359
EANS
17 985
36
07 974
25 995
14 801
8 121
3 074
25 996
ENAV
845 731
477 093
114
699
699 902
2 137 425
1 288 897
231
941
616 587
2 137 425
Finavia
48 715
4 485
033 677
86 877
39 790
23 370
23 718
86 877
HCAA
130 469
00
0130 469
HungaroControl
73 304
1 056
13 427
65 031
152 818
83 081
48 742
20 995
152 818
IAA
85 504
6 575
0121 064
213 143
49 763
127
489
35 891
213 143
LFV
116 095
42 989
83 105
358 284
600 474
67 358
477
252
55 863
600 474
LGS
16 315
5 363
118 893
30 582
26 833
269
3 480
30 582
LPS
61 111
2 213
035 676
99 000
62 747
26 105
10 148
99 000
LVNL
78 394
28 169
038 621
145 184
‐5 201
114
609
35 776
145 184
MATS
5 194
1 508
09 737
16 438
5 119
7 449
3 870
16 438
M‐NAV
7 301
61
06 822
14 184
12 385
1 028
771
14 184
MoldATSA
7 322
1 379
446 091
14 836
14 225
0610
14 836
MUAC
68 623
6 585
045 466
120 675
075
208
45 466
120 675
NATA Albania
40 829
2 012
7319 124
62 039
40 605
20 859
575
62 039
NATS (Continental)
839 321
273 814
487
443
590 489
2 191 066
815 707
1 023
388
351 971
2 191 066
NAV Portugal (Continental)
56 074
9 441
89 822
133 597
288 933
85 131
146
821
56 981
288 933
NAVIAIR
150 814
9 398
1171 453
231 675
106 456
79 219
46 001
231 675
Oro navigacija
30 584
3 068
2 027
13 643
49 322
45 047
2 287
1 987
49 322
PANSA
134 437
16 373
14 557
77 216
242 584
160 520
27 147
54 917
242 584
ROMATSA
131 432
10 401
943
128 558
271 334
193 446
59 652
18 236
271 334
Skyguide
263 681
40 113
60 984
142 694
507 472
269 861
165
786
71 824
507 472
Slovenia Control
8 656
26 782
327
3 957
39 721
8 286
18 799
12 636
39 721
SMATSA
112 945
7 989
031 699
152 633
80 753
51 923
19 957
152 633
UkSATSE
196 181
70 137
3 871
102 891
373 079
340 800
6 165
26 114
373 079
Total
6 718 070
1 754 655
1 232
448
4 323 249
14 028 422
6 285 964
4 325
127
2 348 930
12 960 021
ANSP BALA
NCE SHEET in
(€'000)
Annex 7 – Key data
137
ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Annex 7 ‐ Tab
le 0.5: Total staff and ATCOs in OPS data, 2012
ANSPs
ATCOs in OPS
ATCOs on other duties
Ab‐initio trainees
On‐the‐job trainees
ATC assistants
OPS support (non‐ATCO)
Technical support staff for
operational maintenance
Technical support staff for
planning & development
Administration
Staff for ancillary services
Other
Total staff
ACC ATCOs in OPS
ACC ATCO‐hours on duty
APPs+TWRs ATCOs in OPS
APPs+TWRs ATCO‐hours on
duty
Employment costs for
ATCOs in OPS (€'000)
Aena
1 810
292
00
196
53568
395
533
25130
4 002
1 064
1 280 888
746
918 546
351 136
ANS CR
197
1711
1796
42118
29267
3270
896
93138 942
104
155 646
23 831
ARMATS
700
148
1915
166
054
2887
461
2232
296
4870
464
1 098
Austro Control
287
2247
2335
73108
9887
107
0887
123
158 670
164
240 096
63 642
Avinor (Continental)
401
8625
30139
0173
2535
3117
961
157
244 444
244
385 624
82 360
Belgocontrol
221
282
150
64186
31156
9060
853
85112 880
136
191 488
41 029
BULATSA
234
350
542
37403
8170
115
761 125
102
130 356
132
171 072
16 721
Croatia Control
230
2314
1043
25106
24150
118
0743
90120 060
140
200 620
26 071
DCAC Cyprus
8410
00
390
00
3527
0195
57114 057
2755
944
11 257
DFS
1 717
132
206
215
385
550
941
527
468
110
367
5 618
1 320
1 383 430
397
469 254
319 500
DHMI
977
3955
3635
265
1 320
171 102
453
1 108
5 407
475
723 900
502
620 472
65 618
DSN
A2 766
397
184
227
117
1 091
1 318
409
1 174
243
07 926
1 417
1 782 453
1 349
1 696 915
338 384
EANS
4619
00
51
2811
2026
0156
2440
128
2236
754
4 102
ENAV
1 439
164
4450
2316
110
103
527
374
117
2 967
903
1 169 149
536
744 800
206 097
Finavia
192
320
119
072
1036
680
429
5377
098
139
209 776
20 984
HCAA
480
110
00
048
470
8890
0500
1 786
215
316 050
265
389 550
55 688
HungaroControl
166
811
1135
50131
23180
6629
710
89143 178
77121 438
23 569
IAA
204
3332
2223
2235
2074
151
481
141
214 743
6396
579
32 196
LFV
509
820
2533
128
8434
137
310
1 063
229
380 140
280
448 560
78 751
LGS
810
122
038
105
294
271
362
5670
616
2532
075
4 071
LPS
9425
36
4722
116
11117
290
469
4969
677
4570
612
11 109
LVNL
198
3121
2961
153
115
81179
150
885
68106 569
131
205 877
50 869
MATS
480
80
00
400
2418
7145
3272
000
1631
936
2 557
M‐NAV
6121
09
88
450
4750
24273
3853
770
2332
545
2 801
MoldATSA
578
13
52
687
5448
69322
3552
710
2233
198
1 234
MUAC
247
3427
352
87132
056
08
646
247
288 523n/appl
n/appl
56 779
NATA
Albania
566
07
70
820
7136
44309
3960
216
1727
880
2 495
NATS (Continental)
1 423
271
6428
435
330
841
199
822
130
4 426
928
1 155 727
496
617 754
212 448
NAV Portugal (Continental)
214
400
326
6189
65170
4310
721
88156 640
126
230 580
58 788
NAVIAIR
195
802
12106
37104
3786
150
673
86129 657
109
164 399
28 395
Oro navigacija
8511
00
024
668
7528
0296
3351
978
5280
633
5 170
PANSA
442
736
3189
267
341
64325
110
01 712
128
140 890
314
359 875
48 435
ROMATSA
441
978
210
0366
0390
196
01 519
221
270 283
220
282 920
34 671
Skyguide
362
6221
5697
219
132
150
195
6917
1 378
221
277 812
141
166 526
71 482
Slovenia Control
8914
01
115
2710
3325
0215
5071
576
3853
983
10 020
SMATSA
246
6012
2933
30103
106
82154
0855
155
189 720
91111 384
15 429
UkSATSE
994
347
055
104
126
2 787
39748
221
710
6 131
577
718 365
417
572 958
37 839
Total
17 362
2 642
860
990
2 364
3 890
11 896
2 630
8 864
3 055
3 451
58 003
9 709
12 499 592
7 653
10 298
734
2 416 625
Annex 7 – Key data
138
ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Annex 7 ‐ Tab
le 0.6: O
perational data (ANSP
and State level), 2012
ANSPs
Size of controlled
airspace
Number of ACC
operational units
Number of APP
operational units
Number of TWR
operational units
Number of AFIS
Total IFR flights
controlled by the ANSP
Total IFR km controlled
by the ANSP
Total flight‐hours
controlled by the ANSP
IFR Airport mov
controlled by the ANSP
Composite flight‐hours
Aena
2 190 000
517
300
1 657 310
884 308 817
1 275 470
1 676 940
1 721
418
ANS CR
77 100
14
40
662 571
165 529 734
224 495
144 781
262
997
ARMATS
29 800
12
22
55 536
10 551
929
13 988
21 292
19 650
Austro Control
79 500
16
60
888 751
189 085 681
279 393
355 141
373
835
Avinor (Continental)
724 000
317
1928
589 211
182 961 669
347 816
674 187
527
103
Belgocontrol
39 500
14
50
557 312
54 196
085
108 640
364 616
205
602
BULATSA
146 000
13
50
540 138
140 982 268
179 176
75 208
199
176
Croatia Control
158 000
19
100
495 911
150 026 175
193 518
82 229
215
385
DCAC Cyprus
174 000
12
20
269 752
98 562
577
126 759
61 560
143
130
DFS
388 000
40
160
2 784 011
886 817 210
1 379 454
2 000 877
1 911
546
DHMI
982 000
231
400
1 032 651
698 377 510
947 628
959 739
1 202
851
DSN
A1 010 000
512
810
2 809 461
1 498 353 372
2 117 415
1 921 795
2 628
477
EANS
77 102
12
20
187 192
47 492
607
65 567
46 851
78 026
ENAV
733 000
423
1211
1 556 741
714 021 778
1 028 353
1 106 027
1 322
479
Finavia
411 000
17
196
239 486
68 124
159
114 641
247 712
180
515
HCAA
537 000
116
1815
633 008
345 635 936
460 892
149 418
500
627
HungaroC
ontrol
93 000
11
21
589 203
141 356 495
185 247
87 905
208
623
IAA
457 000
23
30
520 650
204 679 262
263 793
207 192
318
891
LFV
626 000
226
311
691 404
277 823 554
418 354
509 001
553
712
LGS
95 300
12
11
231 937
53 117
277
72 741
68 360
90 920
