REPORT COMMISSIONED BY THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW … · In September 2010, ... Cover page 2 ACE 2010...
Transcript of REPORT COMMISSIONED BY THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW … · In September 2010, ... Cover page 2 ACE 2010...
EUROCONTROL
REPORT COMMISSIONED BY THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMISSION
ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE)2010 Benchmarking Report
with 2011-2015 outlook
Prepared by the Performance Review Unit (PRU)with the ACE Working Group
May 2012May 2012
REPORT COMMISSIONED BY THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMISSION
ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE)2010 Benchmarking Report
with 2011-2015 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) 2
010
Benc
hmar
king
Rep
ort w
ith 2
011-
2015
out
look
Cover ACE Layout A3.indd 1 7/05/12 13:40
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 [email protected]
Cover page 2 ACE 2010 .indd 1 7/05/12 13:41
Report commissioned by the Performance Review Commission
ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) 2010 Benchmarking Report with
2011-2015 outlook
Prepared by the Performance Review Unit (PRU) with the ACE 2010 Working Group
Final Report
May 2012
EUROCONTROL
ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 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 [email protected]
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
EUROCONTROL
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 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION SHEET
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Document Title
ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
DOCUMENT REFERENCE EDITION: EDITION DATE:
ACE 2010 Final Report May 2012 ABSTRACT
This report is the tenth 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 2010, including high level trend analysis for the years 2006-2010. 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 presents detailed productivity comparisons for 64 Area Control Centres (ACCs) grouped in 3 clusters of different traffic complexity characteristics. Finally, the report analyses forward-looking information for the years 2011-2015, inferring on future financial cost-effectiveness performance at both system and ANSP levels, and displaying future capital expenditures and future capacity plans.
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) - Gate-to-gate - En-route and Terminal ANS - Inputs and outputs metrics – Performance framework - Quality of service - 2010 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 (2011-2015).
CONTACT: Performance Review Unit, EUROCONTROL, 96 Rue de la Fusée, B-1130 Brussels, Belgium.
Tel: +32 2 729 3956, e-mail: [email protected] - http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc
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 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
TABLE OF CONTENTS
READER’S GUIDE............................................................................................................................ I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................. III 1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1
1.1 Organisation of the report ................................................................................................1 1.2 Overview of participating ANSPs.....................................................................................3 1.3 Data submission ..............................................................................................................4 1.4 Data validation, processing and reporting .......................................................................5 1.5 ANSPs’ Annual Reports...................................................................................................6 1.6 A new EU regulatory environment for ANS performance................................................8 1.7 Purposes and scope of information disclosure requirements..........................................9
PART I: EUROPEAN ANS DATA AND INTRODUCTION TO ANSP BENCHMARKING...........13 2 EUROPEAN ANS SYSTEM DATA.......................................................................................15
2.1 Coverage of the ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report........................................................15 2.2 European ANS system data for the years 2009 and 2010............................................15 2.3 System outputs ..............................................................................................................17 2.4 ANS revenues................................................................................................................17 2.5 ANS costs ......................................................................................................................18 2.6 Assets, liabilities and capital expenditures ....................................................................22 2.7 Staff................................................................................................................................24
3 FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE ..........................................................................27 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................27 3.2 Framework for factors affecting performance................................................................27 3.3 Quantification of some exogenous factors ....................................................................28 3.3.1 Cost of living ..............................................................................................................29 3.3.2 Traffic complexity.......................................................................................................30 3.3.3 Traffic variability.........................................................................................................32 3.4 Econometric analysis of ANSPs cost-efficiency ............................................................33
PART II: FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS ..........................................................................35 4 FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS (2010) ......................................................................37
4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................37 4.2 Financial cost-effectiveness indicator (2010) ................................................................38 4.3 Framework for gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness and productivity analysis.....................42 4.4 Breakdown of gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness for individual ANSPs ............................44 4.4.1 ATCO-hour productivity (2010)..................................................................................44 4.4.2 ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (2010)......................................................46 4.4.3 ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour (2010) ......................................48 4.4.4 Support costs per composite flight-hour (2010).........................................................49 4.5 Performance ratios (2010) .............................................................................................55
5 CHANGES IN FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS (2006-2010).....................................59 5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................59 5.2 Medium term changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010) ..............................60 5.2.1 Changes at European system level (2006-2010) ......................................................60 5.2.2 Changes at ANSP level (2006-2010) ........................................................................60 5.3 Changes in the components of financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010).....................64 5.3.1 Changes at European system level (2006-2010) ......................................................65 5.3.2 Changes in ATCO-hour productivity at ANSP level (2006-2010)..............................66 5.3.3 Changes in ATCO employment costs at ANSP level (2006-2010) ...........................69 5.3.4 Changes in support costs per composite flight-hour (2006-2010).............................71
6 FORWARD-LOOKING FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS (2011-2015).......................75 6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................75 6.2 Forward-looking financial cost-effectiveness at European system level .......................75 6.2.1 Changes in planned unit ATM/CNS provision costs at ANSP level ..........................77 6.3 Changes in fixed assets and capital expenditure (capex) .............................................77 6.3.1 Ratio of cumulative capex (2011-2014) to 2010 revenues at ANSP level ................79 6.4 Changes in ATCOs in OPS and en-route ATC capacity ...............................................79
PART III: ECONOMIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS.........................................................................81 7 ECONOMIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS.................................................................................83
7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................83 7.2 The measures of quality of service................................................................................83
ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
7.3 The measure of economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness...........................................85 7.4 Comparison of economic cost-effectiveness (2010) .....................................................86 7.5 Trends in economic cost-effectiveness (2006-2010).....................................................90
ANNEX 1 – STATUS ON ANSPS YEAR 2010 ANNUAL REPORTS ...........................................93 ANNEX 2 - PERFORMANCE INDICATORS USED FOR THE COMPARISON OF ANSPS ........95 ANNEX 3 – TRAFFIC COMPLEXITY INDICATORS AT ANSP LEVEL.......................................97 ANNEX 4 – COST OF CAPITAL REPORTED BY ANSPS ...........................................................99 ANNEX 5 – EXCHANGE RATES, INFLATION RATES AND PURCHASING POWER PARITIES (PPPS) 2010 DATA ......................................................................................................................101 ANNEX 6 - KEY DATA ................................................................................................................103 ANNEX 7 – INFORMATION ON ANSPS MAJOR CAPEX PROJECTS.....................................109 ANNEX 8 - ANSP FACT SHEETS...............................................................................................123 GLOSSARY..................................................................................................................................163
ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
TABLES
Table 0.1: Key system data for 2009 and 2010.................................................................................. iv Table 0.2: Comparison of ATM/CNS provision costs and composite flight-hours at system level
(data provided in Nov.‘08 versus Nov.‘11) (€2010) ...................................................................viii Table 1.1: States and ANSPs participating in ACE 2010....................................................................3 Table 1.2: IFRS reporting status..........................................................................................................7 Table 2.1: High level data for the European ANS system for 2009 and 2010 (real terms) ...............16 Table 2.2: Breakdown of en-route and terminal ANS costs, 2010 ....................................................21 Table 4.1: The components of gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness, 2010 ..............................................56 Table 5.1: Comparison of ATM/CNS provision costs and composite flight-hours at system level
(data provided in Nov.‘08 versus Nov.‘11) (€2010) ...................................................................63 Table 5.2: Changes in ATCO-hours on duty and traffic volumes (2009-2010) .................................68 Table 5.3: Breakdown of changes in support costs, 2009-2010 (real terms)....................................73 Table 7.1: Economic cost-effectiveness indicator, 2010 ...................................................................86 Annex 1 - Table 0.1: Status on ANSP’s 2010 Annual Reports .........................................................93 Annex 3 - Table 0.1: Traffic complexity indicators at ANSP level, 2010 ...........................................97 Annex 3 - Table 0.2: Traffic complexity indicators at ACC level, 2010 .............................................98 Annex 4 - Table 0.1: Comments on cost of capital reported by ANSPs, 2010................................100 Annex 5 - Table 0.1: 2010 Exchange rates, inflation rates and PPPs data ....................................101 Annex 6 - Table 0.1: Breakdown of total ANS revenues (en-route, terminal and gate-to-gate), 2010
.................................................................................................................................................103 Annex 6 - Table 0.2: Breakdown of total ANS costs (en-route, terminal and gate-to-gate), 2010..104 Annex 6 - Table 0.3: Breakdown of ATM/CNS provision costs (en-route, terminal and gate-to-gate),
2010.........................................................................................................................................105 Annex 6 - Table 0.4: Balance Sheet data at ANSP level, 2010 ......................................................106 Annex 6 - Table 0.5: Total staff and ATCOs in OPS data, 2010.....................................................107 Annex 6 - Table 0.6: Operational data (ANSP and State level), 2010 ............................................108
ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
FIGURES
Figure 0.1: Gate-to-gate ANS costs breakdown................................................................................. iv Figure 0.2: Change in composite flight-hours between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 ........................... v Figure 0.3: Changes in gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness KPI (2006-2010, real terms) ....................... vi Figure 0.4: Economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness KPI, 2010 ...................................................... vi Figure 0.5: ACE key performance indicators, 2010............................................................................vii Figure 0.6: Changes in the financial cost-effectiveness KPI, 2009-2010 (real terms) ......................viii Figure 0.7: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic volumes (2009-2010)......................... ix Figure 0.8: Comparison of 2010 actual ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic with ACE 2007 plans ix Figure 0.9: Forward-looking cost-effectiveness at European system level (2010-2015, real terms) .. x Figure 0.10: Changes in planned costs and traffic at European system level (2010-2014, real terms)
..................................................................................................................................................... x Figure 0.11: Ratio of ANSPs cumulative capex (2011-2014) to 2010 revenues................................ xi Figure 1.1: Progress with submission of 2010 data ............................................................................4 Figure 1.2: Data validation, processing and reporting.........................................................................5 Figure 1.3: Status of 2010 Annual Reports .........................................................................................7 Figure 1.4: SES II pillars......................................................................................................................8 Figure 1.5: EU-wide targets adopted on 3 December 2010 for RP1 (2012-2014)..............................8 Figure 1.6: States/ANSPs different reporting requirements and their objectives................................9 Figure 1.7: Activities and entities covered by the different reporting requirements ..........................10 Figure 2.1: Geographic coverage of the ACE 2010 data analysis ....................................................15 Figure 2.2: Monthly evolution of IFR traffic (2009 vs 2010) ..............................................................16 Figure 2.3: Breakdown of gate-to-gate ANS revenues in 2010.........................................................18 Figure 2.4: Breakdown of total ANS costs at system level in 2010...................................................19 Figure 2.5: Breakdown of European ATM/CNS provision costs in 2010...........................................20 Figure 2.6: ANSP assets and liabilities structure, 2010 ....................................................................23 Figure 2.7: ANSP capex structure, 2010...........................................................................................24 Figure 2.8: Surveillance and navigation aids physical assets, 2010 .................................................24 Figure 2.9: Breakdown of European ANS system staff in 2010 ........................................................25 Figure 2.10: Changes in traffic, ATCOs in OPS and support staff, 2006-2010.................................26 Figure 3.1: Factors affecting cost-effectiveness performance ..........................................................27 Figure 3.2: Index of cost of living (based on PPPs) in 2010, (source IMF April 2012)......................29 Figure 3.3: Traffic complexity metrics for ANSPs, 2010....................................................................31 Figure 3.4: Overall complexity scores at ANSP level, 2010..............................................................32 Figure 3.5: Trend in overall complexity metrics and traffic at European system level, 2006-2010...32 Figure 3.6: Seasonal traffic variations, 2010 .....................................................................................33 Figure 4.1: Conceptual framework for the analysis of financial cost-effectiveness...........................37 Figure 4.2: Distribution of ATM/CNS provision costs in 2010 ...........................................................38 Figure 4.3: Comparison of the financial cost-effectiveness indicator, 2010......................................39 Figure 4.4: Adjustment of the financial cost-effectiveness indicator for ANSPs operating in the Four
States airspace (2010)...............................................................................................................40 Figure 4.5: Breakdown of financial cost-effectiveness into en-route and terminal, 2010, .................41 Figure 4.6: Performance framework for gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness analysis (2010).................43 Figure 4.7: ATCO-hour productivity (gate-to-gate), 2010..................................................................44 Figure 4.8: Summary of productivity results at ACC level (2010) .....................................................45 Figure 4.9: ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (gate-to-gate), 2010......................................47 Figure 4.10: Employment costs per ATCO-hour with and without PPPs, 2010 ................................48 Figure 4.11: ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour, 2010 ...........................................48 Figure 4.12: Components of ATCO employment costs per unit of output, 2010 ..............................49 Figure 4.13: Framework for support costs analysis (2010) ...............................................................50 Figure 4.14: Support costs per composite flight-hour, 2010 .............................................................51 Figure 4.15: Non-ATCO in OPS employment costs with and without adjustment for PPPs, 2010...52 Figure 4.16: Breakdown of non-ATCO in OPS employment costs ...................................................52 Figure 4.17: Employment costs per non-ATCO in OPS staff and support staff per unit of output,
2010...........................................................................................................................................53 Figure 4.18: Breakdown of capital-related costs ...............................................................................54 Figure 4.19: Asset bases and average WACCs used to compute the cost of capital, 2010.............55 Figure 5.1: Annual change in composite flight-hours between 2009 and 2010 ................................59 Figure 5.2: Changes in financial cost-effectiveness KPI (2006-2010, real terms) ............................60 Figure 5.3: Annual changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour,
2006-2010 (real terms) ..............................................................................................................61
ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Figure 5.4: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic volumes (2009-2010)........................62 Figure 5.5: Comparison of 2010 actual ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic with ACE 2007 plans63 Figure 5.6: Breakdown of changes in financial cost-effectiveness, 2006-2010 (real terms).............65 Figure 5.7: Breakdown of changes in financial cost-effectiveness, 2009-2010 (real terms).............65 Figure 5.8: Changes in ATCO-hour productivity (2006-2010)...........................................................66 Figure 5.9: Improvement in ATCO-hour productivity (2006-2010) ....................................................66 Figure 5.10: Average annual changes in ATCO-hour productivity at ANSP level (2006-2010 and
2009-2010) ................................................................................................................................67 Figure 5.11: Changes in ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (2006-2010) ............................69 Figure 5.12: Average annual changes in ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour, 2006-2010 and
2009-2010 (real terms) ..............................................................................................................70 Figure 5.13: Changes in support costs per composite flight-hour (2006-2010) ................................71 Figure 5.14: Average annual change in support cost per composite flight-hour at ANSP level, 2006-
2010 and 2009-2010 (real terms) ..............................................................................................71 Figure 5.15: Changes in the components of support costs per composite flight-hour, 2009-2010
(real terms) ................................................................................................................................72 Figure 5.16: Changes in the components of support costs (2009-2010) ..........................................73 Figure 5.17: Changes in ATCOs in OPS and “support” staff for the five largest ANSPs (2006-2010)
...................................................................................................................................................74 Figure 6.1: Status of ANSPs planned costs and traffic data submission ..........................................75 Figure 6.2: Forward-looking cost-effectiveness at European system level (2010-2015, real terms) 76 Figure 6.3: Changes in planned costs and traffic at European system level (2010-2014, real terms)
...................................................................................................................................................76 Figure 6.4: ANSPs planned changes in gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs (2010-2015, real
terms).........................................................................................................................................77 Figure 6.5: Asset structure at European system level (2006-2010) ..................................................78 Figure 6.6: Forward-looking capex and depreciation costs at European system level .....................78 Figure 6.7: Changes in planned capex at European system level ....................................................78 Figure 6.8: Ratio of ANSPs cumulative capex (2011-2014) to 2010 revenues.................................79 Figure 6.9: Planned number of ATCOs in OPS at European system level (2006-2015) ..................80 Figure 6.10: Planned number of en-route sectors and sector-hours at European system level (2006-
2015)..........................................................................................................................................80 Figure 7.1: Trade-off between cost-effectiveness and quality of service ..........................................83 Figure 7.2: Conceptual framework for the analysis of economic cost-effectiveness ........................85 Figure 7.3: Economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness KPI, 2010 .....................................................87 Figure 7.4: Share of ATFM delays in unit economic costs, 2010......................................................87 Figure 7.5: Breakdown of ATFM delays, 2010 ..................................................................................88 Figure 7.6: Causes of en-route and airport ATFM delays, 2010 .......................................................89 Figure 7.7: ANSPs cumulative capex (2006-2010) ...........................................................................89 Figure 7.8: Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (2006-2010, real terms) .................90 Figure 7.9: Changes in ATFM delays, (2009-2010) ..........................................................................90 Figure 7.10: Changes in economic cost-effectiveness by ANSP (2006-2010) .................................92
Reader’s guide i ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 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. All those who are interested in understanding the differences between the SES II reporting requirements and the ACE analysis in terms of scope, entities and KPIs.