LPS
48 700
12
50
380 017
65 036
077
83 776
29 293
91 566
LVNL
52 200
13
40
554 281
68 363
413
149 594
483 300
278
118
MATS
231 000
12
11
96 948
44 026
709
61 297
33 119
70 104
M‐NAV
24 700
12
21
112 549
14 021
583
17 983
11 008
20 910
MoldA
TSA
33 900
10
43
63 856
12 504
665
16 453
15 806
20 656
MUAC
260 000
10
00
1 605 505
458 152 079
560 102
n/appl
560
102
NATA Albania
36 000
11
11
195 230
32 493
453
40 982
20 543
46 445
NATS (Continental)
882 000
316
160
2 160 176
791 250 167
1 291 693
1 730 568
1 751
902
NAV Portugal (Continental)
665 000
14
60
437 599
212 926 614
284 669
269 298
356
283
NAVIAIR
158 000
17
61
615 460
133 597 013
201 374
325 816
288
018
Oro navigacija
74 700
13
40
204 400
34 453
334
51 981
41 903
63 124
PANSA
334 000
14
130
672 073
291 563 045
401 752
324 379
488
014
ROMATSA
254 000
13
160
487 189
224 563 906
289 097
148 395
328
560
Skyguide
69 700
24
70
1 181 800
210 329 634
326 811
490 676
457
296
Slovenia Control
20 400
13
30
271 661
35 303
906
48 086
31 619
56 494
SMATSA
145 566
18
70
533 087
164 902 941
208 537
68 908
226
862
UkSATSE
776 442
511
229
466 104
293 700 687
383 542
213 668
440
362
Total
63260
425
819 899 193 320
14 221
070
14 999
130
18 209
781
Annex 7 – Key data 139 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Annex 7 ‐ Table 0.7: Operational data at ACC level, 2012
ANSPs ACC Code Flight‐hours controlled
ATC
O‐hours on duty
ATC
O‐hour productivity
Average transit time in
minutes
IFR ACC M
ovem
ents
Size of the controlled
area
ATC
Os in OPS
Size of OPS room area
(m²)
Num
ber of sectors
Sum of sector‐hours
Aena Canarias 163 563 161 303 1.01 36 274 155 1 370 000 130 624 8 45 904
Aena Barcelona 309 587 330 019 0.94 25 736 671 267 000 261 1 395 18 90 164
Aena Madrid 505 158 520 924 0.97 33 914 991 439 000 441 1 013 25 152 577
Aena Palma 64 312 120 931 0.53 15 249 445 51 400 109 783 7 35 544
Aena Sevilla 141 537 147 710 0.96 26 327 204 179 000 123 574 7 40 737
ANS CR Praha 198 685 138 942 1.43 18 656 262 77 100 93 950 8 29 904
ARMATS Yerevan 10 974 32 296 0.34 12 52 697 29 800 22 70 1 8 784
Austro Control Wien 200 796 158 670 1.27 17 717 690 79 500 123 900 12 36 454
Avinor (Continental) Bodo 72 821 54 217 1.34 22 203 092 403 000 35 328 5 29 000
Avinor (Continental) Oslo 116 613 144 579 0.81 21 328 712 115 000 93 605 15 73 326
Avinor (Continental) Stavanger 75 371 45 648 1.65 20 228 774 205 000 29 270 3 21 800
Belgocontrol Brussels 74 234 112 880 0.66 8 550 174 39 500 85 1 054 7 24 512
BULATSA Sofia 165 397 130 356 1.27 19 520 304 145 000 102 1 183 7 24 893
Croatia Control Zagreb 177 628 120 060 1.48 23 470 630 158 000 90 800 9 29 000
DCAC Cyprus Nicosia 119 199 114 057 1.05 27 269 752 174 000 57 250 4 20 155
DFS Karlsruhe 442 299 360 170 1.23 19 1 429 223 200 000 339 1 850 28 107 246
DFS Langen 368 259 429 884 0.86 18 1 235 488 108 000 423 1 689 36 139 480
DFS Munchen 388 697 336 207 1.16 16 1 431 461 116 000 327 1 262 33 118 990
DFS Bremen 180 199 257 170 0.70 18 612 539 174 000 231 1 050 20 91 854
DHMI Ankara 569 900 393 192 1.45 48 705 662 776 000 258 295 11 83 220
DHMI Istanbul 328 589 330 708 0.99 26 750 139 236 800 217 420 11 96 360
DSNA Bordeaux 422 520 353 472 1.20 31 830 222 212 000 281 1 295 19 116 825
DSNA Reims 217 520 265 418 0.82 16 795 741 93 300 211 1 040 17 72 571
DSNA Paris 439 976 455 362 0.97 22 1 200 794 165 000 362 1 250 19 117 657
DSNA Marseille 369 438 389 951 0.95 22 999 610 298 000 310 1 310 28 116 343
DSNA Brest 427 761 318 250 1.34 30 854 665 400 000 253 850 17 88 874
EANS Tallinn 59 457 40 128 1.48 20 179 415 77 102 24 269 3 10 710
ENAV Brindisi 102 037 129 295 0.79 21 295 559 244 000 101 550 6 22 585
ENAV Milano 172 993 316 131 0.55 17 607 107 73 300 238 593 17 44 633
ENAV Padova 192 044 287 378 0.67 17 674 879 94 600 211 375 12 48 254
ENAV Roma 486 168 436 346 1.11 31 945 491 502 000 354 1 600 26 91 644
Finavia Tampere 75 024 77 098 0.97 25 177 395 415 000 53 550 5 24 820
HCAA Athinai+Macedonia 404 716 316 050 1.28 40 612 302 537 000 215 1 000 12 59 400
HungaroControl Budapest 169 054 143 178 1.18 18 558 620 93 000 89 700 7 20 912
IAA Dublin 29 720 54 828 0.54 10 179 675 23 500 36 441 2 13 542
IAA Shannon 218 857 159 915 1.37 33 393 484 449 000 105 576 9 49 410
LFV Malmo 212 255 209 160 1.01 26 497 424 225 000 126 841 11 44 348
LFV Stockholm 129 184 170 980 0.76 20 388 674 479 000 103 828 11 46 720
LGS Riga 72 687 70 616 1.03 17 231 910 95 600 56 169 4 18 402
LPS Bratislava 79 050 69 677 1.13 13 367 589 48 700 49 335 5 13 336
LVNL Amsterdam 72 030 106 650 0.68 8 509 994 52 200 68 1 800 5 29 493
MATS Malta 53 188 72 000 0.74 33 96 948 231 000 32 121 2 11 680
M‐NAV Skopje 16 548 53 770 0.31 9 112 106 24 800 38 202 3 10 144
MoldATSA Chisinau 14 928 52 710 0.28 14 62 738 33 700 35 144 2 17 520
MUAC Maastricht 560 102 288 523 1.94 21 1 605 505 260 000 247 1 050 20 65 808
NATA Albania Tirana 40 982 60 216 0.68 13 195 230 36 000 39 36 4 15 054
NATS (Continental) Prestwick 338 375 316 334 1.07 23 870 967 631 000 254 918 24 108 563
NATS (Continental) London AC 506 646 454 616 1.11 17 1 791 217 287 000 365 2 000 19 79 799
NATS (Continental) London TC 269 949 384 777 0.70 13 1 239 303 40 600 309 766 30 175 158
NAV Portugal (Continental) Lisboa 243 854 156 640 1.56 35 421 666 665 000 88 663 7 53 746
NAVIAIR Kobenhavn 149 532 129 657 1.15 17 515 716 158 000 86 600 7 31 208
Oro Navigacija Vilnius 46 005 51 978 0.89 14 199 203 74 700 33 336 3 19 520
PANSA Warszawa 314 865 140 890 2.23 30 630 754 331 000 128 1 300 8 34 005
ROMATSA Bucuresti 270 210 270 283 1.00 34 478 684 254 000 221 1 391 11 59 220
Skyguide Geneva 110 796 138 170 0.80 11 605 410 30 000 110 1 113 9 29 486
Skyguide Zurich 133 167 139 642 0.95 11 743 175 39 800 111 960 10 39 874
Slovenia Control Ljubljana 45 937 71 576 0.64 10 268 923 20 400 50 200 4 16 048
SMATSA Beograd 195 256 189 720 1.03 22 525 343 145 566 155 744 9 39 377
UkSATSE Kyiv 113 040 236 550 0.48 29 230 847 185 834 190 883 12 55 240
UkSATSE Dnipropetrovs'k 63 452 119 520 0.53 24 156 127 165 444 96 415 5 43 920
UkSATSE Simferopol 95 024 175 545 0.54 29 197 797 209 505 141 358 7 44 510
UkSATSE L'viv 72 887 94 620 0.77 25 177 473 133 901 76 202 5 35 800
UkSATSE Odesa 29 160 92 130 0.32 18 98 252 81 582 74 235 5 27 180
Total 12 710 213 12 499 672 1.02 22 35 188 999 13 959 234 9 709 716 3 363 242
Annex 7 – Key data 140 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Annex 8 – Performance indicators at FAB level 141 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ANNEX 8 – PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AT FAB LEVEL
This Annex shows the financial cost‐effectiveness indicator computed at FAB level for the year 2012 and broken down into it three main components: ATCO‐hour productivity, ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour and support costs per composite flight‐hour. The figures shown at FAB level in the Figure below have been computed taking into account the ANSPs participating to the ACE analysis in 2012 and which were formally part of a FAB initiative.
Annex 8 ‐ Table 0.1: Breakdown of cost‐effectiveness at FAB level, 2012
Annex 8 – Performance indicators at FAB level 142 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Annex 9 – ANSPs fact sheets 143 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
ANNEX 9 – INDIVIDUAL ANSP FACT SHEETS
Annex 9 – ANSPs fact sheets 144 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Aena, Spain
www.aena.es
Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea
2 190 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Chairman + 7 members
Chairman is the CEO
BOARD OF DIRECTORSChairman + 12 members + Secretary
Chairman is the CEO
Ministry ofPublic Works and
Transport
Ministry ofDefence
ESPAFDGAC AESA
Secretary General for Transport
Ministry of the Agriculture, Food and Environment Affairs
Secretary of Statefor Environment
AEMET
CIDEFO
Aena Group
Air Navigation
AenaAeropuertos
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
Aena (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Business Public Entity attached to Ministry of Development- A company with specific status (governed by Private Law, except when acting in its administrative capacity)- 100% State-owned
Spanish Civil Aviation Authority - GovernmentAESA - Government
Spanish Civil Aviation Authority - GovernmentAESA - Government
Government
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):- AESA (Spanish Aviation Safety State Agency) (for AENA)- Spanish Air Force Staff (for MIL)- Secretary of State for Environment (for MET)
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:José Manuel Vargas Gómez
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):José Manuel Vargas Gómez
DIRECTOR OF AIR NAVIGATION:Ignacio González Sánchez
5 ACCs (Madrid, Barcelona, Canary Islands, Palma, Sevilla)17 APPs (3 stand-alone APPs + 14 APPs co-located with TWR units)30 TWRs
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
953Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
1 010Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
897Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
807
128Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
1 810ATCOs in OPS
1 275Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
1 677IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
65En-route sectors
1 139Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
4 002Gate-to-gate total staff
145ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
ANS CR, Czech Republic
www.rlp.cz
Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic
77 100
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
DIRECTOR GENERAL appointed by the M of T
SUPERVISORY BOARD (6 members)
Chairman + 5 membersMembers appointed by:
4 M of T2 ANS CR employees
Ministry of Transport (M of T)
Civil Aviation Department
AirportAuthority
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)
����NSA
Private Providers of ATS
Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic
(ANS CR)
Ministry of Defence (M of D)
Military Aviation Department
FUALevel 1
Body for Strategic ASM
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
ANS CR (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- State-enterprise founded under the State Enterprise Act in 1995- 100% State-owned
Civil Aviation Authority
Body for Strategic ASM
Ministry of Transport
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Lukáš Hampl
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Jan Klas
1 ACC (Praha)4 APPs (Praha, Karlovy Vary, Brno, Ostrava)4 TWRs (Praha, Karlovy Vary, Brno, Ostrava)1 AFIS (located in Praha ACC)
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
123Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
125Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
115Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
131
17Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
197ATCOs in OPS
224Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
145IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
8En-route sectors
5Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
896Gate-to-gate total staff
146ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
ARMATS, Armenia
www.armats.com
Armenian Air Traffic Services
29 800
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARDChairman is GDCA DG
EXECUTIVE BODYChairman + 5 members appointed by the stockholders
Chairman is ARMATS DG
ARMATS
Ministry ofEnvironment
Ministry ofDefence
General Departmentof Civil Aviation
(GDCA)
Air Force Air DefenceAviation
MeteorologicalCentre
Government
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
ARMATS (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Joint-stock company as of 1997- 100% State-owned
General Department of Civil Aviation (GDCA)
General Department of Civil Aviation (GDCA) and Ministry of Defence
Tax Authorities
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):General Department of Civil Aviation (GDCA)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Artyom Movsesyan
CHAIRMAN OF THE EXECUTIVE BODY:Artur Gasparyan
DIRECTOR OF AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES:Artur Papoyan
1 ACC (Yerevan)2 APPs (Yerevan, Gyumri)2 TWRs (Shirak, Zvartnots)
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
8Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
8Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
8Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
10
2Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
70ATCOs in OPS
14Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
21IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
1En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
461Gate-to-gate total staff
147ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
Austro Control, Austria
www.austrocontrol.at
Österreichische Gesellschaft für Zivilluftfahrt mbH
79 500
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
GENERAL ASSEMBLY - M of TIT
SUPERVISORY BOARD (9 members)Chairman + 8 members
All members are appointed by M of TIT.Members represent: 1 from M of Finance,1 from M of TIT,
1 from the field of aviation, 1 from the fieldof consulting, 1 from the field of transport,
3 from works council.
MANAGING BOARD 2 members
Members appointed by M of TIT.
Federal Ministry of Defence (M of D)
Air Division
Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technologyas supreme CAA (M of TIT)
����NSA
AUSTROCONTROL
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
Austro Control (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Private limited company as of 1994- 100% State-owned (Law makes provision for Austrian Airports to own up to 49 %)
The power for regulatory decisions including safety oversight lies within the M of TIT
M of TIT, normally on basis of proposals of Austro Control
Covered by the National Supervisory Authority
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology (M of TIT)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Dr. Christoph Matznetter
MANAGING BOARD:Dr. Heinz SommerbauerThomas Hoffmann, MSc
1 ACC (Wien)6 APPs (Wien, Graz, Innsbruck, Klagenfurt, Linz, Salzburg)6 TWRs
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
214Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
215Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
183Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
184
31Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
287ATCOs in OPS
279Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
355IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
12En-route sectors
270Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
887Gate-to-gate total staff
148ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
Avinor, Norway
www.avinor.no
AVINOR
2 174 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARD (10 members)Chairman + 9 members
Members represent: 6 M of TC, 4 staff
EXECUTIVE BOARD (10 members)CEO + 9 members
CEO appointed by Supervisory Board
Ministry of Transport and Communications (M of TC)
General AssemblyCivil AviationAuthority Norway
(CAA)����NSA AVINOR
Air NavigationServices
Airports
Airport Parkings(APAS)
Oslo Airport(OSL AS)
FleslandEiendom AS
VaernesEiendom AS
Sola HotelEiendom AS
Oslo LufthavnEiendom
AS (OSLE)
Continental: 724 000 km² - Oceanic:1 450 000 km²
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
Avinor (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- State owned limited company.- Civil ANSP and airport owner/ operator- Independent of CAA
Civil Aviation Authority Norway
Civil Aviation Authority Norway
Aeronautic charges are set annually by the Ministry of Transport and Communications
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Authority Norway (CAA)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Ola Mørkved Rinnan
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER:Dag Falk-Petersen
3 ACCs Oslo (ACC + APP), Stavanger (ACC), Bodo (ACC + APP + Oceanic)17 APPs (1 APP combined with Oslo ACC + 16 TWRs/APPs)17 TWRs 28 AFISs
- AVINOR owns and operates 46 airports, 12 in association with Armed Forces
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
217Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
218Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
207Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
98
10Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
401ATCOs in OPS
348Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
674IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
23En-route sectors
328Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
961Gate-to-gate total staff
149ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
Belgocontrol, Belgium
www.belgocontrol.be
Belgocontrol
39 500
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARD (10 m embers)Chairman + CEO + 8 members
Members appointed by Mi nistry of MobilityCEO represents staff .
EXECUTIVE BOARD (6 members)CEO + 5 members
Ministry of Defence(M of D)
CAA
Belgocontrol
BelgianAirspace
Committee (BELAC)
Federal Public ServiceMobility & Transport
Belgian Supervisory Authority – Air
Navigation Services(BSA-ANS)
����NSA
COMOPSAIR
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
Belgocontrol (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Public Autonomous Enterprise as of 1998 under a management contract- 100% State-owned
Civil Aviation Authority
Belgian Airspace Committee
Federal Public Service of Mobility and Transport
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Belgian Supervisory Authority - Air Navigation Services (BSA-ANS)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Renaud Lorand
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Johan Decuyper
1 ACC (Brussels)4 APPs (Brussels, Liege, Charleroi, Oostende)5 TWRs (Brussels, Antwerp, Liege, Charleroi, Oostende)
- Belgocontrol controls lower airspace up to FL 245, including Luxembourg airspace above FL 145/165- Upper airspace (> FL 245) is controlled by Maastricht UAC
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
209Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
220Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
150Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
142
6Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
221ATCOs in OPS
109Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
365IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
7En-route sectors
94Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
853Gate-to-gate total staff
150ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
BULATSA, Bulgaria
www.atsa.bg
Bulgarian Air Traffic Services Authority
146 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
MANAGEMENT BOARD (3 members) DG + 2 members
All members appointed by the MTITC.
Ministry of Transport,InformationTechnology
and Communications (MTITC)
Civil Aviation Administration
����NSA
AirportOperators
Ministry of Defence(M of D)
Air Traffic Services Authority of Bulgaria
AirspaceManagement
Board
118 000 km² plus 28 000 km² over the Black Sea.
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
BULATSA (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- State enterprise as of April 2001 (Art 53 §1 of the Civil Aviation Law)- 100% State-owned
Civil Aviation Administration (Ministry of Transport, Information Technology and Communications (MTITC))
Airspace Management Board
Ministry of Transport, Information Technology and Communications (MTITC)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Administration
CHAIRMAN OF THE MANAGEMENT BOARD:Anton Djadjev
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Tzvetan Dilov
1 ACCs (Sofia)3 APPs (Sofia, Varna, Burgas)5 TWRs (Sofia, Varna, Burgas, Gorna Oriahovitza, Plovdiv)
- Training of ATCOs
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
84Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
85Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
74Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
91
11Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
234ATCOs in OPS
179Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
75IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
7En-route sectors
3Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 125Gate-to-gate total staff
151ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
Croatia Control, Croatia
www.crocontrol.hr
Croatia Control Ltd, Croatian Air Navigation Services
158 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
ASSEMBLY (3 members) The President represents Ministry of STI (Minister), the other
Two members represent M of D (Minister) and M of F (Minister).
MANAGEMENTDirector General
The DG is appointed by the Supervisory Board for a 5-yearperiod, following an open competition and under the conditions
stipulated by the Company Statute.
SUPERVISORY BOARD (5 members) The Chairman + 4 members
The members represent the M of STI, M of D, M of F, andemployees. They are appointed for a 4-year period. The memberrepresenting the employees is elected and appointed pursuant to
the Company Statute and Labour Relations Act.