Part I: - European ANS data and introduction to ANSP benchmarking Chapter 2: European ANS system data
Brief summary of the main economic, financial and operational metrics for the whole European ANS system in 2010.
Chapter 3: Factors affecting performance
All those who are interested in the main (measurable) factors which affect the observed performance of an ANSP such as size, cost of living, traffic complexity and traffic variability. This chapter is particularly relevant to scholars and economic regulators who are interested in developing econometric methodology to benchmark ANSPs with a view to produce a normative assessment of performance.
Part II: - Financial cost-effectiveness Chapter 4: Financial cost-effectiveness (2010)
All those who are interested in understanding how ATM/CNS provision cost-effectiveness in 2010 is measured and benchmarked for each ANSP, including its three main economic drivers (productivity, employment costs and support costs). This chapter is particularly relevant to ANSPs’ management, regulators and NSAs in order to identify best practices and areas for improvement.
Chapter 5: Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010)
All those who are interested in trends and dynamic analysis of ATM/CNS cost-effectiveness performance between 2006 and 2010. This chapter is particularly relevant to ANSPs’ management, regulators and NSAs in order to identify how cost-effectiveness performance has evolved and which have been the sources of improvement (productivity, employment costs and support costs).
Chapter 6: Forward looking financial cost-effectiveness (2011-2015)
All those who are interested in forward-looking expectations of ATM/CNS cost-effectiveness performance for the 2011-2015 period, including capital investment and staff projections. This chapter is particularly relevant for those interested in cost-effectiveness planning, regulators and NSAs, and for airspace users during their consultation processes.
Part III: - Economic cost-effectiveness Chapter 7: Economic cost-effectiveness
All those who are interested in understanding how the quality of service (currently only ATFM delays) is factually measured, valued in monetary terms and benchmarked for each ANSP. This chapter is particularly relevant to ANSPs’ management, regulators and NSAs in order to identify areas for improvement, and understand trade-offs between quality of service and financial cost-effectiveness.
Annexes: Tables with data used in the report. The annexes also include detailed information on ANSPs planned capital expenditures.
Reader’s guide ii ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Executive Summary iii ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Independent benchmarking of the cost-effectiveness of 37 European ANSPs
This ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) 2010 Benchmarking Report, the tenth in the series, presents a review and comparison of ATM cost-effectiveness for 37 Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) in Europe. ACE 2010 presents information on performance indicators relating to cost-effectiveness and productivity for the year 2010, and how they changed over time (2006-2010). It examines both individual ANSPs and the European ATM/CNS system as a whole. In addition, ACE 2010 analyses forward-looking information covering the 2011-2015 period based on information provided by ANSPs in November 2011. The ACE benchmarking work is carried out by the Performance Review Commission (PRC) 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. 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. EU-wide targets for Cost-Efficiency, Capacity and Environment were adopted by the EC on 3 December 2010 for RP1 (2012-2014). The ACE benchmarking activities set the foundation for a more normative analysis to assess the scope for ANSPs cost-efficiency improvement and have been one of the main inputs considered for determining the EU-wide cost-efficiency target. The ACE data analysis had also a significant role in the context of the assessment of national performance plans that was carried out by the PRB in 2011.
The European ANS system is a business of €8 570M with some 57 800 staff
The 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 European ANS system also includes National Supervisory Authorities (NSAs), national MET providers and the EUROCONTROL Agency. In 2010, total ANS costs were around €8 570M (see Table 0.1 below), of which some €7 480M related directly to the provision of gate-to-gate ATM/CNS.
Executive Summary iv ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
2009 2010 09/1037 ANSPs 37 ANSPs 37 ANSPs
8 004 8 210 2.6%
En-route ANS revenues 6 341 6 540 3.1% Terminal ANS revenues 1 662 1 670 0.5%
8 938 8 572 -4.1% ATM/CNS provision costs 7 854 7 476 -4.8% MET costs 437 437 0.0% EUROCONTROL Agency costs 542 516 -4.8%
Payment to national authorities and irrecoverable VAT 105 144 36.8%
7 854 7 476 -4.8% En-route ATM/CNS costs 6 011 5 769 -4.0% Terminal ATM/CNS costs 1 843 1 707 -7.4%
57 600 57 808 0.4%ATCOs in OPS 16 934 16 944 0.1%
ACC ATCOs 9 617 9 494 -1.3%APPs + TWRs ATCOs 7 317 7 451 1.8%
7 712 7 625 -1.1%
1 336 1 151 -13.9%
Distance controlled (km) 9 491 9 765 2.9%Total flight-hours controlled 13.6 13.9 2.6%ACC flight-hours controlled 11.9 12.2 2.9%IFR airport movements controlled 14.8 14.8 0.2%IFR flights controlled 9.4 9.5 0.8%
Gate-to-gate ATFM delays ('000 min.) 15 166 27 476 81.2%
Gate-to-gate ANS staff:
NBV of gate-to-gate fixed assets (in € M)
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):
Table 0.1: Key system data for 2009 and 2010
Total ANS revenues in 2010 amounted to some €8 210M. The European ANSPs employed some 57 800 staff, which is slightly larger than the workforce at Airbus worldwide (55 000 employees). Some 16 900 staff (29%) were ATCOs working on operational duty, compared to some 14 600 in the United States (FAA/ATO, including 1 300 for contracted TWRs). On average, in Europe, 2.4 additional staff are required for every ATCO.
~€5 769M ~€1 707M
~€345M ~€91M
~€122M ~€21M
~€516M
2010 Gate-to-gate ANS costs (European level)
~€8 572M
En-route ANS costs (European level)
~€6 753M
Terminal ANS costs (European level)
~€1 819M
EUROCONTROL
ATM/CNS
MET
Payment to regulatory &
governmental authorities
ATM/CNS
MET
Payment to regulatory &
governmental authorities
€7476M
Figure 0.1: Gate-to-gate ANS costs breakdown
ACE 2010 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 ATM/CNS (€7 476M). These represent 87% of total ANS costs. Other ANS costs include the costs of aeronautical meteorology services (5%), the costs of the EUROCONTROL Agency (6%) and the costs associated to regulatory and governmental authorities (2%). The allocation of costs between en-route and terminal ANS is not done consistently 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 analysis in this report is “gate-to-gate” ANS.
ANSPs’ controllable costs are then divided by an output metric to obtain a measure of performance – the financial cost-effectiveness KPI. The output metric is the composite flight-hour, a “gate-to-gate” measure which combines 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. Ideally, since the 37 ANSPs operate in very diverse environments across Europe, all of these should be taken into account in making fair performance comparisons, especially since many of these factors are outside the 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.
Executive Summary v ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
ACE also analyses indicators derived from ANSP balance sheets and capital expenditures. The total Net Book Value (NBV) of fixed assets used by the European ANSPs to provide ATM/CNS services is valued at some €7 625M, which means that overall €0.93 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 systems and equipment in operation or under construction. In 2010, the total ANSP capex at European system level amounted to some €1 150M.
2010 traffic did not bounce back after the sharp decrease experienced in 2009
Composite flight-hours rose by +2.1% in 2010, a modest recovery compared to the sharp traffic decrease recorded in 2009 (-6.7%), to reach a level below that of 2007. The traffic growth observed at European system level masks contrasted situations across ANSPs, and for eight of them traffic decreased in 2010. Among the five largest ANSPs, for NATS and DSNA traffic fell for the second consecutive year. 2010 was also marked by a volcanic eruption in Iceland which created severe traffic disruptions across Europe. As a result, the traffic recorded in April 2010 was some 11% below that of April 2009.
Lower Airspace
Annual change in composite flight-hours (2008-2009)
ANSPs not included in trend analysis
< -12%
< -8%
< -4%
< 0%
>= 0%
> 4%
> 8%
Lower Airspace
Annual change in composite flight-hours (2009-2010)
ANSPs not included in trend analysis
< -4%
< 0%
>= 0%
> 4%
> 8%
Figure 0.2: Change in composite flight-hours between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010
A major theme of this ACE report is to assess the degree of reactivity of the ANS industry with respect to the traffic downturn. In 2010, efforts made to reduce ATM/CNS costs were cancelled by a sharp increase in ATFM delays
An assessment of the overall performance of an ANSP should take into account all the areas related to the economics of ANS - not only financial cost-effectiveness but also the quality of service provided, such as efficient routings and adequate levels of ATC capacity, while ensuring ANS safety. ACE therefore introduced the concept of economic cost-effectiveness KPI, which adds a monetary value of the cost of ground ATFM delay to the controllable financial costs. Other elements of quality of service such as flight-efficiency and airborne holdings have not been included in the indicator as they cannot be so readily quantified at ANSP level. This indicator allows the assessment of performance to take into account trade-offs between quality of service and costs.
Executive Summary vi ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
+1.0% +1.2% +0.7%+4.6%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
€ p
er c
om
pos
ite f
light
-ho
ur (
201
0 pr
ice
s)
Unit costs of airport ATFM delaysUnit costs of en-route ATFM delaysATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+5.8%
+1.5%
-6.7%
+11.1%+9.2%
+4.7%
+0.9% +1.4%
-4.8%
+2.1%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours Unit costs of ATFM delays
-31.6%
77.5%
Figure 0.3: Changes in gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness KPI (2006-2010, real terms)
At European level, the economic costs per composite flight-hour slightly increased between 2006 and 2009 (i.e. +1.0% p.a. in real terms) and then substantially rose in 2010 (i.e. +4.6% in real terms). As a result, unit economic costs increased by +7.7% in real terms between 2006 and 2010. In 2010, ATM/CNS provision costs fell by -4.8% in real terms. This is an important result since ATM/CNS provision costs never declined during the last decade. However, this reduction was outweighed by a sharp increase in the unit costs of ATFM delays (+77.5%) which is disappointing given the relatively low traffic growth experienced in 2010 (+2.1%). Overall, the result was a +4.6% rise in unit economic costs in 2010.
There is a wide range of cost-effectiveness performance among ANSPs
In 2010, the economic cost-effectiveness KPI ranges from €849 (Belgocontrol) to €179 (EANS), a factor greater than five (see Figure 0.4 below). Although the five largest ANSPs operate in relatively similar economic and operational environments, there is a substantial variation in unit costs, ranging from Aena (€720) to NATS (€466).