Croatian Civil Aviation Agency����NSA
Ministry of Defence(M of D)
Croatia Control Ltd
Ministry of Sea Transport and Infrastructure
(M of STI)
Accident Investigation
Agency
Directorate General for
Civil Aviation
National Protection
and Rescue Directorate
(NPRD)
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
Croatia Control (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Limited liability company as of 1st January 2000- 100% State-owned- Integrated civil/military ANSP
Directorate General for Civil Aviation
M of STI
State Law and Croatia Control Ltd
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Croatian Civil Aviation Agency (CCAA)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Darko Prebežac
DIRECTOR GENERAL:Dragan Bilać
1 ACC (Zagreb)1 APP (Zagreb)8 APPs/TWRs (Osijek, Rijeka, Pula, Zadar, Split, Dubrovnik, Brač, Lošinj)2 TWRs (Lučko, Zagreb)
- ATS provision within entire Sarajevo FIR (Bosnia & Herzegovina) from FL 100 to FL 285 and within western part of Sarajevo FIR (west of the line: GUBOK-DER-BOSNA-VRANA-VELIT) from FL 285 to FL 660
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
75Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
82Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
78Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
81
24Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
230ATCOs in OPS
194Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
82IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
9En-route sectors
130Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
743Gate-to-gate total staff
152ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
DCAC Cyprus, Cyprus
www.mcw.gov.cy
Department of Civil Aviation of Cyprus
174 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
Minister of Communications and Works
Director DCAC, Head of ANS Section, Head of T&A Section, Head of Aviation Security Section
and Head of Safety Regulation Unit are nominated by the CivilService. The Head of the NSA is nominated by the Council of
Ministers.
Ministry of Defence
Cyprus Telecom. Authority (CYTA)
Department of Civil Aviation(DCA)
Ministry of Communications
and Works
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Air Transport
and AirportsDepartment
SafetyRegulation
Unit
AviationSecuritySection
National Supervisory
Authority����NSA
Air Navigation Services
Department
Ministry of Finance
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
DCAC Cyprus (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- State body- 100% State-owned
Department of Civil Aviation of Cyprus
Department of Civil Aviation of Cyprus
Ministry of Finance
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Department of Civil Aviation
DIRECTOR OF DCAC:Iacovos Demetriou (up to April 2014)
ACTING HEAD OF NSA:Panayiota Demetriou
HEAD OF ANS SECTION (COO):Nicos Nicolaou (ACC, Airspace, ATFM)Persephone Papadopoulou (APPs, TWRs, AIS, Training)
ACTING HEAD OF TRANSPORT AND AIRPORTS SECTION:Antonis Lemesianos
1 ACC (Nicosia)2 APPs (Larnaca, Paphos)2 TWRs (Larnaca, Paphos)
- DCAC Cyprus owns and operates 2 airports
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
55Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
55Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
38Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
29
4Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
84ATCOs in OPS
127Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
62IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
4En-route sectors
444Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
195Gate-to-gate total staff
153ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
DFS, Germany
www.dfs.de
Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH
388 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SHAREHOLDER Meeting with M of TBU
Supervisory Board (12 Members)Chairman + 11 Members
Chairman is recommended by the Government,elected by the Supervisory Board.
Members represent: 1 (Chairman) from M of TBU,1 M of TBU, 2 M of D, 1 M of F, 1 KFW*, 6 staff reps.
Chairman has a double voting right.
EXECUTIVE BOARD (3 members)CEO + 2 members
Executive Board is appointed by the Supervisory Board.
* KFW = KFW-Bankengruppe
DFS
Joint Ministerial Steering Group
Federal Ministry of Defence
(M of D)
Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and
Urban Development (M of TBU)
Federal Supervisory Authority for Air
Navigation Services����NSA
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
DFS (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Limited liability company as of 1993, governed by Private Company Law- 100% State-owned- Integrated civil/military ANSP
Federal Supervisory Authority for Air Navigation Services (NSA)
Federal Supervisory Authority for Air Navigation Services (NSA)
Federal Supervisory Authority for Air Navigation Services (NSA)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Federal Supervisory Authority for Air Navigation Services
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Sts. Michael Odenwald
CHAIRMAN OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD:Prof. Klaus-Dieter Scheurle
1 UAC (Karlsruhe) 1 ACC/UAC/APP (München) 2 ACCs/APPs (Bremen, Langen) 1 ACC (co-located with Maastricht UAC) for OAT in upperairspace in North-Western Germany16 TWRs (Berlin Tempelhof closed in Nov.08)
- DFS controls both upper and lower airspace, except GAT for the upper airspace in North-Western Gerrmany- Other ANS- Consulting, training, engineering & maintenance services
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
1 039Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
1 056Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
1 055Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
656
95Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
1 717ATCOs in OPS
1 379Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
2 001IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
117En-route sectors
2 207Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
5 618Gate-to-gate total staff
154ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
DHMI, Turkey
www.dhmi.gov.tr
General Directorate of State Airports Authority
982 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARD (6 members)Chairman + 5 members
3 members represent DHMI, 2 represent the M of TMAC,
1 represents the Turkish Treasury. The Chairman is the CEO.
EXECUTIVE BOARDDirector General (CEO) + 3 Deputy Director
Generals and affiliated units.CEO is appointed by the M of TMAC.
Prime MinistrySenior AuditBoard
Ministry of Transport,Maritime Affairs and
Communication (M of TMAC)
DirectorateGeneral of
Civil Aviation
Ministry of Defence(M of D)
Civil MilitaryCo-ordination
Group
DHMI
ANSDivision
AirportsDivision
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
DHMI (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Autonomous State body- 100% State-owned
Directorate General of Civil Aviation
General Directorate of DHMI
General Directorate of DHMI
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Not applicable since Turkey is not bound by SES Regulations
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Mr. Orhan Birdal
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Mr. Orhan Birdal
DIRECTOR ANS DIVISION:Mr. Mustafa Kiliç
2 ACCs (Ankara, Istanbul)31 APPs40 TWRs 2 FICs/RCCs45 AIS/ARO43 SAR sub-center units
- DHMI is responsible for the administration of 47 State Airports. ATS services are provided by DHMI in 52 Airports
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
398Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
395Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
352Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
631
51Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
977ATCOs in OPS
948Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
960IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
22En-route sectors
634Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
5 407Gate-to-gate total staff
155ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
DSNA, France
www.aviation-civile.gouv.fr
Directorate of Air Navigation Services
1 010 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
Minister in charge of Transport
EXECUTIVE BOARD (DSNA)• Director of DSNA• Deputy Director for Finance• Deputy Director for Planning & Strategy• Deputy Director for Human Resources• Director of Operation Department (DO)• Director of Technical Department (DTI)
Director General for Civil Aviation
Ministry in charge of Transport(M of T)
Ministry of Defence
(M of D)
Operation Department (DO)ACCs, APPs & TWRs, AIS
Technical DepartmentOperational Systems, R&D
Air ForcesGeneral Directorate for Civil Aviation
(DGAC)
Military Air NavigationDirectorate
Directorate for
Airspace
Air NavigationServices
Directorate(DSNA)
Air Transport
Directorate (DTA)
Civil Aviation Safety
Directorate(DSAC)����NSA
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
DSNA (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- DSNA is a division of DGAC- 100% State-owned
Air Transport Directorate (DTA)
Air Transport Directorate (DTA) Direction de la circulation aérienne militaire (DIRCAM)
Air Transport Directorate (DTA)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Directorate for Civil Aviation Safety (DSAC)
DIRECTOR OF DSNA:M. Georges
DIRECTOR OF OPERATION DEPARTEMENT (DO):M. Bruneau
DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL DEPARTEMENT (DTI):P. Planchon
5 ACCs12 APPs/TWRs (i.e. Paris Orly, Paris CDG, Marseille, Lyon, Nice, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Clermont Ferrand, Montpellier, Strasbourg, Bâle-Mulhouse, Nantes)69 TWRs
- Delegation of airspace to Skyguide and Jersey
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
1 433Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
1 435Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
1 165Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
754
146Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
2 766ATCOs in OPS
2 117Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
1 922IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
100En-route sectors
2 055Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
7 926Gate-to-gate total staff
156ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
EANS, Estonia
www.eans.ee
Estonian Air Navigation Services
77 102
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARD (6 members) Chairman + 5 members
Members: 3 appointed by M of EC of which 1 is electedChairman by the members of the Supervisory Board;
3 appointed by M of F.
MANAGEMENT BOARD (2 members) CEO + 1 member
CEO appointed by the Supervisory Board
CivilAviation
Administration����NSA
EANS
Ministry ofFinance
Ministry of EconomicAffairs and
Communications
Government
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
EANS (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Joint-stock company as of 1998- 100% State-owned
Government of the Republic of EstoniaSafety Supervision is done by the Civil Aviation Administration (CAA)
Government of the Republic of Estonia
Government of the Republic of Estonia(Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications & Ministry of Finance)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Administration
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Andres Uusma
CHAIRMAN OF THE MANAGEMENT BOARD & CEO:Tanel Rautits
1 ACC (Tallinn)2 APPs/TWRs (Tallinn, Tartu)
- Tech. serv. (NAV/COMM/SUR), Aeronautical info serv.- Consultancy services- Control Tallinn Aerodrome- Estonia is not member of EUROCONTROL - Estonia belongs to IFPS zone
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
18Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
14Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
14Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
18
2Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
46ATCOs in OPS
66Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
47IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
3En-route sectors
20Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
156Gate-to-gate total staff
157ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
ENAV, Italy
www.enav.it
Company for Air Navigation Services
733 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERThe CEO has been appointed by the
Ministry of Economy and Finance in consultation with the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport.
Reciprocal obligations between the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport and ENAV are regulated
through programme contract and service contract.
National Agency
for Flight Safety
(ANSV)
OperationalCo-ordinationCommittee
(CCO)
Italian Civil Aviation Authority
(ENAC) ����NSA
Ministry ofEconomy and
Finance
Government
Ministry ofDefence
Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport
(Dept. Civil Aviation)
Company for Air Navigation Services
(ENAV S.p.A.)