179
251265266321
338350351358363375381385389407419429432433433434
455461466466484486525
566
690707711720
749754
829849
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Be
lgo
con
tro
l
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
LV
NL
Aus
tro
Co
ntro
l
Ae
na
Sky
gui
de
DF
S
DS
NA
LPS
Cro
atia
Co
ntro
l
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
EN
AV
NA
TS
NA
TA
Alb
ania
AN
S C
R
HC
AA
M-N
AV
RO
MA
TS
A
PA
NS
A
Mo
ldA
TS
A
UkS
AT
SE
Hun
gar
oCon
tro
l
LFV
NA
VIA
IR
BU
LAT
SA
Avi
nor
IAA
Oro
Nav
iga
cija
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa
)
AR
MA
TS
DH
MI
Fin
avi
a
SM
AT
SA
MU
AC
LGS
MA
TS
EA
NS
€ p
er c
om
posi
te f
ligh
t-ho
ur
Financial gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness Unit cost of en-route ATFM delays Unit cost of airport ATFM delays
European system average for economic cost-effectiveness: €544European system average for financial cost-effectiveness: €419
Figure 0.4: Economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness KPI, 2010
Across Europe, ATFM delays contributed to some 23% of the total economic gate-to-gate costs in 2010, compared to 12% in 2009. The substantial rise in ATFM delays for three of the five largest ANSPs significantly contributed to the increase observed at
466484
690707720
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Ae
na
DF
S
DS
NA
EN
AV
NA
TS
Executive Summary vii ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
European system level. For DSNA (36%), DFS (34%) and Aena (28%) the share of ATFM delays amounts to more than 20% of the economic costs. The increase in ATFM delays for DFS was mainly due to staff training relating to the implementation of the VAFORIT system in Rhein ACC. The large share for DSNA and Aena reflects an increase in ATFM delays mainly relating to social tensions. Several ANSPs (e.g. DCAC Cyprus, Austro Control and PANSA) have had recurrent ATC capacity issues for several years and could not implement the necessary measures to address them in 2010, although the traffic downturn in 2009 was an opportunity to reduce the capacity gap. Looking ahead, this situation offers a unique opportunity to better match capacity and demand, while at the same time improving financial cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, in the context of SES II, the body in charge of the Network Management and Design functions should effectively support ANSPs to improve the quality of service provided at system level. Higher productivity combined with lower ATCOs employment costs and support costs contributed to substantially improve financial cost-effectiveness in 2010
Figure 0.5 shows the analytical framework which is used in the ACE analysis to break down the financial cost-effectiveness KPI into a number of key components. In 2010 at European system level, the average ATM/CNS provision cost per composite flight hour is €419.
Employment costs for
ATCOs in OPS€2 226 M
Composite flight-hours
17.8 M
ATCO in OPS hours on duty
23.1 M
ATM/CNS provision costs
€7 476 M
Support cost ratio3.4
ATCO-hour Productivity
0.77
ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour
€96
Financialcost-effectiveness
indicator€419
EUROCONTROL/PRU
Support costs€5 249 M
Support costs per unit of output
€294
ATCOs employment costs per
unit of output€125
Employment costs for
ATCOs in OPS€2 226 M
Composite flight-hours
17.8 M
ATCO in OPS hours on duty
23.1 M
ATM/CNS provision costs
€7 476 M
Support cost ratio3.4
ATCO-hour Productivity
0.77
ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour
€96
Financialcost-effectiveness
indicator€419
EUROCONTROL/PRU
Support costs€5 249 M
Support costs per unit of output
€294
ATCOs employment costs per
unit of output€125
Figure 0.5: ACE key performance indicators, 2010
This indicator can be broken down into two additive indicators: ATCOs employment costs per unit output (€125) and support costs per unit output (€294). Key components of the financial cost-effectiveness KPI also include ATCO-hour productivity (0.77 composite flight-hours per ATCO-hour) and ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (€96).
At European system level, unit ATM/CNS provision costs fell by -6.8% in real terms between 2009 and 2010. Figure 0.6 shows that in 2010, ANSPs managed to substantially decrease employment costs per ATCO-hour (-5.1%), while increasing ATCO-hour productivity (+6.6%). These results are heavily influenced by the introduction of Law 9/2010 which was adopted in Spain in 2010. Besides a number of structural changes, 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 for Aena in the past.
Executive Summary viii ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
+6.6%
-5.1%
-10.9%
-6.8%
-4.9%
-2.9%
+2.1%
"Traffic effect"
Increased ATCO-hour productivity
Decrease inunit ATM/CNS
provision costs
2009-2010
"Support costs effect"
Decreased employment
costs per ATCO-hour
Decreased ATCO
employment costs per
composite flight-hour
Decreased support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 70%
Weight 30%
Figure 0.6: Changes in the financial cost-effectiveness KPI, 2009-2010 (real terms)
Figure 0.6 also shows that the substantial decrease in support costs (-2.9%) combined with the +2.1% traffic increase contributed to the -6.8% reduction in unit ATM/CNS provision costs in 2010. Cost containment measures initiated in 2009 generated substantial savings at European system level and contributed to decrease ATM/CNS costs in 2010
Table 0.2 indicates that for 2009 and 2010, the actual number of composite flight-hours is some 8-9% lower than planned in November 2008. This reflects the impact of the severe financial crisis and economic downturn on traffic. Due to short-term rigidities and unavoidable lead time to adjust ANS costs downwards, the impact of cost-containment measures introduced by the European ANSPs in 2009 mainly materialised in 2010. Actual 2010 ATM/CNS provision costs are -10.3% lower than planned in November 2008, which is a remarkable achievement for the ANS industry. At European system level, these measures generated some €800M of savings compared to previous years plans and contributed to decrease ATM/CNS provision costs (-4.8%, see Figure 0.3) in 2010. This indicates that, as a whole, the ANS industry was reactive and showed flexibility to adjust costs downwards in response to the sharp traffic decrease in 2009.
European system level (in €2010) 2009 2010Planned costs in Nov. 2008 (M€) 7 685 7 778Actual costs (M€) 7 337 6 977Difference between actual costs and Nov. 2008 plans (M€) -349 -800Difference between actual costs and Nov. 2008 plans (%) -4.5% -10.3%
Planned composite flight-hours in Nov. 2008 ('000) 17 504 18 046Actual composite flight-hours ('000) 16 093 16 423Difference between actual composite flight-hours and Nov. 2008 plans (%) -8.1% -9.0%
Table 0.2: Comparison of ATM/CNS provision costs and composite flight-hours at system level (data provided in Nov.‘08 versus Nov.‘11) (€2010)
Figure 0.7 shows that 16 ANSPs could reduce their ATM/CNS provision costs between 2009 and 2010 (see bottom part of the chart). For four ANSPs (Belgocontrol, DSNA, M-NAV and NATS) these decreases were sufficient to outweigh the decrease in traffic and to achieve reductions in unit costs in 2010.
Executive Summary ix ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
ARMATS
MoldATSA
M-NAV
EANS
MATS
NATA Albania
Oro Navigacija
LGS
Slovenia Control
DCAC Cyprus
LPS
Finavia
Croatia Control
BULATSA
SMATSA
HungaroControl
NAVIAIR
IAA
ANS CR
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
PANSA
MUAC
ROMATSA
Belgocontrol
LVNLHCAA
UkSATSE
Austro Control
Avinor
LFV
Skyguide
DHMI
ENAV
NATS
DFS
Aena
DSNA
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
-5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Changes in composite flight-hours (2009-2010)
Chan
ges
in A
TM
/CN
S p
rovi
sion
cost
s (2
009-
2010
)
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs
Figure 0.7: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic volumes (2009-2010)
Figure 0.8 below shows that, for most of the ANSPs, the actual 2010 traffic was lower than planned in November 2008 (ACE 2007 plans). For nine ANSPs, the actual 2010 traffic was at least -10% below ACE 2007 plans. This is for example the case of DSNA (-14%) and NATS (-12%), despite the fact that DSNA was planning for a very modest growth, and that NATS was already anticipating a decline in flight-hours. Figure 0.8 also indicates that for 25 ANSPs, 2010 actual ATM/CNS costs are lower than planned in November 2008 (see Quadrants I and II). Among the five largest ANSPs, 2010 actual costs were substantially lower than planned for Aena (-18%), DFS (-14%), NATS (-17%), DSNA (-12%) and to a lower extent for ENAV (-2%). Given their weight in the European system, the five largest ANSPs significantly contributed to lower the actual 2010 ATM/CNS provision costs compared to ACE 2007 plans.
NATA Albania
ROMATSA
NATS
LFV
HungaroControl
Skyguide
Austro Control
DHMI
LPS
NAVIAIR
ENAV
MATS
ANS CR
Slovenia Control
DSNA
BULATSA
Finavia
LVNL
Croatia ControlDCAC Cyprus
MUAC
Belgocontrol
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
M-NAV
DFS
EANS
SMATSA
Avinor
IAA
Aena
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
-25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Difference between 2010 actual gate-to-gate costs and plans for 2010 provided in Nov. 2008
Dif
fere
nce
bet
we
en 2
010
actu
al c
om
po
site
fli
gh
t-h
ou
rsa
nd
pla
ns
for
2010
pro
vid
ed i
n N
ov.
20
08
I
II
III
IV
2010 actual costs higher than planned2010 actual costs lower than planned
2010
act
ual
tra
ffic
lo
wer
th
an p
lan
ned
2010
act
ual
tra
ffic
hig
her
th
an p
lan
ned
Oro Navigacija
LGS
PANSA
MoldATSA
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Figure 0.8: Comparison of 2010 actual ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic with ACE 2007 plans
Executive Summary x ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
After a -6.8% decrease in 2010, unit ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to reduce by -2.1% per annum until 2015
At European system level, after the -6.8% reduction in 2010, gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to slightly increase in 2011 (+0.4%) and then decrease by -2.7% p.a. until 2015. Overall, gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to decrease by -10.0% between 2010 and 2015 (-2.1% p.a.). For the years 2012-2014 which correspond to the SES Performance Scheme RP1, the unit costs profile is in line with States revised Performance Plans submitted at the end of 2011.
+0.4% -1.5% -2.5% -3.1% -3.7%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
98
106
114
122
130
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 419 421 415 405 392 378
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 105 106 107 107
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 104 108 111 114
2010 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P 2015PEuropean system
Figure 0.9: Forward-looking cost-effectiveness at European system level (2010-2015, real terms)
In ACE 2009, ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour were expected to reduce by -11% (or -2.3% p.a.) between 2009 and 2014. According to ACE 2010 plans, unit costs are forecast to decrease by -13% over the same period (or -2.7% p.a.).
This analysis suggests that the cost-containment measures implemented by the ANSPs generated more savings than planned in 2010 and that additional benefits are expected for future years compared to ACE 2009 plans.
-3.2%-1.7%-0.9%-1.1%
-3.2%
-0.4%
-0.7%-0.8%
-0.3%+0.03%
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
2010 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Gat
e-to
-gat
e A
TM
/CN
S c
osts
(Mill
ions
of E
uro)
16
18
20
22
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs (
Mill
ions
)
Planned costs (ACE 2009) Planned costs (ACE 2010)
Planned traff ic (ACE 2009) Planned traff ic (ACE 2010)
Figure 0.10 shows that actual 2010 costs were much lower than planned in ACE 2009 (-3.2%). In other words, in ACE 2010, the changes in unit ATM/CNS provision costs over 2010-2014 are computed using a lower base than in ACE 2009. Furthermore, Figure 0.10 shows that in ACE 2010, over the 2011-2014 period, ACE 2009 ATM/CNS costs forecasts have been revised downwards in a greater magnitude than traffic volumes (-1.7% compared to -0.5%, on average). This contributes to the more optimistic unit costs profile in ACE 2010 compared to ACE 2009 plans.
Figure 0.10: Changes in planned costs and traffic at European system level
(2010-2014, real terms)
Executive Summary xi ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Several ANSPs planned for a substantial investment programme over the 2011-2015 period
Overall, the planned cumulative capex for the period 2011-2015 amounts to some €5 677M and represents some 69% of the 2010 total ANS revenues, indicating that substantial investment programmes are planned for the next years.
55%
53%
68%
55%
68%
72%
39%
45%
33%
105%
43%
88%
83%
37%
19%
61%
69%
58%
50%
49%110%112%
91%
87%
53%
97%
109%
39%
61%
113% 59%
111%
83%
99%
86%
37%
58%
22%
Lower Airspace
Cumulative capex (2011-2014) to 2010 revenues ratio
] 0% to 50%]
] 50% to 100%]
] 100% to 150%]
> 150%
Data not provided
Figure 0.11: Ratio of ANSPs cumulative capex (2011-2014) to 2010 revenues
Figure 0.11 shows that for 6 ANSPs, the cumulative capex planned over 2011-2014 represent more than 100% of their 2010 revenues. A significant proportion of these investments relate to major upgrades or to the replacement of existing ATM systems. It will be important, and a challenge, to start monitoring how these investments relate to IP1 or to the European ATM Master Plan, and gaining an understanding of the quantified contribution to performance improvements.
Executive Summary xii ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Introduction ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
1
1 INTRODUCTION
The Air Traffic Management Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) 2010 Benchmarking Report commissioned by EUROCONTROL's independent Performance Review Commission (PRC) is the tenth in a series of reports comparing the ATM cost-effectiveness of EUROCONTROL Member States’ Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs)1. The ACE benchmarking work is carried out by the Performance Review Commission (PRC) in the context of Articles 3.3(i), 3.6(b)(c), and 3.8 of EC regulation N°691/2010. 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. More details on reporting requirements are provided in Section 1.7. 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 2010. 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 2006 onwards to examine changes over time, where relevant and valid. Five-year periods are considered to form a solid basis to examine changes in the medium term. This is particularly relevant given the characteristics of the ANS industry which requires a long lead time to develop ATC capacity and infrastructure.
1.1 Organisation of the report
This report presents a slightly different structure than in the ACE 2009 report. This year, an explicit choice was made to streamline the report and to have a greater focus on the analysis of the cost-effectiveness performance of the ATM industry at European level. The structure of the present ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report is as follows: Chapter 1 provides an overview of the participating ANSPs and outlines the processes involved in the production of this report. Then the report is divided into four parts.
Part I provides an overview of the economics of the European ATM system with a focus on the supply side.
• Chapter 2 presents 2010 key data for the European ATM system;
• Chapter 3 examines the importance of exogenous factors (such as cost of living, traffic variability and traffic complexity) and endogenous factors (such as
1 Previous reports in the series from ACE 2001 (Sept. 2003) to ACE 2009 (June 2011) can be found on the PRC web site at http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/. 2 PRC Specification for Economic Information Disclosure - Version 2.6, December 2008, can be found on the PRC web site.
Introduction ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
2
operational and technical set-up) when assessing and benchmarking the performance of an ANSP.
Part II focuses on the financial cost-effectiveness of ANSPs, based on their gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per unit of traffic output.
• Chapter 4 compares ANSPs' 2010 financial cost-effectiveness and the various components of cost-effectiveness (productivity, employment costs, and support costs);
• Chapter 5 looks at how financial cost-effectiveness and its components have changed over time (2006-2010);
• Chapter 6 analyses ANSPs’ five-year data projections (2011-2015), as disclosed to the PRU by November 2011. This chapter infers on future financial cost-effectiveness performance. It also reports on future capital expenditure as well as planned number of ATCOs in OPS at European level.
Part III looks at economic cost-effectiveness by valuing ATFM delays (a measure of the quality of service) attributable to ANSPs in monetary terms. Given the likely trade-offs at play, a measure of quality of service is important when considering the performance of an ANSP. This analysis is expected to expand in future years, as more data become available for analysis.
• Chapter 7 compares ANSPs’ 2010 economic cost-effectiveness and considers how it has changed over time (2006-2010).
Finally, this report also comprises several annexes with relevant statistical data used in the analysis.
Introduction ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
3
1.2 Overview of participating ANSPs
In total, 37 ANSPs reported 2010 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 ANSPs of two Baltic States (Estonia and Latvia) provided data on a voluntary basis for inclusion in the analysis. With one exception3, all the reported information relates to the calendar year 2010. Table 1.1 shows the list of participating ANSPs, describing both their organisational and corporate arrangements, and the scope of ANS services provided.
ANSP Code Country Organisational & Corporate Arrangements
OA
T S
ervi
ces
Oce
anic
MU
AC
CE
AT
S
De
leg
ate
d A
TM
Inte
rnal
ME
T
Ow
ner
ship
and
m
ana
gem
en
t of
air
port
s
1 Aena ES Spain State enterprise X
2 ANS CR CZ Czech Republic State enterprise X
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 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+ITAF IT Italy Joint-stock company (State-owned) X 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 X
18 IAA IE Ireland Joint-stock company (State-owned) X
19 LFV SE Sweden State enterprise X X X X
20 LGS LV Latvia Joint-stock company (State-owned) X X
21 LPS SK Slovak Republic State enterprise X 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 organisation27 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 (FIR Lisboa) 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) X
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 X
RS SerbiaME 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
Table 1.1: States and ANSPs4 participating in ACE 2010
Table 1.1 indicates (coloured yellow) which ANSPs were at 1 January 2010 part of the Single European Sky (SES), and hence subject to relevant SES regulations and obligations. 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)5, to cooperate in the field of ATM, with a view
3 For NATS, the disclosed data relate to the financial year 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011. 4 In Italy, the ITAF (Italian Air Force) provides ATC services mainly at regional civil/military airports and the corresponding costs are included in the ACE data analysis. 5 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 Republic of Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Iceland, the Republic of Montenegro, the Kingdom of Norway, and the Republic of Serbia.
Introduction ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
4
to extending the SES regulations6 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. 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 traffic (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 mandatory as part of the SES II legislation. The ACE 2010 data have been submitted in the SEID Version 2.6 which has been used now since ACE 2008. The SEID is currently being updated to consider the lessons learnt from the use of the SEID V2.6. It is expected that marginal refinements and/or clarifications be brought to the SEID in 2012 so that ANSPs should be able to use the revised version in 2013 for the submission of ACE 2012 data. Figure 1.1 indicates that the timeliness of submissions has continued to improve since by 15 July 2011 the PRU had received 28 out of 37 ACE data submissions (compared to 26 for ACE 2009 and 25 for ACE 2008). 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 of the ACE Benchmarking Report production is inevitably delayed if data are not submitted on time.
15-06-2011
30-06-2011
15-07-2011
30-07-2011
14-08-2011
29-08-2011
13-09-2011
28-09-2011
13-10-2011
AN
S C
RA
ustr
o C
ontr
olF
inav
iaB
elgo
cont
rol
LFV
UkS
AT
SE
LVN
LC
roat
ia C
ontr
olM
UA
CS
love
nia
Con
trol
AR
MA
TS
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
DF
S
DH
MI
DS
NA
E
AN
SE
NA
V
HC
AA
Hun
garo
Con
trol
LPS
M
AT
SN
AT
SN
AV
Por
tuga
lN
AV
IAIR
Oro
Nav
igac
ijaP
AN
SA
RO
MA
TS
AS
MA
TS
ALG
S
Sky
guid
eA
ena
IAA
M-N
AV
NA
TA
Alb
ania
Avi
nor
Mol
dAT
SA
BU
LAT
SA
AC
E20
10 d
ata p
rovi
ded
on:
15-06-2010
30-06-2010
15-07-2010
30-07-2010
14-08-2010
29-08-2010
13-09-2010
28-09-2010
13-10-2010
AC
E200
9 d
ata
pro
vided
on:
Submission of ACE2010 data Submission of ACE2009 data
Figure 1.1: Progress with submission of 2010 data
6 This includes the second package of SES regulations (EC No 1070/2009), the performance scheme regulation (EC No 691/2010) and the amended charging scheme regulation (EC No 1191/2010). 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.
Introduction ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
5
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, if the timing and the quality of HCAA data submissions 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. This issue with HCAA is of particular concern and the implementation of adequate data submission processes by HCAA would greatly contribute to improve the quality and the quantity of the information provided.
1.4 Data validation, 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 validation, analysis and consultation, is summarised in Figure 1.2 below.
Final ACEReport
(May 2012)
Submissionto PRC
(May 2012)
Second draftACE report (Apr. 2012)
First draftof ACE report
(Dec. 2011)
Data validationand processing
2010 ACE datasubmissions
provided by ANSPs(Jul. 2011)
Validation against:• previous data• CRCO data• Annual Reports
• Consultation of ANSPs for data clarification purposes
ACE consultationmeetings and
commentson draft report
Including two weeks period
for writtenconsultation
EUROCONTROL/PRU 2011
Final ACEReport
(May 2012)
Submissionto PRC
(May 2012)
Second draftACE report (Apr. 2012)
First draftof ACE report
(Dec. 2011)
Data validationand processing
2010 ACE datasubmissions
provided by ANSPs(Jul. 2011)
Validation against:• previous data• CRCO data• Annual Reports
• Consultation of ANSPs for data clarification purposes
ACE consultationmeetings and
commentson draft report
Including two weeks period
for writtenconsultation
EUROCONTROL/PRU 2011
Figure 1.2: Data validation, processing and reporting
In order to ensure comparability among ANSPs and quality of analysis, the information submitted by the ANSPs is subject by the PRU to a thorough data validation process which makes extensive use of ANSPs’ Annual Reports and of their statutory financial accounts. During this validation 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 validated.
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).
Introduction ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
6
In most cases, CFMU data 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. However, for Estonia (EANS) and Latvia8 (LGS), who are not part of the CFMU area, the output metrics used in this report are based on their own traffic data.
1.5 ANSPs’ Annual Reports
ANSPs’ Annual Reports provide a valuable means of validating the 2010 information disclosure data. The SES Service Provision Regulation (SPR) (EC No 550/2004) came into force on 20 April 2004 and is applicable to 2010 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);
• 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 Aena9, LFV10, Avinor, Finavia, HCAA, and DHMI11.
Figure 1.3 displays the status of ANSPs 2010 Annual Reports and indicates that 32 out of 37 participating ANSPs have published an Annual Report for the year 2010.
8 Latvia is part of the CFMU area as of 1st January 2011. 9 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. 10 From the 1st of April 2010, the former airport division of LFV operates as a separate limited liability company, 100% owned by the State (Swedavia AB). 11 Although it should be noted that DHMI is not covered by the SES regulations.
Introduction ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
7
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. Five ANSPs (including two which are subject to SES Regulations – namely HCAA and DCAC Cyprus) have not published Annual Reports for 2010.
ARMATS
DCAC Cyprus *
HCAA *
M-NAV**
MoldATSA
Aena*
ANS CR*
Austro Control*
Avinor*
Croatia Control**
Belgocontrol*
BULATSA*
DFS*
DHMI
DSNA*
EANS*
ENAV*
Finavia*
IAA*
LVNL*
MATS*
NAVIAIR*
HungaroControl*
LGS*
LPS*
LFV*
MUAC*
NATA Albania**
NAV Portugal*
Oro Navigacija*
PANSA*
ROMATSA*
Slovenia Control*
SMATSA**
UkSATSE
NATS*
Skyguide*
2010 Annual Report notpublicly available
2010 Annual Report publicly 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
Figure 1.3: Status of 2010 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 21 ANSPs whose 2010 Annual Accounts were partly or fully prepared according to IFRS.
ANSPs reporting according to IFRS in 2010
Aena ARMATS ANS CR BULATSA Austro Control Avinor Croatia Control DFS EANS LGS LPS
LVNL MATS NATA Albania NATS NAVIAIR NAV Portugal Oro Navigacija PANSA ROMATSA Skyguide
Table 1.2: IFRS reporting status
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 the importance to identify and understand the impact of changes in the accounting principles used to draw the financial accounts.
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 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
8
1.6 A new EU regulatory environment for ANS performance
As part of the SES II package adopted in 2009 (EC N°1070/2009), a stronger framework on performance has been implemented (see Figure 1.4 below). Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 laying down a performance scheme (see yellow box in Figure 1.4) entered into force on 23 August 2010. This marked the start of the implementation of the performance scheme, and in particular preparation for the first reference period (RP1) that runs for three years from 2012 to 2014.
SES II packageSES II package
Performance Safety
Performance
scheme
FABs
R&D
SESAR
Network Mgt&
Design (NMD)
EASA+
ATM, airports
Airports
Airport
Observatory
SES II packageSES II package
Performance Safety
Performance
scheme
FABs
R&D
SESAR
Network Mgt&
Design (NMD)
EASA+
ATM, airports
Airports
Airport
Observatory
Figure 1.4: SES II pillars
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 national/FAB performance plans. Following the PRB recommendations for EU-wide targets for Cost-Efficiency, Capacity and Environment were adopted by the EC on 3 December 2010 for RP1 (2012-2014) as indicated in Figure 1.5 below. 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 State level (i.e. including ANSPs, MET, EUROCONTROL and NSAs costs). The main objective of the ACE data analysis is to benchmark ANSPs gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness performance. For this reason, the financial cost-effectiveness KPI analysed in this ACE Report is expressed in terms of gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour and computed at ANSP level. Further details on the computation of the financial cost-effectiveness KPI are provided in Section 4.3.
Safety During RP1, States have to monitor and publish the following Safety KPIs:
1) Effectiveness of safety management; 2) Application of the harmonised severity
classification in reporting of:
• Separation minima infringements;
• Runway incursions;
• ATM special technical events; 3) Reporting of Just Culture.
Environment
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
-0.75% points vs. 2009
Actual baseline
Prior enhancement plans (-0.6% points vs. 2009)
EU-wide target
% of horizontal en route extension
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
-0.75% points vs. 2009
Actual baseline
Prior enhancement plans (-0.6% points vs. 2009)
EU-wide target
% of horizontal en route extension
Capacity
0,0
0,3
0,5
0,8
1,0
1,3
1,5
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
201
0
201
1
201
2
201
3
201
4
0.5 min.
Current capacity planning
Current EUROCONTROL target
En route ATFM delay per flight (min.)
Actual baseline
EU-wide target
0,0
0,3
0,5
0,8
1,0
1,3
1,5
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
201
0
201
1
201
2
201
3
201
4
0.5 min.
Current capacity planning
Current EUROCONTROL target
En route ATFM delay per flight (min.)
Actual baseline
EU-wide target
Cost-Efficiency
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Determined unit rate (State plans Nov. 2010)
Adjustment with one-off effect for EUROCONTROL cost base in 2011
EU-wide target
€53.92 per SU
€ per service unit (2009 prices)
Actual baseline
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Determined unit rate (State plans Nov. 2010)
Adjustment with one-off effect for EUROCONTROL cost base in 2011
EU-wide target
€53.92 per SU
€ per service unit (2009 prices)
Actual baseline
Figure 1.5: EU-wide targets adopted on 3 December 2010 for RP1 (2012-2014)
Introduction ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
9
1.7 Purposes and scope of information disclosure requirements
The objective of this section is to present the legal economic/financial information disclosure requirements prevailing at European level, and how their differences respond to specific and distinct objectives. These legal requirements are defined in the following documents:
• For the SES member States, the Performance Scheme Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 691/2010).
• For both SES and EUROCONTROL member States, the Specification for Economic Information Disclosure (SEID) which is a legal EUROCONTROL document serving as the main source of information for the ACE benchmarking activities and which is also referenced in the Performance Regulation for the performance review of the en-route monopoly ANSPs.
• For the SES member States, the Charging Scheme Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1191/2010).
• For the non-SES member States which are part of the EUROCONTROL Multilateral Route Charges system, the Reporting Tables (Principles for establishing the cost-base for route facility charges and the calculation of the unit rates13, October 2011, and in particular §1.4.3 and §1.4.5).
Figure 1.6 below shows States/ANSPs different legal reporting requirements and the different objectives that these requirements serve to achieve.