Italian Air Force
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
ENAV (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Joint-Stock Company- 100% State-owned by Ministry of Economy and Finance
Italian Civil Aviation Authority (ENAC) and Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (M of IT)
Italian Civil Aviation Authority (ENAC)
Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport and ENAC review annually ANS charges in co-operation with Ministry of Economy and Finance and Ministry of Defence
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Italian Civil Aviation Authority (ENAC)
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO):Massimo Garbini
DIRECTOR GENERAL:Massimo Bellizzi
4 ACCs (Milan, Padua, Rome, Brindisi)18 APPs co-located within TWR units + 1 APP stand-alone + 4 APPs co-located within ACC units28 TWRs (including 16 low traffic airports which are not included in ACE data analysis)11 AFISs (low traffic airports not included in ACE data analysis)
- Aeronautical Information service- Training and licensing of ATCO’s- R&D consultancy services- Aerodrome weather services, ATM and CNS- Flight inspection
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
774Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
719Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
638Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
1 008
112Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
1 439ATCOs in OPS
1 028Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
1 106IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
61En-route sectors
104Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
2 967Gate-to-gate total staff
158ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
Finavia, Finland
www.finavia.fi
Finavia
411 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
The BOARD (7 members)Chairman + 6 members (1 member represents staff)
All members are appointedby the General Meeting of Shareholders.
Chief Executive Officer of Finavia is not a member of the Board.
President and CEO
COUNCIL of STATE(Government)
Chaired by the Prime Minister
Finnish Transport
Safety Agency����NSA
Ministry of Transport andCommunication (M of TC)
Finavia
Business areas
GroupServices Marketing
HR, Group Legal, Communications,
Internal Audit
Helsinki Airport
PassengerServices
AirportNetwork
AirNavigationServices
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
Finavia (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Public Limited Company - Integrated civil/military ANSP- 100% State-owned
Finnish Transport Safety Agency
Finnish Transport Safety Agency
Finnish Transport Safety Agency
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Finnish Transport Safety Agency
CHAIRMAN OF THE FINAVIA BOARD:Soili Suonoja
PRESIDENT AND CEO:Kari Savolainen
VICE PRESIDENT - AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES:Raine Luojus
1 ACC (Tampere) 5 APPs/TWRs (Helsinki, Jyväskylä, Kuopio, Tampere-Pirkkala, Rovaniemi) 3 Mil-APPs/TWRs (Halli, Kauhava, Utti)10 TWRs 1 General Aviation Airport (Malmi) 6 AFISs (Enontekiö, Kittilä, Kajaani, Savonlinna, Kuusamo, Varkaus)
- Finavia owns and operates 25 airports- Delegation of ATS in certain areas to LFV and Avinor- 195 ATCOs in OPS reported below do not include those providing services to military OAT flights
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
58Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
70Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
63Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
46
5Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
192ATCOs in OPS
115Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
248IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
5En-route sectors
46Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
429Gate-to-gate total staff
159ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
HCAA, Greece
www.hcaa.gr
Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority
537 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
Minister of Infrastructure, Transport & Networks
HCAA Governor andtwo HCAA Deputy Governors
appointed by the Minister
Three Directors General, one of which isresponsible for central and regional HCAA/ANS units
Air NavigationAirspace Committee(Reps from HCAA,
HAF andGeneral Staff)
Ministry of Infrastructure,Transport & Networks
Ministry of Defence(MOD)
Hellenic Civil AviationAuthority (HCAA)
General Directorate
ANS Provider
AdministrativeSupportGeneral
Directorate
AirTransportGeneral
Directorate
Hellenic National
MeteorologicalService (HNMS)
Hellenic Air Navigation
Supervisory Authority(HANSA)
ANS Regulatory
Division
Security Division
Civil Aviation Training Centre
Environmental Protection
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
HCAA (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- State body - 100% State-owned
Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority
Air Navigation Airspace Committee
Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport & Networks and HCAA for charges
Ministry of Finance for HCAA Budget
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Hellenic Air Navigation Supervisory Authority (HANSA)
GOVERNOR:D. Koukis
DEPUTY GOVERNORS:G. NanidisV. Alevras
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF AIR NAVIGATION:G. Kontogiannis
1 ACC16 APPs 18 TWRs15 AFISs
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
177Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
174Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
154Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
130
1Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
480ATCOs in OPS
461Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
149IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
12En-route sectors
206Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 786Gate-to-gate total staff
160ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
HungaroControl, Hungary
www.hungarocontrol.hu
Hungarian Air Navigation Services
93 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARDPresident + 5 members
The President and all members are appointed by the Minister responsible for transport
2 members are representatives of the employees
SHAREHOLDERThe Minister responsible for transport exercises the rights
of the shareholder on behalf of the State
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERThe CEO is appointed by the Minister
responsible for transport
Ministry ofNational
Development
National TransportAuthority
AviationAuthority����NSA
Ministry of Defence(MoD)
National Airspace
CoordinationCommittee
(NACC)
HungaroControlPte. Ltd. Co.
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
HungaroControl (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- HungaroControl was set up on January 1st 2002- Registered as Private Limited Company as of 22 November 2006- Operates as a Private Limited Company as of 1st January 2007- 100% State-owned
Ministry of National Development
Govt., Ministry of National Development
Govt., Ministry of National Development
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Aviation Authority
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO):Kornél Szepessy
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Zoltán Schváb
1 ACC (Budapest)1 APP (Budapest)1 TWR (Budapest)2 AFISs (Sármellék/Balaton, Debrecen)- Entry Point Central Ltd. (49% HungaroControl owned
company) provides training activities, e.g. initial ATM training courses, development training (OJTI, Assessor) courses, English language courses.- HungaroControl provides ATM unit training.
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
111Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
102Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
91Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
74
21Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
166ATCOs in OPS
185Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
88IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
7En-route sectors
1Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
710Gate-to-gate total staff
161ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
IAA, Ireland
www.iaa.ie
Irish Aviation Authority
457 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
BOARD OF THE AUTHORITY (9 members)Chairman + CEO + 7 members
EXECUTIVE BOARD (Senior Management Board) (8 members)
CEO + 7 senior executives
Department of Defence
Irish Aviation Authority
Department of Transport, Tourism
and Sport
Commission for Aviation Regulation
Department of Public Expenditure
and Reform
Safety Regulation
Division����NSA
OperationalDivision
TechnicalDivision
Standing CivilMilitary ANSCommittee
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
IAA (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Commercial company as of 1994 governed by Companies Acts, 1963 to 2009- 100% State-owned (Department of Public Expenditure and Reform) - IAA receives no funding or loans from the exchequer
IAA Safety Regulation Division
IAA Safety Regulation Division
NSA responsible for Economic Regulation in the context of en-route charges
Commission for Aviation Regulation (established under the Aviation Regulation Act in 2001)
The Act requires the Commission to make a determination specifying the maximum levels of terminal navigation charges
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Safety Regulation Division
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF AUTHORITY:Anne Nolan
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER:Eamonn Brennan
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS DIVISION:Peter Kearney
DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL DIVISION:Philip Hughes
2 ACCs (Dublin, Shannon)3 APPs (Dublin, Shannon, Cork)3 TWRs (Dublin, Shannon, Cork)
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
136Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
133Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
113Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
89
6Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
204ATCOs in OPS
264Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
207IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
11En-route sectors
8Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
481Gate-to-gate total staff
162ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
LFV, Sweden
www.lfv.se
LFV, Swedish Air Navigation Services
626 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
BOARD OF DIRECTORS (9 members) Chairman + DG + 7 members
7 members are appointed by the Government(Chairman + DG + 5 members);
2 members are appointed by Trade Unions.
EXECUTIVE BOARD (9 members) DG + 8 members
DG is appointed by the Government
Ministry of Enterprise,Energy and Communications
(M of EEC)
SwedishTransportAgency����NSA
Ministryof Defence
ProductionTerminal
ProductionEn-route
Products&
Services
BusinessSupport
LFV holding(Subsidiaries)
LFV
SwedaviaSwedishArmedForces
Parliament
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
LFV (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Public Enterprise- 100% State-owned
Swedish Transport Agency
Swedish Transport Agency
Swedish Transport Agency
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Swedish Transport Agency
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Jan Olson
DIRECTOR GENERAL:Olle Sundin
2 ACCs (Stockholm and Malmö) 26 APPs (2 APPs combined with ACCs + 24 APPs combined with TWRs)31 TWRs (one of these only first half of 2012) 2 AFISs
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
261Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
254Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
245Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
159
10Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
509ATCOs in OPS
418Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
509IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
22En-route sectors
77Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 063Gate-to-gate total staff
163ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
LGS, Latvia
www.lgs.lv
SJSC Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme
95 300
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SHAREHOLDER Meeting (M of T).
MANAGEMENT BOARD (5 members)Chairman of the Board + 4 members
All appointed by the shareholder (M of T).
Ministry of Transportof the Republic of Latvia
(M of T)����NSA
Air Transport Department
LGSCivil Aviation
Agency����NSA
Airports
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
LGS (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Joint-stock company since 1997- 100% State-owned (Ministry of Transport)
Civil Aviation Agency
Civil Aviation Agency
Air Transport Department and Cabinet of Ministers (Government)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):- MoT (for policy and economic issues)- Civil Aviation Agency (for safety, operationalaspects, certification and licensing issues)
SHAREHOLDER'S REPRESENTATIVE:Dzineta Innusa (Ministry of Transport, Deputy State Secretary for Legal and Administrative Affairs)
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD:Davids Taurins
1 ACC (Riga)2 APPs (Riga, Liepaja)2 TWRs (Riga, Liepaja)1 AFIS/FIC* (Liepaja)
*FIC for western part of Riga FIR
- ATC services delegated to Latvia by Lithuania over a part of the Baltic Sea
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
25Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
26Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
22Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
21
4Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
81ATCOs in OPS
73Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
68IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
4En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
362Gate-to-gate total staff
164ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
LPS, Slovak Republic
www.lps.sk
Letové Prevádzkové Služby Slovenskej Republiky
48 700
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARD (9 members) Chairman + 8 members
Members represent: 5 MoT,3 staff reps., 1 trade union association rep.
EXECUTIVE BOARD (10 members) CEO + 9 members
The CEO is appointed by the MoT.