(A) Performance planning and monitoring
at local level
(B) Adoption and consultation on Route and Terminal Charges
(C) Independent benchmarking, EU-wide target setting and performance
monitoring at European and
State/ANSP level
Reporting Tables
1 2
3
SEID
StatePPs
ANSP Annual and Business
Plans
ACE
Information from the SEID is used
by the PRC/PRB to conduct cost-effectiveness benchmarking
analysis at European/local
levels
Information from ANSPs’
Business Plans is used to feed
National Performance
Plans
Figure 1.6: States/ANSPs different reporting requirements and their objectives
The three different objectives identified in Figure 1.6 are:
(A) the performance planning and monitoring at local level;
(B) the adoption and consultation on Route and Terminal charges; and, 13 Available on the CRCO website: (http://publish.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content/documents/route-charges/reference-documents/201110-principles-for-establishing-cost-base-for-route-charges-and-unit-rates.pdf).
Introduction ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
10
(C) independent benchmarking, EU-wide target-setting and monitoring of both European system and State/ANSP performance.
As indicated in Figure 1.6, there is a certain degree of interdependency across all the different reporting requirements. For instance, the information disclosed in ANSPs Annual Reports and Business Plans is used to provide data in the Specification for Economic Information Disclosure (see (1)). Similarly, actual and planned costs figures provided in the Reporting Tables should be consistent with the information disclosed in National Performance Plans, in the year of their adoption (see (2)). Finally, According to the new Charging Scheme Regulation and EUROCONTROL principles, States report information broken down into different reporting entities including ANSPs for both en-route and terminal ANS (see (3)). However, although the financial information provided in the SEID is usually consistent with data provided for ANSPs in the Reporting Tables, the monitoring and analysis of cost-efficiency performance requires complementary information on the ANSP’s outputs and key drivers which are not available in the Reporting Tables but collected through the SEID. Indeed, the information provided in the Reporting Tables is essentially required to adopt ANS charges14 that are paid by airspace users. Furthermore, only States subject to relevant SES regulations and obligations shall provide information on Terminal ANS costs in the Reporting Tables. According to the EC Regulation 1794/2006, these States may decide not to disclose information on airports with less than 50 000 commercial movements per year in the Reporting Tables (with the exception that at least relevant information on the main airport in each State has to be reported). This is not consistent with the SEID which requires all the en-route ANSPs operating in EUROCONTROL Member States to report all terminal ANS costs (regardless of the level of activity at airports) since the ACE data analysis encompasses both en-route and terminal activities in order to have a genuine comparison of ANSPs gate-to-gate cost-efficiency performance. Figure 1.7 shows the different entities (rows) subject to information disclosure and the main bases used for charging purposes (columns). Terminal costs are reported separately for airports covered by SES Regulations (i.e. “SES airports”), and other “non-SES” airports.
Terminal“SES airports”
Terminal“non-SES airports”
En-route
Gate-to-gate ANS costs(Continental ANS and GAT)
ANSPs
NSAs + Other State authorities
Charging & Performance Regulations
Re
po
rtin
g e
nti
tie
s
MET service
providers
Costs considered for ACE benchmarking
Other ANS(Oceanic,OAT, etc.)
Terminal“SES airports”
Terminal“non-SES airports”
En-route
Gate-to-gate ANS costs(Continental ANS and GAT)
ANSPs
NSAs + Other State authorities
Charging & Performance Regulations
Re
po
rtin
g e
nti
tie
s
MET service
providers
Costs considered for ACE benchmarking
Other ANS(Oceanic,OAT, etc.)
Figure 1.7: Activities and entities covered by the different reporting requirements
14 Charges reflect costs but also take into account additional adjustments such as over/under recoveries and income from other sources.
Introduction ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
11
Finally, although the information collected in National/FABs Performance Plans is required to support the EU-wide target setting process, for the economic aspects this data shall be complemented by information submitted in the SEID. Indeed, the ACE benchmarking activities set the foundation for a more normative analysis to assess the scope for ANSPs cost-efficiency improvement and have been one of the main inputs considered for determining the EU-wide cost-efficiency target. The ACE data analysis had also a significant role in the context of the assessment of national performance plans15 that was carried out by the PRB during the Summer 2011.
15 PRB assessment reports on national/FAB performance plans for RP1 can be found on the PRC website (http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/public/standard_page/Performance_Plan.html).
Introduction ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
12
Part I: European ANS data and introduction to ANSP benchmarking ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
13
PART I: EUROPEAN ANS DATA AND INTRODUCTION TO ANSP BENCHMARKING
Part I: European ANS data and introduction to ANSP benchmarking ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
14
European ANS system data ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
15
2 EUROPEAN ANS SYSTEM DATA
This chapter provides aggregate information on the European ANS system16 reported in compliance with the SEID for the year 2010. In addition, it provides a detailed presentation of the different ANS cost categories and explain how ANSP’s costs are defined in the context of the ACE analysis in order to provide fair comparisons of performance across ANSPs and across time.
2.1 Coverage of the ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report
This ACE Report includes all EUROCONTROL Member States as of 1st January 2010, with one exception: Bosnia & Herzegovina17, for which information was not requested. It includes the ANSPs of two Baltic States (Estonia and Latvia18), which provided information on a voluntary basis and for the second year the Armenian ANSP, ARMATS, which was “integrated” into the Multilateral Route Charges System as from January 2009. For the purpose of this report, oceanic airspace was excluded. The geographical area covered by the information disclosed is shown in Figure 2.1.
Lower Airspace
Figure 2.1: Geographic coverage of the ACE 2010 data analysis
Over the last six years, the ACE Report has provided increasing coverage of the ANS system. The ACE 2005 data analysis included 35 ANSPs. In ACE 2006, one more ANSP (SMATSA) started to participate, and as of ACE 2009, the number of ANSPs included in the ACE data analysis increased to 37 with the addition of ARMATS.
2.2 European ANS system data for the years 2009 and 2010
Table 2.1 below comprises high level data for the European ANS system in 2010 and compares this information with the data provided in ACE 2009.
The economic downturn which started to affect the last quarter of 2008, severely hit the aviation community throughout 2009. In 2010 traffic volumes started to rise again, although at a lower rate than before the economic crisis. This is reflected in Table 2.1 which indicates that at European system level, the total number of flight-hours controlled by the ANSPs increased by some +2.6% in 2010 (compared to an average of +4.5% p.a. over the 2003-2008 period).
16 For the purpose of this report, the “European ANS system” includes all 37 ANSPs that submitted data following the requirement from Decision No. 88 of the Permanent Commission of EUROCONTROL. 17 Although Bosnia & Herzegovina (BIH) has been a EUROCONTROL Member State since 1 March 2004, its ANSP (BHANSA) was not requested to report data according to the SEID, since the area control services in BIH’s airspace were provided in 2010 by Croatia Control and SMATSA. It should be noted that BHANSA will start providing area control services in BIH’s airspace gradually from the last quarter of 2011 to the beginning of 2012. As a result, the PRU expects that BHANSA starts providing data according to the SEID by 2013 (i.e. ACE 2012). 18 Latvia is a EUROCONTROL Member State as of January 2011.
European ANS system data ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
16
2009 2010 09/1037 ANSPs 37 ANSPs 37 ANSPs
8 004 8 210 2.6%
En-route ANS revenues 6 341 6 540 3.1% Terminal ANS revenues 1 662 1 670 0.5%
8 938 8 572 -4.1% ATM/CNS provision costs 7 854 7 476 -4.8% MET costs 437 437 0.0% EUROCONTROL Agency costs 542 516 -4.8%
Payment to national authorities and irrecoverable VAT 105 144 36.8%
7 854 7 476 -4.8% En-route ATM/CNS costs 6 011 5 769 -4.0% Terminal ATM/CNS costs 1 843 1 707 -7.4%
57 600 57 808 0.4%ATCOs in OPS 16 934 16 944 0.1%
ACC ATCOs 9 617 9 494 -1.3%APPs + TWRs ATCOs 7 317 7 451 1.8%
7 712 7 625 -1.1%
1 336 1 151 -13.9%
Distance controlled (km) 9 491 9 765 2.9%Total flight-hours controlled 13.6 13.9 2.6%ACC flight-hours controlled 11.9 12.2 2.9%IFR airport movements controlled 14.8 14.8 0.2%IFR flights controlled 9.4 9.5 0.8%
Gate-to-gate ATFM delays ('000 min.) 15 166 27 476 81.2%
Gate-to-gate ANS staff:
NBV of gate-to-gate fixed assets (in € M)
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):
Table 2.1: High level data for the European ANS system for 2009 and 2010 (real terms)
Figure 2.2 shows monthly changes in IFR flights (expressed in average daily flights) between 2009 and 2010. Figure 2.2 indicates that the +2.6% traffic growth in 2010 was affected by a significant decrease in April 2010 when some 111 000 flights were cancelled19 following a volcanic eruption in Iceland which created severe traffic disruptions across Europe.
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Jan
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Jun
Jul
Au
g
Se
p
Oct
Nov
Dec
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
% g
row
th v
s 2
009
2009 2010 source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR (ESRA2008)
Ave
rage
dai
ly fl
ight
s ('0
00)
Figure 2.2: Monthly evolution of IFR traffic (2009 vs 2010)
Table 2.1 shows that overall, in 2010 ANS revenues rose by +2.6% in real terms while gate-to-gate ANS costs decreased by -4.1%. This is an important result since the total ANS costs never declined during the last decade. The main drivers for this reduction were lower ATM/CNS provision costs (-4.8%) and EUROCONTROL costs (-4.8%) while MET costs remained fairly constant (-0.01%) and payments to national authorities and irrecoverable VAT20 rose by +36.8%.
19 An estimated 5 000 extra flights took place (repositioning of aircraft and crew, repatriation of stranded passengers etc.), resulting in a net reduction of 106 000 flights. 20 The significant increase in the payments to national authorities and irrecoverable VAT is mainly due to the fact that in its 2010 data submission, DSNA separately identified the costs relating to
European ANS system data ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
17
In the meantime, the number of total gate-to-gate ANS staff and ATCOs in OPS remained fairly constant (+0.4% and +0.1%, respectively). Finally, it is worth noting that despite the relatively low traffic increase experienced in 2010, ATFM delays sharply increased at European system level (+81% compared to 2009). Further details on the drivers underlying the high ATFM delays in 2010 are provided in Chapter 7 of this Report.
2.3 System outputs
In 2010, European ATC operational units controlled 13.9M flight-hours over a total distance of 9 765M kilometres. The various TWR operational units handled 14.8M IFR airport movements and 3.3M VFR airport movements. In ACE 2001 (Chapter 4) the concept of “composite flight-hours” was introduced, to reflect the fact that the service provided by ANSPs is “gate-to-gate” and that difference in the boundaries used by different ANSPs between terminal and en-route ANS could distort the performance picture obtained if they were considered individually. Composite gate-to-gate flight-hours were defined as en-route flight-hours plus IFR airport movements weighted by a factor that reflected the relative (monetary) importance of terminal and en-route costs in the cost base. Details of the calculation are shown in Annex 2, and the definition is:
Composite gate-to-gate flight-hours = (en-route flight-hours) + (0.26 x IFR airport movements)
According to this definition, the total number of composite flight-hours for the European system in 2010 is 17.8M. The average weighting factor (0.26) is based on the total monetary value of the outputs over the 2002-2010 period. En-route flight-hours are computed from the flight plans provided by airspace users to the EUROCONTROL CFMU (so-called “CFMU Model III21”). En-route flight-hours comprise the number of flight-hours controlled by ACCs and APPs operational units22. Similarly, the number of IFR airport movements controlled by the TWR operational units is used as the output measure for terminal ANS.
2.4 ANS revenues
Total ANS revenues in 2010 were €8 210M. This is slightly higher than the combined revenues of Europe’s three largest airport operators (BAA, AdP and Fraport), which amounted to €7.5B. The breakdown of ANS revenues is shown in Figure 2.3. The main share (79.7%) was collected for en-route ANS services and the remainder (20.3%) for terminal services. Overall, this share has remained fairly stable between 2006 and 2010. However, marginal changes are expected in the forthcoming years with the progressive adoption of the Common Charging Scheme Regulation (EC No. 1794/2006), which inter alia, will harmonize the computation of the terminal service units and will enhance the transparency on the financing of terminal ANS.
irrecoverable VAT (i.e. some €40M) while these were reported as non-staff operating costs in previous years submissions. 21 In the CFMU Model III, the flight plan is updated with the actual position of the flight, when a given threshold of lateral, horizontal and time deviations are observed. It is therefore not as accurate as radar tracks, but is nevertheless fairly close to actual trajectories. 22 Since 2007, en-route flight-hours include time spent in Terminal Manoeuvring Areas (TMAs) and therefore account for airborne holdings.
European ANS system data ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
18
Almost all en-route revenue comes from the collection of charges (96.9%, see left pie chart). The proportion is lower for terminal revenue (72.1%, see right pie chart), as additional income may directly come from airport operators (18.0% e.g. through a contractual arrangement between the ANSP and the airport operator) much of which is subsequently recovered from airspace users and passengers.
Terminal20.3%
En-route79.7%
Income from charges 96.9%
Other income (incl.
exceptional revenue item)
0.3%
Income from the military
0.01%
Financial income0.8%
Income from domestic
government0.8%
Income in respect of exempted
flights1.1%
Income in respect of
exempted flights4.0%
Income from the military0.02%
Income from airport operators
18.0%
Income from domestic
government2.7%
Financial income1.1%
Other income (incl. exceptional
revenue item)2.1%
Income from charges 72.1%
Total en-route revenue: Gate-to-gate ANS revenue: Total terminal revenue: € 6 540 M € 8 210 M € 1 670 M
En-route % Gate-to-gate revenues (€ M) Terminal %6 338 96.9% Income from charges 1 203 72.1%
n.a. n.a. Income from airport operators 301 18.0%0.9 0.01% Income from the military 0.3 0.02%
74.7 1.1% Income in respect of exempted flights 67 4.0%52.1 0.8% Income from domestic government 46 2.7%54.6 0.8% Financial income 18 1.1%
20 0.3% Other income (incl. exceptional revenue item) 35 2.1%6 540 100.0% 1 670 100.0%
Figure 2.3: Breakdown of gate-to-gate ANS revenues in 2010
2.5 ANS costs
Total ANS costs for the European system amounted to €8 572M in 2010, comprising the following five cost categories23 (see Figure 2.4).
• ATM/CNS provision costs24 (including MUAC25);
• aeronautical Meteorological costs (MET)26;
• EUROCONTROL costs27;
• payments for regulatory and supervisory services; and,
• payments to governmental authorities (e.g. for the use of government-owned assets).
23 Detailed definitions of these costs are given in the SEID. 24 The costs of providing ATM services and the Communication, Navigation and Surveillance infrastructure. For the purpose of this report this includes the costs for Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) and, if any, Search and Rescue Services (SAR). 25 Costs for MUAC are included in the ATM/CNS costs in Figure 2.4 as EUROCONTROL MUAC is a certified ANSP and therefore included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. 26 Including MET costs reported by the UK and Danish CAAs. 27 Excluding MUAC, CEATS, and CRCO administrative costs.
European ANS system data ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
19
Total ANS costs
€ 8 572 M € 7 476 M
Gate-to-gate ANS costs (€ M) 2010 % totalATM/CNS provision costs (including AIS & SAR) 7 476 87.2%MET costs 437 5.1%EUROCONTROL costs 516 6.0%Payment for regulatory and supervisory services 84 1.0%Payment to governmental authorities and irrecoverable VAT 60 0.7%Gate-to-gate ANS costs 8 572 100.0%
Total ATM/CNS provision costs
5.1%
6.0%0.7%
1.0%
87.2%
EUROCONTROLcosts
Payments togovernmentalauthorities and irrecoverable
VAT
MET costs
ATM/CNS provision costs
Payments for regulatory and
supervisory services
En-route ATM/CNS
costs77%
Terminal ATM/CNS
costs23%
Figure 2.4: Breakdown of total ANS costs at system level in 2010
Around 87% of the total costs relates to ATM/CNS provision, and are under the direct control and responsibility of the ANSP. These ATM/CNS provision costs amounted to €7 476M in 2010, and form the basis for the analysis of ATM cost-effectiveness in Part II and Part III of this report.
The following costs categories have therefore been excluded from the cost-effectiveness analyses comprised in Part II and Part III of this report:
• Costs relating to services provided to military OAT, Oceanic ANS, AFIS/ATC at smaller regional aerodromes28, and reported under the “Other” column in the SEID;
• MET costs (whether provided internally or externally);
• Payments to governmental or regulatory authorities;
• EUROCONTROL costs29; and
• Payment to other ANSPs or States for delegated services, including payments for MUAC & CEATS.
ATM/CNS provision costs can be further broken down into the following cost types30:
• staff costs, comprising:
o employment costs for ATCOs in OPS;
o employment costs for all other staff;
• non-staff operating costs (e.g. rentals, energy, telecom, insurance, outsourced maintenance);
• capital-related costs comprising:
28 This is the case for Avinor, ENAV, and Finavia. 29 Excluding MUAC and CEATS costs. 30 Detailed definitions of these costs are given in the SEID.
European ANS system data ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
20
o depreciation;
o the cost of capital;
• exceptional items.
The distribution of costs between these categories is shown in Figure 2.5 below. Staff costs are the main element of costs (63%), followed by direct operating costs, depreciation costs and cost of capital. At European system level, operating costs (including staff costs, non-staff operating costs and exceptional cost items) account for some 82% of total ATM/CNS provision costs, and capital-related costs (cost of capital and depreciation) amount to some 18%.
Total ATM/CNS provisioncosts: € 7 476 M
ATM/CNS provision costs (€ M) En-route % Terminal % Gate-to-gate %Staff costs 3 607 62.5% 1 086 63.6% 4 693 62.8%
ATCOs in OPS employment costs n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2 226 -Other staff employment costs n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2 467 -
Non-staff operating costs 1 013 17.6% 322 18.8% 1 335 17.9%Depreciation costs 694 12.0% 190 11.1% 884 11.8%Cost of capital 372 6.4% 89 5.2% 461 6.2%Exceptional Items 83 1.4% 20 1.2% 103 1.4%Total 5 769 100.0% 1 707 100.0% 7 476 100.0%
47%
53%
Exceptional Items1.4%
Cost of capital6.2%
Staff costs62.8%Non-staff
operating costs17.9%Depreciation
costs11.8%
ATCOs in OPS employment costs
Other staff employment costs
Figure 2.5: Breakdown of European ATM/CNS provision costs in 2010
Table 2.2 shows the ANS cost categories as a proportion of total en-route and terminal ANS costs for each individual ANSP/State. It also shows in a transparent manner which costs data submitted by ANSPs in the SEID are extracted and adjusted so that they can be used meaningfully to compare performance across ANSPs and across time. The figures reported in the last column of Table 2.2 (gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs, amounting to €7 476M at European system level) are those which are used for the benchmarking of ATM/CNS cost-effectiveness across ANSPs in Part II and Part III of this report. The subset of costs used in the analysis has been chosen to cover, as far as possible, those costs that are under the direct control of the ANSP, and relate to the provision of ATM/CNS services for GAT.
Eur
opea
n A
NS
sys
tem
dat
a 21
A
CE
201
0 B
ench
mar
kin
g R
epor
t with
201
1-20
15 o
utlo
ok
AN
SP
Cou
ntry
Total ANS costs(in €'000)
MET costs (%)
Payment for regulatory and supervisory services (%)
EUROCONTROL costs (%)
Irrecoverable value added tax (VAT)
Payment to the State for provision of other services
ATM/CNS en-route costs (%)
ATM/CNS en-route costs (in €'000)
Total ANS costs(in €'000)
MET costs (%)
Payment for regulatory and supervisory services (%)
EUROCONTROL costs (%)
Irrecoverable value added tax (VAT)
Payment to the State for provision of other services
ATM/CNS terminal costs (%)
ATM/CNS terminal costs (in €'000)
Aen
aS
pain
760
890
5.3%
0.8%
8.2%
1.0%
84.8
%64
5 10
029
9 78
84.
8%95
.2%
285
473
930
573
AN
S C
RC
zech
Rep
ublic
101
172
2.2%
1.2%
6.6%
90.0
%91
071
24 2
012.
3%97
.7%
23 6
4211
4 71
4A
RM
AT
SA
rmen
ia3
665
6.9%
93.1
%3
411
2 92
210
0.0%
2 92
26
333
Aus
tro
Con
trol
Aus
tria
163
904
9.2%
7.0%
83.8
%13
7 35
137
410
8.9%
91.1
%34
099
171
450
Avi
nor
Nor
wa
y85
836
1.1%
0.3%
8.2%
90.3
%77
536
98 6
732.
9%0.
4%96
.6%
95 3
6217
2 89
8B
elgo
cont
rol
Bel
gium
/Lux
.15
7 85
34.
7%27
.1%
8.1%
60.1
%94
855
57 7
547.
7%1.
2%91
.2%
52 6
6014
7 51
5B
ULA
TS
AB
ulga
ria74
389
7.5%
0.6%
6.5%
0.3%
85.1
%63
281
11 6
6912
.9%
0.8%
0.2%
86.1
%10
050
73 3
30C
roat
ia C
ontr
olC
roat
ia68
585
5.7%
1.4%
5.1%
87.8
%60
218
8 63
210
0.0%
8 63
268
851
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
Cyp
rus
48 1
158.
5%11
.9%
5.0%
74.6
%35
877
6 28
416
.3%
7.5%
76.2
%4
786
40 6
63D
FS
Ger
man
y85
4 93
03.
8%8.
6%8.
4%79
.1%
676
583
210
149
4.1%
0.2%
95.7
%20
1 15
387
7 73
6D
HM
IT
urke
y25
0 74
77.
8%1.
0%6.
7%84
.5%
211
899
68 2
6910
0.0%
68 2
6928
0 16
8D
SN
AF
ranc
e1
138
182
5.7%
4.9%
7.3%
2.9%
79.3
%90
2 60
826
8 74
28.
0%0.
9%3.
6%87
.5%
235
123
1 13
7 73
1E
AN
SE
ston
ia10
150
0.5%
1.9%
97.6
%9
907
971
15.1
%84
.9%
825
10 7
32E
NA
VIta
l y63
3 69
05.
6%0.
2%8.
1%86
.1%
545
878
122
476
12.0
%88
.0%
107
787
653
665
Fin
avia
Fin
land
29 4
658.
5%1.
4%12
.1%
78.0
%22
977
37 7
476.
5%2.
1%91
.4%
34 5
0357
480
M-N
AV
F.Y
.R M
aced
onia
10 6
765.
8%3.
7%5.
4%85
.1%
9 08
61
921
10.3
%22
.5%
67.2
%1
290
10 3
76H
CA
AG
reec
e16
5 38
65.
9%2.
0%7.
5%84
.7%
140
056
25 6
143.
5%2.
0%94
.5%
24 2
1016
4 26
6H
unga
roC
ontr
olH
unga
ry83
134
2.4%
1.9%
5.8%
89.9
%74
777
20 2
705.
5%1.
0%93
.5%
18 9
5893
736
IAA
Irel
and
109
931
5.9%
1.5%
7.4%
1.8%
83.5
%91
786
23 2
417.
0%1.
3%1.
7%90
.1%
20 9
4511
2 73
1LF
VS
wed
en19
7 17
83.
7%1.
7%6.
6%88
.0%
173
531
32 9
060.
5%99
.5%
32 7
3220
6 26
3LG
SLa
tvia
16 9
042.
4%10
.2%
87.5
%14
786
7 01
810
.0%
90.0
%6
315
21 1
01LP
SS
lova
k R
e pub
lic49
077
2.3%
2.4%
5.8%
89.5
%43
928
5 33
78.
1%1.
4%90
.4%
4 82
748
755
LVN
LN
ethe
rland
s16
5 10
45.
0%20
.4%
9.6%
0.0%
65.0
%10
7 31
655
926
3.2%
0.0%
96.8
%54
125
161
441
MA
TS
Mal
ta11
799
5.1%
5.8%
89.1
%10
513
3 37
110
0.0%
3 37
113
884
Mol
dAT
SA
Mol
dova
7 49
88.
6%2.
4%4.
5%84
.5%
6 33
51
704
7.3%
2.0%
90.7
%1
545
7 88
1M
UA
C
138
763
0.0%
100.
0%13
8 75
9n/
appl
n/ap
pln/
appl
n/ap
pln/
appl
n/ap
pln/
appl
n/ap
pl13
8 75
9N
AT
A A
lban
iaA
lban
ia18
104
1.6%
1.8%
5.0%
91.6
%16
576
2 24
44.
3%95
.7%
2 14
818
724
NA
TS
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
654
766
5.4%
1.2%
9.3%
1.0%
83.1
%54
4 33
916
2 66
70.
1%2.
0%97
.9%
159
308
703
647
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa
)P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
bo
a)11
0 34
14.
8%0.
3%8.
7%86
.2%
95 0
6224
306
100.
0%24
306
119
368
NA
VIA
IRD
enm
ark
96 2
504.
8%1.
3%7.
5%0.
0%0.
9%85
.5%
82 3
3727
306
100.
0%27
306
109
643
Oro
nav
i gac
ijaLi
thua
nia
19 3
602.
3%1.
3%5.
8%90
.7%
17 5
563
433
2.0%
1.4%
96.6
%3
316
20 8
71P
AN
SA
Pol
and
117
531
3.9%
1.9%
8.5%
85.7
%10
0 76
230
043
7.1%
2.9%
90.0
%27
039
127
801
RO
MA
TS
AR
oman
ia14
1 44
45.
4%2.
4%6.
4%85
.8%
121
335
22 7
865.
9%0.
4%93
.7%
21 3
5514
2 69
0S
k ygu
ide
Sw
itzer
land
195
505
4.5%
5.3%
90.2
%17
6 34
968
371
5.7%
0.3%
94.0
%64
293
240
642
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
olS
love
nia
26 2
205.
1%2.
3%5.
6%87
.0%
22 8
213
511
13.1
%1.
4%85
.5%
3 00
025
821
SM
AT
SA
Ser
bia
and
Mon
tene
gro
72 9
096.
1%6.
4%2.
3%85
.2%
62 1
1713
866
6.7%
93.3
%12
934
75 0
51U
kSA
TS
EU
krai
ne15
1 08
91.
0%1.
2%5.
1%92
.8%
140
188
28 1
0710
0.0%
28 1
0716
8 29
5
5 76
8 86
81
706
716
7 47
5 58
5
EN
-RO
UT
E A
NS
CO
ST
ST
ER
MIN
AL
AN
S C
OS
TS
Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs(in €'000)
Tab
le 2
.2:
Bre
akd
ow
n o
f en
-ro
ute
an
d t
erm
inal
AN
S c
ost
s, 2
010
European ANS system data 22 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
2.6 Assets, liabilities and capital expenditures
For the comparison of ATM performance across ANSPs, only the capital employed by the ANSPs which is directly related to the provision of en-route and terminal ANS is used. Therefore, in this report assets relating to ANS activities reported under the “Other ANS” column of the SEID (such as Oceanic and OAT), have been excluded. The disclosure of consistent and reliable ANS assets and liabilities data is proving particularly difficult for ANSPs which are part of an organisation which owns, manages and operates airports. However, the more extensive disclosure of balance sheet information required by the SEID V2.6 has allowed a more comprehensive and consistent picture of ANSPs assets and liabilities to be developed over time. In ANSPs’ balance sheets, assets comprise:
• the net book value (NBV) of fixed assets both in operation31 and under construction;
• current assets, comprising principally stock, cash and debtors; and,
• long-term financial assets, including investments required to cover provisions for pensions and investments in other companies.