Ministry of Transport, Construction and
Regional Development(MoT)����NSA
Directorate General of Civil Aviation
and Water Transport
Divisionof Civil Aviation
TransportAuthority����NSA
Ministry ofDefence (M of D)
Inter-MinisterialCommission
Defence-Transports
AirportsAir Traffic Services
of the SlovakRepublic (LPS SR)
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
LPS (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- State-owned enterprise as of January 2000- 100% State-owned
Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development
Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development
Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development and other State bodies
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Transport Authority
CHAIRPERSON OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Martin Čatloš
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Miroslav Bartoš
1 ACC (Bratislava)2 APPs (Bratislava, Kosice)5 TWRs (Bratislava, Kosice, Piestany, Poprad and Zilina)1 Central ATS Reporting Office (Bratislava)With effect from 10 February 2014, the OAT unit was shifted
from LPS to the supervision of Ministry of Defence.
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
63Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
62Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
56Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
63
35Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
94ATCOs in OPS
84Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
29IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
5En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
469Gate-to-gate total staff
165ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
LVNL, Netherlands
www.lvnl.nl
Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland
52 200
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY DIRECTORS BOARD (6 members)Chairman + 5 members + 1 observer
Members comprise representatives from: Ministry of Defence, and members nominated by Dutch scheduled airlines (KLM),
Dutch charter airlines (Transavia) and Dutch airports (Amsterdam Schiphol)
EXECUTIVE BOARD (2 members)Chairman + 1 member
Executive Board of LVNL is appointed by the MIE,on the recommendation of the Supervisory Board.
Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (MIE)
LVNL
The Human Environment andTransport Inspectorate
(ILenT)����NSA
Directorate - General for Mobility and Transport
(DGB)
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
LVNL (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Corporate Entity as of 1993 (by Air Traffic Law)- 100% State-owned
Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DGB)
Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DGB)
Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DGB)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):The Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILenT)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:G.J.N.H. Cerfontaine
CHAIRMAN OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD (CEO):Dr.ir. P. Riemens (CEO)
1 ACC (Amsterdam)3 APPs (Schiphol, Eelde, Beek)4 TWRs (Schiphol, Rotterdam, Eelde, Beek)
- New Millingen ACC (Military ACC) is not included in ACE data analysis- Rotterdam APP has been located in Schiphol since 2002
- Controls lower airspace up to FL 245
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
233Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
215Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
163Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
104
17Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
198ATCOs in OPS
150Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
483IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
5En-route sectors
399Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
885Gate-to-gate total staff
166ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
MATS, Malta
www.maltats.com
Malta Air Traffic Services Limited
231 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
BOARD of DIRECTORS (5 members) Chairman + 4 Directors
Members are appointed by the Government,representing the MT.
The Board of Directors appoints the CEO.
Ministry for Transportand Infrastructure
(MTI)
Civil AviationDirectorate����NSA
Malta Air Traffic Services Ltd (MATS)
Ministry for Tourism(MT)
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
MATS (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Malta Air Traffic Services Ltd (Reg. no. C27965) is a fully Government owned company. MATS has been operating as the sole ANSP for Malta since the 1st January 2002
Civil Aviation Directorate
Civil Aviation Directorate
Civil Aviation Directorate
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Directorate Malta (CADM)
CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Maj. Vanni Ganado
CEO:Brig. Carmel Vassallo
HEAD OF ATS DIVISION:Robert Sant
1 ACC/APP (Malta)1 TWR/APP (Luqa)
- MATS controls portions of airspace delegatedto Malta ACC by Rome ACC
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
19Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
15Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
14Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
7
2Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
48ATCOs in OPS
61Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
33IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
2En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
145Gate-to-gate total staff
167ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
M-NAV, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
www.mnavigation.mk
Air Navigation Services
24 700
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARD (3 members appointed by the Government)
MANAGEMENT BOARD (3 executive directors appointed by the Government)
Government
PublicEnterprisefor Airport Services
Ministry of Transport Ministry of
Defence
M-NAV
Civil Aviation Agency (CAA)����NSA
Air Force and Defence
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
M-NAV (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Joint-stock company - 100% State-owned
Safety Dept. of Civil Aviation Agency
Civil-military Aviation Committee
Government, Civil Aviation Agency
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Agency (CAA)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Ilir Mehmedi
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CAA:Dejan Mojsoski
DIRECTOR OF ANS DEPARTEMENT:Nikolet Tagarinski
1 ACC (Skopje)2 APPs (Skopje and Ohrid)2 TWRs (Skopje and Ohrid)1 AFIS (Skopje)
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
10Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
10Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
9Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
7
0Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
61ATCOs in OPS
18Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
11IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
3En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
273Gate-to-gate total staff
168ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
MoldATSA, Moldova
www.moldatsa.md
Moldavian Air Traffic Services Authority
33 900
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
Management Board:Director General MoldATSA
SUPERVISORY BOARD (7 members)Chairman + 6 members
All members are appointed by the Ministry of Transport and Road Infrastructure
Members represent Ministry of Transport and Road Infrastructure (2), MoldATSA management (1),
Ministry of Finance (2), Ministry of Economy (2)
Ministry of Transport and Road
Infrastructure
Civil Aviation Administration
(CAA) ����NSA
AirportOperator
Ministry of Defence
MoldATSAAircraft
Operator
Government
Ministry of Economy
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
MoldATSA (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- State enterprise since 1994 (by Government Regulation Nr.3 from 12.01.1994)- 100% State-owned
Ministry of Transport and Road Infrastructure
Ministry of Transport and Road Infrastructure
Ministry of Transport and Road Infrastructure
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Administration (CAA)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Vladimir Cebotari
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Petru Erhan
HEAD OF ATM DIVISION:Sergei Fedoseev
1 ACC (Chisinau)1 APP (Chisinau)4 TWRs (Chisinau, Balti, Cahul, Marculesti)
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
11Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
11Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
9Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
8
2Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
57ATCOs in OPS
16Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
16IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
2En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
322Gate-to-gate total staff
169ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
MUAC, Maastricht
www.eurocontrol.int EUROCONTROL
Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre
260 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
Permanent Commissionof EUROCONTROL
Director General ofEUROCONTROL
Director of MUAC
CoM
MCG
PermanentCommission of
EUROCONTROL
EUROCONTROL Agency
Maastricht UpperArea Control Centre
(MUAC)
EUROCONTROLCommittee of
Management (CoM)
Maastricht Co-ordination Group (MCG)
Senior officials from Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg and Germany.
Four States’ National
SupervisoryCommittee����NSA
(including representatives of the 4 States
NSAs)
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
MUAC (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- EUROCONTROL: International Organisation established under the EUROCONTROL Convention of 13.12.1960 and amended on 12.2.1981. At the request of the Benelux States and Germany, MUAC is operated as a EUROCONTROL Agency’s Service according to the Maastricht Agreements of 25.11.1986
Maastricht Agreements Art. 1.2: each of the 4 States retains its competence and obligations in respect of regulations
The MCG determines a common position for the 4 States in all matters relating to the operation of ATS by MUAC concerning, inter alia, airspace organisation and sectorisation
Financial arrangements for the exploitation of MUAC are adopted by the Committee of Management. EUROCONTROL DG seeks approval of the budget, which contains a special budgetary Annex for MUAC, with the Permanent Commission
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Four States' National Supervisory Committee
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EUROCONTROL:Frank Brenner
DIRECTOR OF MUAC:Jac Jansen
1 ACC (Maastricht)
- Controls GAT in the upper airspace (>FL245) above Benelux and North-Western Germany- A German ATC unit responsible for handling OAT above North-Western Germany and managed by the DFS is co-located at MUAC
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
141Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
141Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
69
9Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
247ATCOs in OPS
560Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
n/applIFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
20En-route sectors
59Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
646Gate-to-gate total staff
170ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
NATA Albania, Albania
http://www.albcontrol.com.al/
National Air Traffic Agency
36 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARD (6 members) Chairman + 5 members
All 6 members are nominated by the MEDTE.2 members are proposed by the MEDTE, 2 members by the
MT&I and 2 members by the Ministry of Finance.
MANAGEMENT BOARD (6 members) Director General + 5 Head of Divisions
Director General is appointed by MEDTE through the Supervisory Board of ALBCONTROL
Ministry of Transportand Infrastructure
(MT&I)
Civil Aviation Agency (CAA)����NSA
Ministry of EconomicDevelopment, Trade
and Entrepreneurship(MEDTE)
ALBCONTROLAir Navigation
Services of Albania
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
NATA Albania (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Since May 1999 NATA, now ALBCONTROL, is a joint-stock company- 100% State owned
MT&I and Civil Aviation Agency (CAA)
MT&I and Civil Aviation Agency (CAA)
Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Entrepreneurship (MEDTE)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Agency (CAA)
CHAIRMAN OF SUPERVISORY BOARD:Genci Gjonçaj
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO) OF ALBCONTROL:Belinda Balluku
HEAD OF THE ATS DEPARTMENT:Sokol Ruçi
1 ACC (Tirana)1 APP (Tirana)1 TWR (Tirana)1 AFIS (Tirana)
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
21Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
23Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
21Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
42
2Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
56ATCOs in OPS
41Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
21IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
4En-route sectors
12Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
309Gate-to-gate total staff
171ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
NATS, United Kingdom
www.nats.co.uk
NATS Ltd
3 002 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
NATS BOARD OF DIRECTORS (14 members)
Chairman + 13 members. Chairman is appointed by the shareholders. Out of the 13 members,
10 are Non Executive Directors (6 appointed by the Airline Group + 3 Partnership Directors appointed
by the Government + 1 appointed by LHR Airports Limited).3 are Executive Directors - Chief Executive,
Finance Director, and Managing Director Operations.
Senior Leadership Team, Operations Senior Leadership Team, Services
NATS Executive
Ministry of Defence
(MoD)
NATS Holdings Ltd
Private Owners
UK CAA����NSAContract
for provision of services
Department for Transport
(DfT) The AirlineGroup
UK NATSEmployees
SRGDAPRPG
NATS Ltd
NATS (En Route) Plc (NERL) Regulated subsidiary for
En-route and Oceanic ANS
NATS (Services) Limited (NSL) Airport ANS
+ New Business
LHRAirportsLimited
Continental: 882 000 km² - Oceanic: 2 120 000 km²
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
NATS (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Public Private Partnership as of 2001 - 49% State-owned (Govt retains a Golden Share) - 51% private-owned (42% by the Airline Group, 4% by LHR Airports Limited and 5% by UK NATS employees)- The Airline Group comprises 7 airlines: BA, Virgin Atlantic, Lufthansa, EasyJet, Thomas Cook, Thomson Airways and Monarch Airlines
UK CAA, Safety Regulation Group (SRG)
UK CAA, Directorate of Airspace Policy (DAP)
UK CAA, Regulatory Policy Group (RPG) which sets charges through a formula linked to the Retail Price Index (RPI) where "RPI minus X" targets for En-route and OceanicCharges are usually set for 5 years at a time (although CP3 was set at 4 years to align with RP1)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):UK CAA
CHAIRMAN OF THE NATS BOARD:John Devaney
CEO of NATS:Richard Deakin
MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATS SERVICESPaul ReidCatherine Mason (from 1 April 2014)
MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATS OPERATIONSMartin Rolfe
1 OAC (Shanwick) 3 ACCs (London AC, London TC, Prestwick)16 APPs 16 TWRs (including Gibraltar TWR) 2 AFISs
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
939Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
770Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
760Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
957
137Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
1 423ATCOs in OPS
1 292Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
1 731IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
73En-route sectors
984Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
4 426Gate-to-gate total staff
172ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
NAV Portugal, Portugal
www.nav.pt
Navegação Aérea de Portugal - NAV Portugal, E.P.E.
5 845 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION (3 members)Chairman + 2 members
All members are appointed by the MEE for a 3 year term.Each member has executive functions within NAV Portugal.
Each member is responsible to supervise one or several NAV Portugal Directorates and Advisory Bodies to the Board.
There are 7 Directorates and 3 Advisory Bodies.
NAV Portugal has also a Board of Auditors composed of 3members who are appointed by MEE for a 3 year term.
Ministry of Economy& Employment
(MEE)
Secretary of State
Ministry of Finance(M of F)
National Institute forCivil Aviation (INAC)
����NSA
Aircraft AccidentPrevention and
Investigation(GPIAA)
Airports of Portugal
(ANA SA)
Air Navigation of Portugal
NAV Portugal E.P.E.
Continental: 665 000 km² - Oceanic: 5 180 000 km²
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
NAV Portugal (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Public Entity Corporation as of December 1998- 100% State-owned
National Institute of Civil Aviation (INAC)
INAC+FA (Portuguese Air Force) + NAV Portugal in close permanent co-ordination
National Institute of Civil Aviation (INAC)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):National Institute for Civil Aviation (INAC)
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION:Luis Ottolini Coimbra
CEO:Luis Ottolini Coimbra
2 ACCs (Lisboa, Santa Maria) 8 APPs (Lisboa, Porto, Faro, Madeira, Santa Maria, Ponta Delgada, Horta, Flores)10 TWRs (Lisboa, Cascais, Porto, Faro, Funchal, Porto Santo, Ponta Delgada, Santa Maria, Horta, Flores)
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
117Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
145Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
127Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
38
6Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
214ATCOs in OPS
285Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
269IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
7En-route sectors
390Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
721Gate-to-gate total staff
173ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
NAVIAIR, Denmark
www.naviair.dk
Air Navigation Services
158 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
EXECUTIVE BOARD (2 members)CEO + CFO
The CEO and CFO are appointed by the Board of Directors.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS1 Chairman + 7 Members
(three members elected by the employees)
Ministry of Transport(MoT)
Air NavigationService (NAVIAIR)
Danish CAA(Trafikstyrelsen)
����NSA
Bornholm Airport
AccidentInvestigation Board
(AIB)
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
NAVIAIR (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Company owned by the state- 100% State-owned
Danish Transport Authority (Trafikstyrelsen)
Danish Transport Authority (Trafikstyrelsen)
Danish Transport Authority (Trafikstyrelsen)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Danish Transport Authority (Trafikstyrelsen)
CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF DIRECTORSAnne Birgitte Lundholt
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO):Morten Dambæk
(Excluding Greenland)1 ACC (Copenhagen)6 APPs/TWRs ( Kastrup, Roskilde, Rønne, Billund, Aarhus, Aalborg)1 AFIS (Vagar)
Note: ANS Greenland upper airspace is delegated to Isavia and NAV Canada
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
120Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
114Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
113Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
156
14Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
195ATCOs in OPS
201Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
326IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
7En-route sectors
10Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
673Gate-to-gate total staff
174ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
Oro Navigacija, Lithuania
www.ans.lt
State Enterprise Oro Navigacija
74 700
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
MANAGEMENT BOARDDuties taken up by Director General
DG is appointed by the Minister.
SUPERVISORY BOARD (5 members)Chairman + 4 members
represent M of TC
Ministry of Transportand Communications
(M of TC)
Civil AviationAdministration
����NSA
Oro Navigacija Airlines Airports
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
Oro Navigacija (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Since July 2001- 100% State-owned Enterprise (SOE)
Lithuania CAA
Oro Navigacija in coordination with CAA and M of TC
Oro Navigacija in coordination with CAA and M of TC
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Administration
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Arijandas Šliupas
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Algimantas Raščius
DIRECTOR ATM:Sergej Smirnov
1 ACC (Vilnius)3 APPs4 TWRs
- Air Navigation Services are delegated to LGS (Latvia) above some part of the Baltic sea
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
25Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
25Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
23Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
34
4Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
85ATCOs in OPS
52Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
42IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
3En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
296Gate-to-gate total staff
175ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
PANSA, Poland
www.pansa.pl
Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA)
334 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
ADMINISTRATIONAccording to the Act establishing PANSA, the Agency ismanaged by the President and his two Vice-Presidents.
The President is nominated by the Prime Minister. The two Vice-Presidents are nominated by the MID
NO SUPERVISORY BOARD
Ministry of Infrastructureand Development
(MID)
Polish Air Navigation
Services Agency(PANSA)
Polish AirportsState Enterprise
(PPL)
Civil AviationOffice (CAO)
����NSA
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
PANSA (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- PANSA has been operating as an independent entity as from 1st April 2007, separated from the Polish Airports State Enterprise (PPL)- State body (acting as a legal entity with an autonomous budget)- 100% State owned
Civil Aviation Office (CAO)
Civil Aviation Office (CAO)
Civil Aviation Office (CAO)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Office (CAO)
PRESIDENT OF PANSA:Krzysztof Kapis
VICE PRESIDENT- AIR NAVIGATION DEPARTMENT:Maciej Rodak
1 ACC with 8 sectors4 APPs (Warszawa, Gdańsk, Kraków, Poznań) providing radar control5 TWRs (Warszawa, Gdańsk, Kraków, Poznań, Katowice) providing aeodrome control6 TWRs (Wrocław, Szczecin, Rzeszów, Łódź, Zielona Góra, Bydgoszcz) providing aeodrome control and non-radar approach control4 FIS units (Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk, Poznań)
- APP Kraków is providing ATC services for Kraków and Katowice- Katowice TWR is providing only aerodrome control when APP Kraków is providing radar services for Katowice
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
172Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
167Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
147Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
149
19Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
442ATCOs in OPS
402Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
324IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
8En-route sectors
355Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 712Gate-to-gate total staff
176ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
ROMATSA, Romania
www.romatsa.ro
Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration
254 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
ADMINISTRATION BOARD (7 voting members) Chairman + 6 members
Members represent: MoT, M of Public Finance,ROMATSA, RCAA and other entity + additional
non voting participants representing staff.
STEERING COMMITTEEDuties taken up by DG.
DG is appointed by the MoT.DG + other directors.
Ministry of Transport(MoT)
ROMATSA
Airports Operator (4 majorairports under responsibility
of the MoT + 12airports under local authorities)
Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority
(RCAA)����NSA
Ministry of Defence(MoD)
AirspaceManagement
CouncilDirectorate ofCivil Aviation
����NSA
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
ROMATSA (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Autonomous and self-financing organisation as of 1991 (Government Resolution GR74/1991 ammended by GR731/1992, GR75/2005, GR1090/2006, GR1251/2007, GR741/2008)- 100% State-owned
Ministry of Transport (MoT)Enforcement and safety oversight is delegated and discharged through the RCAA
Both Ministry of Transport (MoT) and Ministry of Defence (MoD), and discharged through the RCAA and Air Force Staff
Ministry of Transport (MoT)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):- Directorate of Civil Aviation- Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority (RCAA)
CHAIRMAN OF THE ADMINISTRATION BOARD:Cristian Ghibu
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Valentin Cimpuieru
1 ACC (Bucharest) 3 APPs16 TWRs
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
181Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
185Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
165Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
134
9Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
441ATCOs in OPS
289Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
148IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
11En-route sectors
1Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 519Gate-to-gate total staff
177ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
Skyguide, Switzerland
www.skyguide.ch
Skyguide
69 700
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
GENERAL ASSEMBLY of the Shareholders
SUPERVISORY BOARD (7 members)Chairman + 6 members
All members are appointed by the General Assembly fortheir expertise.
EXECUTIVE BOARD (6 members)CEO + 5 members
The CEO is appointed by the Supervisory Board.