The liabilities (which must be numerically equal to the assets), comprise:
• capital and reserves – the equity in the organisation, including both shareholders’ funds and the accumulated retained profit;
• current liabilities, comprising creditors, short-term loans and provisions; and
• long-term liabilities, comprising long-term loans, and provisions for pensions and other long-term liabilities.
The total NBV of the fixed assets used by the European ANSPs to provide ATM/CNS is valued at some €7 625M32, which means that overall for the ANS industry €0.93 of capital is 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). Figure 2.6 shows the breakdown of the balance sheet for European ANS, both assets and liabilities.
31 The NBV is the value of the asset net of cumulative depreciation. 32 Note that this figure exclusively relates to assets booked in ANSPs accounts. Assets owned by MET service providers and NSAs are not included.
European ANS system data 23 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
ANSPs asset structure ANSPs capital & liability structure
ANSP Fixed Asset Structure (€ M)Gate-to-gate
ANSTotal NBV fixed assets in operation 5 923
Land & Buildings 2 155Systems & Equipments 2 993Intangible assets 775
Total NBV fixed assets under construction 1 702Land & Buildings 311Systems & Equipments 997Intangible assets 393
Total NBV of fixed assets 7 625
Current liabilities
18%
Long-term liabilities
40%
Capital and reserves
42%
NBV fixed assets in operation
47%
NBV fixed assets under construction
14%Long-term financial assets
7%
Current assets32%
Figure 2.6: ANSP assets and liabilities structure, 2010
Asset values comprise chiefly fixed assets (61%) either already in operation (47%) or under construction (14%). Current assets amount to 32% and long-term financial assets represent 7% of the total. The liability side of the balance-sheet comprises capital and reserves (42%), long-term liabilities (40%) and current liabilities (18%). The ANSPs’ equity at European system level substantially exceeds their long-term debt, although this is an area where there is great variance across ANSPs. Understanding the main drivers for the differences in the equity/long-term debt ratio across ANSPs would require further investigation. This is an area of greater importance with the introduction of the risk sharing arrangements as part of the SES II package. The ratio of current assets to current liabilities is commonly known as “current ratio” and it is used to measure the “liquidity” risk. Therefore, it indicates the capability to cover the current debt by only employing “liquid” resources. For instance, its value at ANSPs’ European system level was some 1.8 at the end of 2010 despite the severe traffic downturn which hit the system in 2009 and the slow traffic recovery over the course of 2010. This is a high value if we consider that, on average, ANSPs would be able to cover up to 180% of their current debt by only using their liquid assets. Even when using a more stringent measure of liquidity, such as the “quick ratio” (retaining only debtors and cash assets instead of all current assets) the value is 1.3. In this case, it indicates that, on average, ANSPs would be able to pay 130% of their current debt by only using their most “liquid” assets.
European ANS system data 24 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Figure 2.7 shows the breakdown of 2010 capital expenditure (capex) between land & building, systems & equipments and intangible assets. At European system level, the capex for the 37 ANSPs amounted to some €1 151M in 2010. Capex planned for the period 2011-2015 are analysed in Chapter 6 of this ACE Report. Details on the nature of the major investment projects for each ANSPs participating to the ACE 2010 data analysis are provided in Annex 7 of this Report.
Total gate-to-gate capex: € 1 151
Capex for Land &
Buildings assets17%
Capex for Systems & Equipments
assets60%
Capex for intangible
assets23%
Figure 2.7: ANSP capex structure, 2010
Similarly to last year, data concerning the physical numbers of surveillance and navigation assets have been collected. The 37 ANSPs were responsible for 197 primary radars, and 328 secondary surveillance radars (SSRs), Mode S and MSSR, many of which were co-located with primary radars. This amounts to 25 SSRs per million km2. Densities of SSRs tend to be low (less than 20) in peripheral areas of Europe (although in some cases this is inevitable as the areas include major areas of sea), and higher in the core area. A rather similar pattern is observed with different types of navaids. On average, there were some 83 DMEs and 53 VORs per million km2, with in general lower values observed in peripheral areas of Europe. Note that in the table below, no SSRs are displayed for MUAC which uses the CNS infrastructure made available by the Four States contributing to MUAC budget (see lower airspace map).
Surveillance and navigation aids physical assets 2010Primary radar only 35Primary radar co-located with Mode S 67Primary radar co-located with MSSR 95MSSR only 166Surface movement radars 90ADS-B ground stations 71Wheather radars 48Other surveillance assets 135Distance measuring equipment (DME) 1 084Non-directional beacons (NDBs) 850Very high frequency omni-directional ranges (VORs) 691Runway ends with ILS 547Other navaids assets 241
Lower Airspace
Number of SSR per million Km²
<= 20
> 20
> 40
> 60
> 80
No SSR
Figure 2.8: Surveillance and navigation aids physical assets, 2010
2.7 Staff
ANSPs are required to disclose information about a number of staff categories33. The staff numbers are reported as Full Time Equivalents (FTEs).
The 37 European ANSPs, including MUAC, employed 57 808 staff34 in 2010. Of these, some 48% are directly involved in operations (blue colours in Figure 2.9 below).
33 Precise definitions of the categories can be found in the SEID. 34 This excludes EUROCONTROL Agency staff other than MUAC.
European ANS system data 25 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
The largest share (29%) relates to air traffic controllers working on operational duty (ATCOs in OPS). Some 56% of ATCOs in OPS work in ACCs and some 44% in APP and TWR operational units, as illustrated in Figure 2.9 below.
Staff 2010 % totalNumber of ANSPs 37ATCOs in OPS: 16 944 29.3% ACC ATCOs in OPS 9 494 56.0% APPs + TWRs ATCOs in OPS 7 451 44.0%ATCOs on other duties 2 414 4.2%Ab-initio trainees 1 028 1.8%On-the-job trainees 1 254 2.2%ATC assistants 2 522 4.4%OPS-Support 3 733 6.5%Technical support staff for maintenance 11 793 20.4%Technical support staff for planning & development 2 674 4.6%Administration 8 740 15.1%Staff for ancillary services 3 163 5.5%Other 3 544 6.1%Gate-to-gate ANS Staff 57 808 100%
56%
44%
APPs + TWRs ATCOs in OPS
ACC ATCOs in OPS
Other6%
ATCOs in OPS29%
Staff for ancillary services
6%Admin.
15%
Ab-initio trainees
2%
ATCOs on other duties
4%On-the-job trainees
2%
ATC assistants
4%
OPS-Support7%
Technical support staff
for planning & development
5%
Technical support staff
for maintenance
20%
Figure 2.9: Breakdown of European ANS system staff in 2010
In addition to operational duties, some 2 414 FTE ATCOs (4.2% of the total workforce) participate in activities outside the operations room (such as providing training, or working on special projects) which are not directly related to the active control of traffic.
Figure 2.9 above also shows that the second and third largest categories are technical support staff for maintenance (20.4%) and administration staff (15.1%).
For the purpose of this report, “support staff” are defined as staff who are not ATCOs in OPS, and the “support staff ratio” is defined as:
Total Staff 57 808Total ATCOs in OPS 16 944
3.4Support Staff Ratio = = =
That means that for every ATCO in OPS there are 2.4 additional staff needed for support.
Figure 2.10 below shows how traffic, ATCOs in OPS and support staff (i.e. total staff, excluding ATCOs in OPS) have changed for the 36 ANSPs between 2006 and 2010. Note that ARMATS has been excluded from this analysis since it started to report data from 2009 onwards.
European ANS system data 26 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
At European system, the total number of ATCOs in OPS slightly increased between 2008 and 2010 (+1.6%). In the meantime, the number of support staff remained fairly constant (+0.05%). As a result, the support staff ratio reduced by some -1% between 2008 and 2010. Changes in the employment costs for support staff between 2006 and 2010 are analysed in Chapter 5 of this ACE Report.
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Ind
ex
(2
006
= 1
00
)
Traffic ATCOs in OPS Support staff
Figure 2.10: Changes in traffic, ATCOs in OPS and support staff, 2006-2010
Factors affecting performance ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
27
3 FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE
3.1 Introduction
The ACE benchmarking analysis has the objective of comparing ATM cost-effectiveness performance across a wide range of ANSPs. The major focus of this report is to examine and analyse the quantitative facts about the observed cost-effectiveness performance of the ANSPs. This factual analysis provides a comprehensive description and comparison of performance as viewed by the users of ATM/CNS services. However, such a factual analysis cannot be either a complete explanation of performance differences between ANSPs, or an exhaustive guide on how performance can be improved, without some complementary consideration of how differences in performance arose. This is particularly true in the present context stemming from the second SES legislative package (see Section 1.6) which requires that ANSP performance be subject to quantified target setting. This chapter is structured as follows:
• Section 3.2 provides a briefly description of the factors that could possibly affect cost-effectiveness performance.
• Section 3.3 presents specific factors that are measured by the PRU.
• Section 3.4 is an attempt to make a preliminary and a priori assessment of the magnitude and the direction of the possible impact of these factors through an econometric analysis.
The proposed framework is not at this stage intended to be applied quantitatively since it is difficult to identify and/or measure a full set of factors which may significantly impact on the performance. The mere recognition that 1) there are factors which are exogenous to the ANSP, 2) they are commonly accepted as drivers for performance, and 3) reliably measurable across all the European ANSPs, is to be considered as an achievement and critical step for future quantitative analyses.
3.2 Framework for factors affecting performance
The framework illustrated in Figure 3.1 below, first introduced in the ACE 2007 Benchmarking Report, shows exogenous and endogenous factors which influence ANSP performance.
ANSP performance
ANSP performance
Legal & socio-economic conditions
Legal & socio-economic conditions
Operational conditions
Operational conditions
Factors outside direct ANSP
control
Factors outside ANSP control but under
influence of State and international institutions
National and international institutional & governance
arrangements
National and international institutional & governance
arrangements
Organisational factors
Organisational factors
Managerial and financial
aspects
Managerial and financial
aspects
Operational and technical
setup
Operational and technical
setup
Factors under direct ANSP
control
ANSP performance
ANSP performance
Legal & socio-economic conditions
Legal & socio-economic conditions
Operational conditions
Operational conditions
Factors outside direct ANSP
control
Factors outside ANSP control but under
influence of State and international institutions
National and international institutional & governance
arrangements
National and international institutional & governance
arrangements
Organisational factors
Organisational factors
Managerial and financial
aspects
Managerial and financial
aspects
Operational and technical
setup
Operational and technical
setup
Factors under direct ANSP
control
Figure 3.1: Factors affecting cost-effectiveness performance
Factors affecting performance ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
28
Exogenous factors are those outside the control of an ANSP whereas endogenous factors are those entirely under the ANSP’s control. In Figure 3.1, exogenous factors have been classified into two main areas (top and central set of factors in Figure 3.1), according to which decision-makers have an influence over them. In particular, exogenous factors comprise:
• legal and socio-economic conditions (for example taxation policy), and operational conditions (for example traffic patterns the ANSP has to deal with) that are affected by decision makers and conditions outside aviation policy-making, and;
• institutional and governance arrangements such as international requirements imposed by the Single European Sky, that are influenced by aviation sector policy decisions.
On the other hand, endogenous factors, as shown in the lower area in Figure 3.1, can be classified into three groups that should be taken into account in the scope of a comprehensive analysis of ANSPs’ influence on performance:
• organisational factors such as the internal organisation structure.
• Managerial and financial aspects such as the collective bargaining process.
• Operational and technical setup such as the operational structure. However, endogenous factors can be influenced by exogenous factors. For example, ANSP’s organisational and management decisions are to some extent influenced by its institutional, legal and socio-economic environment. A more comprehensive description and analysis of the performance framework illustrated in Figure 3.1 was developed and can be found in Chapter 3 of the ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report. In the next section, particular care is given to the observation and measurement of exogenous factors that, in the context of the ACE Benchmarking Report, arise from the specific basic conditions in which an ANSP operates and that are likely to influence the way ANSPs organise and conduct their business.
3.3 Quantification of some exogenous factors
Exogenous factors cover a wide spectrum of observability and measurability and capturing their local impact on ANSPs performance is not a straightforward exercise. Indeed, these factors are either directly and readily quantified (i.e. irrecoverable VAT), or difficult to estimate (i.e. traffic complexity, market wage rates and exchange rate volatility) or simply impossible to identify (i.e. political influence/interference on ANS provision). Moreover, it is possible that similar conditions could create effects working in opposite direction (bringing both benefits and difficulties). Likewise, similar exogenous factors may not necessarily affect different ANSPs to the same degree, either because of endogenous factors relating to how an issue is managed, or because of other exogenous factors constraining an ANSP’s response. Nevertheless, progress has been made in identifying ways of quantifying some exogenous factors that might have an impact on ATM performance. The results of this analysis are shown in this report. The factors examined comprise:
• differences in prevailing wage rates between countries;
Factors affecting performance ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
29
• measurements of traffic characteristics that can be classified under the general heading of “traffic complexity”; and,
• traffic variability.
3.3.1 Cost of living
Employment costs constitute a major part of ANS provision costs. Staff has to be recruited in local labour markets, and therefore the prevailing wage rates, for many different grades and types of staff, will have a major influence on the overall employment costs. There are a number of ways of measuring differences in prevailing wage levels between different countries. In previous ACE reports, unit employment costs have been compared with levels of GDP per head, and with Purchasing Power Parity (PPP35) indices. To demonstrate the variability of PPP across the sample, a cost of living index36 relative to Ukraine =100 (Ukraine having the lowest index) has been calculated. This cost of living index compares GDP measured at current prices and GDP adjusted for PPPs). The interpretation of this index is that to achieve the same standard of living, earnings in Denmark or in Switzerland (using market exchange rates) will need to be some four times higher as those in Ukraine (see Figure 3.2 below).