Ministry of Defence(M of D)
Federal Office for Civil Aviation (FOCA)
����NSASwiss Air Force
(Swiss AF)
Skyguide
Ministry of Environment, Transport, Energy and
Communications (M of ETEC)
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
Skyguide (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Joint-stock company as of 1996. Currently 14 shareholders; 99,91% is held by the Swiss Confederation which by law must hold at least 51%- Integrated civil/military as of 2001
Federal Office for Civil Aviation
Federal Office for Civil Aviation
The Ministry of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Federal Office for Civil Aviation (FOCA)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Guy Emmenegger
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Daniel Weder
2 ACCs (Geneva, Zurich)4 APPs (Geneva, Zurich, Lugano, Bern)7 TWRs (Geneva, Zurich, Lugano, Bern, Buochs, Altenrhein, Grenchen)- ATC services delegated to Geneva ACC by France
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
329Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
317Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
293Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
293
41Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
362ATCOs in OPS
327Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
491IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
19En-route sectors
620Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 378Gate-to-gate total staff
178ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
Slovenia Control, Slovenia
www.sloveniacontrol.si
Slovenia Control Ltd
20 400
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
Supervisory BoardChairman (elected) + 3 members appointed by the
Slovenska odškodninska družba, d.d. + 2 staff reps. appointed by “employees board”
Director General (CEO) of Slovenia Control
Aircraft Accidentand IncidentInvestigation
Board
Ministry of Infrastructure and Spatial
Planning
Civil AviationAuthority
Slovenskaodškodninskadružba, d.d. (exercising the
Corporate Governance of State Capital
Investments Act)
Slovenia Control Ltd
NSA
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
Slovenia Control (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Since 2004 the Slovenia Control, Slovenian Air Navigation Services Ltd, as a 100% state-owned enterprise is independent of national supervisory authorities.
Ministry of Infrastructure and Spatial Planning
Ministry of Infrastructure and Spatial Planning
Slovenska odškodninska družba, d.d. (exercising the Corporate Governance of State Capital Investments Act)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Authority
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Dušan Hočevar
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Franc Željko Županič, Ph.D.
1 ACC (Ljubljana)3 APPs (Ljubljana, Maribor, Portorož)3 TWRs (Ljubljana, Maribor, Portorož)
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
35Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
32Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
28Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
35
11Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
89ATCOs in OPS
48Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
32IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
4En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
215Gate-to-gate total staff
179ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
SMATSA, Serbia and Montenegro
http://www.smatsa.rs
Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services SMATSA llc
145 566
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
ASSEMBLY
6 members representing founders(Government of the Republic of Serbia
and Government of Montenegro)selected from the Ministries in charge of transport,
finance, and defence)
SUPERVISORY BOARD
5 members appointed by the Assembly for a period of 4 years, upon proposals of the Government of the Republic
of Serbia (4) and Government of Montenegro (1)CEO is appointed by the Supervisory Board.
Government of theRepublic of Serbia
Civil AviationDirectorate of the
Republic of Serbia
Government ofMontenegro
Civil Aviation Agency of Montenegro
SMATSA
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
SMATSA (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Limited liability company founded in 2003- 92% owned by Serbia and 8% owned by Montenegro- Integrated civil/military ANSP
- Civil Aviation Directorate of the Republic of Serbia- Civil Aviation Agency of Montenegro
- Civil Aviation Directorate of the Republic of Serbia- Civil Aviation Agency of Montenegro
Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Serbia
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Directorate of the Republic of SerbiaCivil Aviation Agency of Montenegro
PRESIDENT OF THE ASSEMBLY:Mirel Radić Ljubisavljević
PRESIDENT OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Bratislav Grubačić
CEO:Radojica Rovčanin
1 ACC (Belgrade)1 APP collocated with ACC Belgrade6 APPs/TWRs (Batajnica, Kraljevo, Nis, Vrsac, Podgorica, Tivat)1 TWR
- ANS Services (ATM, CNS, MET, AIS)- SMATSA provides Air Traffic Services in the 55% of the upper airspace of Bosnia and Herzegovina- ANS personnel and pilot training, Flight Inspection Services, PANS-OPS and cartography
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
82Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
84Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
75Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
100
8Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
246ATCOs in OPS
209Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
69IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
9En-route sectors
1Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
855Gate-to-gate total staff
180ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
UkSATSE, Ukraine
www.uksatse.ua
Ukrainian State Air Traffic Service Enterprise
776 442
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
MANAGEMENT BOARD
No Supervisory Board
DIRECTOR GENERAL
Ukrainian State Air Traffic Service Enterprise (UkSATSE)
• Regional branches• AIS• Ukraerocenter (Ukrainian Airspace
Management and Planning Center)• Training & Certification Center of UkSATSE• UkSATSE Flight Calibration Service• Medical Certification Center
Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine
(State Aviation Administration)
Institutional arrangements and links (2014)
Corporate governance structure (2014)
Scope of services
Status (2014)
UkSATSE (2014)
Key financial and operational figures (ACE 2012)
- Self-financing enterprise- 100% State-owned
State Aviation Administration
State Aviation Administration
Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):State Aviation Administration (SAAU) acts as NSA
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF UkSATSE:Yuriy Cherednichenko
5 ACCs/APPs (Dnipropetrovs'k, Kyiv, L'viv, Odesa, Simferopol') 6 APPs (Donetsk, Ivano-Frankivs'k, Kharkiv, Luhansk, Uzghorod, Zaporizhzhia)22 TWRs 9 AFISs
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
246Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
262Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
249Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
256
73Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
994ATCOs in OPS
384Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
214IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
34En-route sectors
10Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
6 131Gate-to-gate total staff
181ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report
Annex 9 – ANSPs fact sheets 182 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
Glossary 183 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
GLOSSARY
ACC Area Control Centre
ACE Air Traffic Management Cost‐Effectiveness
ADS‐B Automatic Dependent Surveillance‐Broadcast
Aena Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea, Spain
AFIS Airport/Aerodrome Flight Information Service
AIS Aeronautical Information Services
ANS Air Navigation Services
ANS CR Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic
ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider
APP Approach Control Unit
ARMATS Armenian Air Traffic Services
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATCO Air Traffic Control Officer
ATFM Air Traffic Flow Management
ATM Air Traffic Management
BULATSA Air Traffic Services Authority, Bulgaria
Austro Control Austro Control Österreichische Gesellschaft für Zivilluftfahrt mbH, Austria
Avinor Avinor, Norway
B Billion
Belgocontrol Belgocontrol, Belgium
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CNS Communications, Navigation and Surveillance
CRCO Central Route Charges Office
Croatia Control Hrvatska kontrola zračne plovidbe d.o.o., Croatian Air Navigation Services
DCAC Cyprus Department of Civil Aviation of Cyprus
DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH, Germany
DHMİ Devlet Hava Meydanları İsletmesi, Turkey
DME Distance‐Measuring Equipment
DSNA Direction des services de la navigation aérienne, France
EANS Estonian Air Navigation Services
EC European Commission
ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference
ENAV Ente Nazionale di Assistenza al Volo S.p.A., Italy
ERC EUROCONTROL Research Centre
ETS Early Termination of Service
EU European Union
FAB Functional Airspace Block
FDP Flight Data Processing system
Finavia Finavia, Finland
FIS Flight Information Service
FL Flight Level
FTE Full‐Time Equivalent
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HCAA Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority, Greece
HMI Human‐Machine Interface
Glossary 184 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
HQ Headquarters
HungaroControl HungaroControl, Hungary
IAA Irish Aviation Authority, Ireland
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
IFRS International Financial Reporting Standards
ILS Instrument Landing System
LFV Luftfartsverket, Sweden
LGS Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme, Latvia
LPS Letové Prevádzkové Služby Slovenskej Republiky, Státny Podnik, Slovak Republik
LVNL Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland, Netherlands
M Million
MATS Malta Air Traffic Services Ltd
MET Aeronautical Meteorology
M‐NAV Air Navigation Services Provider of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
MoldATSA Moldavian Air Traffic Services Authority
MSSR Monopulse Secondary Surveillance Radar
MUAC Maastricht Upper Air Centre
NSA National Supervisory Authority
NATA Albania National Air Traffic Agency, Albania
NATS National Air Traffic Services, UK
NAV Portugal Navegação Aérea de Portugal – NAV Portugal, EPE
NAVIAIR Air Navigation Services – Flyvesikringstjenesten, Denmark
NBV Net Book Value
NDB Non‐Directional Beacon
NM EUROCONTROL Network Manager
OAT Operational air traffic
OPS Operations
Oro Navigacija State Enterprise Oro Navigacija, Lithuania
PANSA Polish Air Navigation Services Agency
PPPs Purchasing power parities
PRB Performance Review Body
PRC Performance Review Commission
PRR Performance Review Report
PRU Performance Review Unit
RDP Radar Data Processing system
RP1 Reference Period 1
RPI Retail Price Index
ROMATSA Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration
SAR Search and Rescue
SES Single European Sky
SESAR IP1 Single European Sky ATM Research Implementation Package 1
SEID Specification for Economic Information Disclosure
Skyguide Skyguide, Switzerland
Slovenia Control Slovenia Control, Slovenia
SMATSA Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services Agency
TC Terminal Control
TWR Traffic Controlled Tower
UK CAA United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority
UkSATSE Ukrainian State Air Traffic Service Enterprise
Glossary 185 ACE 2012 Benchmarking Report with 2013‐2017 outlook
VFR Visual Flight Rules
VOR Very high frequency Omni‐directional Range
May 2014
ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE)2012 Benchmarking Report
with 2013-2017 outlook
EUROCONTROL
REPORT COMMISSIONED BY THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMISSION
Prepared by the Performance Review Unit (PRU)with the ACE Working Group
May 2014
REPORT COMMISSIONED BY THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMISSION
ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE)2012 Benchmarking Report
with 2013-2017 outlook
COPYRIGHT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
© European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)
This document is published by the Performance Review Commission in the interest of the exchange of information.
It may be copied in whole or in part providing that the copyright notice and disclaimer are included. The information contained in this document may not be modifiedwithout prior written permission from the Performance Review Commission.
The view expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of EUROCONTROL which makes no warranty, either implied or express, for the informationcontained in this document, neither does it assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy completeness or usufulness of this information.
Printed by EUROCONTROL 96, rue de la Fusée, B-1130 Brussels, Belgium. Tel: +32 2 729 3956. Fax: +32 2 729 9108.
ATM
Cos
t-Eff
ectiv
enes
s (A
CE)
201
2 Be
nchm
arki
ng R
epor
t w
ith 2
013-
2017
out
look
Cover ACE Layout A3 2012.indd 1 23/05/14 11:21