347
286285267263261255
229226221206
184175172170
144
124117111111100100109
143143152160161165169
219
248253254
362359
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Nor
wa
y
Sw
itze
rlan
d
Den
mar
k
Sw
ed
en
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Be
lgiu
m
Irel
and
Net
herla
nds
Ital
y
Au
stria
Ge
rman
y
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Sp
ain
Cyp
rus
Gre
ece
Por
tuga
l
Slo
ven
ia
Ma
lta
Cro
atia
Est
onia
Tur
key
Lat
via
Slo
vak
Re
pu
blic
Cze
ch R
ep
ublic
Hun
gary
Po
lan
d
Rom
an
ia
Lith
uani
a
Arm
en
ia
Mo
ldo
va
Ser
bia
and
Mo
nten
egro
Alb
an
ia
Bu
lga
ria
F.Y
.R.
Ma
ced
on
ia
Ukr
aine
Cos
t of
livi
ng in
dex
Cost of living index (Ukraine = 100)
Figure 3.2: Index of cost of living (based on PPPs) in 2010, (source IMF April 2012)
35 PPP compares the price, in national currency, of a defined basket of goods and services, between different countries. PPP exchange rates are then the exchange rates at which the price of the basket is the same in the two countries being compared. A PPP index is the ratio of the PPP exchange rate to the market exchange rate, and a high PPP index means that the same amount of money, converted to national currency, will buy fewer goods and services. 36 UkSATSE does not agree with the value of the PPPs used for Ukraine. According to UkSATSE the real PPP in Ukraine is significantly higher than the value used in Figure 3.2. According to the information provided in the IMF database (April 2012), PPP exchange rates for Ukraine have increased from 1.868 UAH per current international Dollar in 2006 to 3.570 UAH per current international Dollar in 2010 (+91%). The current IMF PPP estimated figure for 2011 (3.989 UAH per current international Dollar) is some 12% higher than in 2010. This indicates that the relative cost of living is increasing faster in Ukraine and that the difference in cost of living with the other States is slowly reducing over time. See Annex 5 for further details on the PPPs indices that are used in this report.
Factors affecting performance ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
30
It should be noted that the extent to which prevailing wage levels influence actual employment costs may differ for different classes of staff. For instance, considering highly-qualified staff such as ATCOs, the possibility of international mobility might also impact the level of wages and salaries and eventually contribute to a certain degree of convergence in ATCO employment costs across different countries.
3.3.2 Traffic complexity
A number of traffic characteristics that might be expected to have an impact on the cost-effectiveness performance have been grouped together under the generic label of “traffic complexity”. In ACE 2005, an indicator of “traffic complexity” was implemented for the first time. It is a combination of two elements which give a quantitative representation of the density of traffic and intensity of potential interactions between traffic. In concrete, these two elements are:
• an adjusted density, which is a measure of the concentration of traffic in a given volume of airspace (ANSP/ACC level), and defined in terms of minutes of interaction among aircraft per flight-hour37; and,
• a structural complexity index, which captures the fact that the traffic in some areas is structurally more complex. The structural complexity index is composed of the sum of three metrics: ascending and descending routes, crossing routes, and variable speeds (a proxy for traffic mix). Clearly, ATC provision in lower airspace will, all other things being equal, face a relatively higher proportion of ascending and descending routes.
Structural complexity and adjusted density are independent. Traffic in an area could be dense, but structurally simple; equally, traffic could be structurally complex but sparse. However, the two impacts are multiplicative; the impact of structural complexity is greater when the traffic is denser.
The relationship between “traffic complexity” and cost-effectiveness, or ATM performance in general, is not straightforward. The effects of traffic complexity on ATM performance can work in either of two ways, which go in opposite directions as briefly described below:
Positive effect
Higher density is expected to contribute to a better utilisation of resources and to more effective exploitation of economies of scale (up to the point when resources become fully utilised). This is similar to the “density effect” argument described in the table above.
Negative effect
Higher structural complexity entails higher ATCO workload and more sophisticated ATM systems and tools for the same volume of traffic.
Traffic complexity can influence either costs or quality of service, depending on an ANSP’s response to it.
37 Interactions are defined as a period in which two aircraft are simultaneously present in a cell of 20×20 Nautical Miles and 3 000 feet in height. Only cells above FL85 are considered in this computation.
Factors affecting performance ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
31
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Adjusted density
Str
uct
ura
l In
de
x
Belgocontrol
DFSNATS
Skyguide
MUAC
LVNLAustro Control
ENAV
ANS CR
DSNA
Slovenia Control
Avinor
NAVIAIR
PANSA
LFV
LPSAena
Croatia Control
HungaroControl
MATS
MoldATSAUkSATSE
EANS
NATA Albania
ROMATSA
BULATSAIAA
SMATSAM-NAV
Finavia
Oro NavigacijaARMATS
DCACCyprus
HCAA
DHMI
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)LGS
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Adjusted density
Str
uct
ura
l In
de
x
Belgocontrol
DFSNATS
Skyguide
MUAC
LVNLAustro Control
ENAV
ANS CR
DSNA
Slovenia Control
Avinor
NAVIAIR
PANSA
LFV
LPSAena
Croatia Control
HungaroControl
MATS
MoldATSAUkSATSE
EANS
NATA Albania
ROMATSA
BULATSAIAA
SMATSAM-NAV
Finavia
Oro NavigacijaARMATS
DCACCyprus
HCAA
DHMI
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)LGS
Figure 3.3: Traffic complexity metrics for ANSPs, 2010
Figure 3.3 above shows the structural complexity index and the adjusted density metric calculated at ANSP level (yearly data) for the year 201038. ANSPs with the highest overall complexity score are located in the top right corner. Moving to the left it shows ANSPs (like Avinor) with high structural complexity but lower density. Moving down it shows ANSPs with high density but lower structural complexity (such as BULATSA). Although the overall results remain fairly stable over time, it is worth mentioning that some ANSPs, amongst those with the greatest traffic complexity score, have shifted their position in the overall ranking. This is the case for Skyguide, whose traffic complexity score is now ranked as the highest in Europe, followed by Belgocontrol and DFS. Annex 3 provides the detailed figures of the traffic complexity metrics for each ANSP39. The twelve most “complex” ANSPs (those with an overall complexity score higher than 5 minutes of interaction per flight-hour) comprise four of the five largest ANSPs (Aena being ranked 15th with an overall complexity score just above four minutes of interaction per flight-hour, a result which is influenced by the low traffic density of Canarias airspace).
38 See Annex 3 for a table displaying the traffic complexity indicators for each ANSP. 39 As neither Estonia nor Latvia were part of the CFMU area in 2010, the CFMU does not record all the traffic crossing these countries. As a consequence, since the traffic complexity metrics are based on CFMU data, the figures calculated for these two ANSPs and their ACCs (Tallinn ACC and Riga ACC) might be underestimated.
Factors affecting performance ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
32
The map in Figure 3.4 displays five different groupings of ANSPs that have been identified according to the overall complexity scores. Skyguide, Belgocontrol, DFS, NATS, MUAC and LVNL show the highest complexity score - more than 9 minutes of interaction per flight-hour. In other words, for each flight-hour controlled in these airspaces there are on average more than nine minutes of potential interactions between aircraft.
Lower Airspace
Traffic complexity score
<= 2
> 2
> 4
> 6
> 8
Figure 3.4: Overall complexity scores at ANSP level, 2010
The average complexity score for the European system is close to six minutes (6.08) of interaction per flight-hour, this is slightly higher (+0.8%) than in 2009 (i.e. 6.03) and some +1.5% higher than in 2006. Figure 3.5 below shows how traffic (en-route flight-hours), overall complexity and its two main components (i.e. adjusted density and structural complexity) changed between 2006 and 2008. As expected, adjusted density (red line) and traffic (blue line) tend to follow a similar pattern over time. On the other hand, despite an increase in traffic over the 2006-2008 period, the structural traffic complexity (orange line) remained fairly constant. This is an indication that the drivers for the structural traffic complexity rather reflect the network structure than the changes in traffic volumes.
94
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
110
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Ind
ex
es
of
Tra
ffic
(e
n-r
ou
te)
an
d t
raff
ic
co
mp
lex
ity
me
tric
s (
ind
ex
20
06
=1
00
)
En-route flight-hours Adjusted density
Structural complexity Overall complexity
Figure 3.5: Trend in overall complexity metrics and traffic at European system level, 2006-2010
Figure 3.5 also shows that between 2008 and 2010, at European system level, the structural traffic complexity indicator significantly decreased. This might reflect the implementation of the European ATS Route Network (ARN) in 2008.
3.3.3 Traffic variability
Variability in traffic demand is another important factor in comparative ATM performance. If traffic is highly variable, resources may be underutilised, or made available when there is little demand for them – this is termed “allocative inefficiency”. Variability in traffic demand is therefore likely to have an impact on productivity, cost-effectiveness, quality of service and predictability of operations. It is broadly recognised that the different types of variability in traffic demand can be characterized as follows:
Factors affecting performance ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
33
Seasonal variability
the difference in traffic levels between different times of the year.
Within-week variability
the difference in traffic levels between different days of the week.T
emp
ora
l Hourly variability
the variation of traffic through the day.
Spatial variability
variability within the ANSP airspace (e.g., variability in the tracks across the North Atlantic, caused principally by weather variation).
Conceptually, an index of traffic variability could be developed to capture each types of variability. Different types of variability require different types of management practices, processes, and training to ensure that an ANSP can operate flexibly in the face of variable traffic demand. To a large extent, variability can be statistically predictable, and therefore adequate measures to mitigate the impact of variability could in principle be planned (for example, overtime, flexibility in breaks, and flexibility to extend/reduce shift length). When the degree of unpredictable variation, either temporal or spatial, is significant additional flexibility might be required, with a clear trade-off between costs and quality of service. Seasonal variability is particularly difficult for an ANSP to adapt to as working practices that are practically feasible have only a limited ability to deal with high seasonal variability. A useful indicator of differences in seasonal variability is the ratio of traffic in the peak week to the average weekly traffic. Seasonal traffic variability tends to be significantly higher in South-Eastern Europe (see Figure 3.6), where the “traffic complexity” score tends to be lower (see Figure 3.4).
Lower Airspace
Traffic variability
<= 1.15
> 1.15
> 1.25
> 1.35
> 1.45
Figure 3.6: Seasonal traffic variations, 2010
3.4 Econometric analysis of ANSPs cost-efficiency
The current ATM cost-effectiveness analysis is a factual benchmarking of outputs and costs. It does not directly take into account the impact of exogenous and endogenous factors on cost-efficiency performance. The ANS industry is characterised by a high level of heterogeneity which can be linked to exogenous factors. As shown in Section 3.2 above, ANSPs provide ANS in contexts that differ significantly in terms of legal and socio-economic conditions, operational characteristics and institutional arrangements. In principle, once the impact of all exogenous factors has been accounted for, the remaining differences in performance across ANSPs should relate to inefficiencies associated with a number of endogenous factors which are under ANSPs direct control (i.e. see organisational factors, managerial and financial aspects, and operational and technical setup as described in Section 3.2 above). Practically, however, the best hope
Factors affecting performance ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
34
is to identify the main exogenous factors and to quantify the impact of some of them as they are not all observable and measurable. In 2010, the PRU commissioned a Report40 to CEG (Competition Economists Group) to develop an econometric methodology to estimate the level of cost-inefficiency at European system level. CEG based its modelling approach on two estimation models:
• The Random Effects model proposed by Pitt and Lee41 which assumes that ANSPs inefficiency is invariant in time. This implies that non-observed ANSP specificities which do not change over time will be considered as inefficiency. Therefore, inefficiency estimates are likely to be over-estimated when there is a high level of heterogeneity in the industry.
• The True Random Effects model proposed by W. Greene42 which assumes that ANSPs inefficiency is variant in time. This means that persistent differences across ANSPs due to inefficiency will be considered as heterogeneity and not as inefficiency. This means that in this model inefficiency is likely to be under-estimated if there is a high level of heterogeneity in the industry.
The application of these two models on the ACE data set resulted in the estimation of a threshold for the European system cost-inefficiency (13%-60%). Given the different underlying assumptions used in these two models, it is likely that the “genuine” system level inefficiency is within this threshold. The PRU plans to progress on the econometric-cost benchmarking analysis in the near future by making use of the ACE 2010 and ACE 2011 data submissions. This will contribute to expand the dataset used in the econometric analysis from some 250 to some 300 observations. A larger database should allow for a more accurate estimation of the key variables/parameters and hence, should provide a more precise inefficiency range. The main aim is to improve the quality and reliability of the estimates obtained with these econometric models, in order to build an effective portfolio of quantitative tools and empirical evidence at the PRU’s disposal that will contribute to the setting in 2013 of the EU-wide performance targets for the second Reference Period (RP2) and support the assessment of national performance plans in 2014.
40 See “Econometric cost-efficiency benchmarking of Air Navigation Service Providers” (May 2011), a Technical Note commissioned by the PRU. This document is available on the PRC website: http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/performance-review-monitoring-and-reporting. 41 Pitt, M. and L. Lee (1981) “The Measurement and Sources of Technical Inefficiency in Indonesian Weaving Industry”, Journal of Development Economics 9:43-64. 42 Greene, W. (2005), “Reconsidering Heterogeneity in Panel Data Estimators of the Stochastic Frontier Model”, Journal of Econometrics 126: 269-303.
Part II: Financial cost-effectiveness 35 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
PART II: FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Part II: Financial cost-effectiveness 36 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Financial cost-effectiveness 37 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
4 FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS (2010)
4.1 Introduction
This chapter examines and compares ANSPs’ financial cost-effectiveness for the year 2010. As illustrated in Figure 4.1, the financial cost-effectiveness analysis focuses on a subset of the total ANS costs submitted at State level: the ANSP ATM/CNS provision costs. These costs have been defined to cover, as far as possible, the costs that are under the direct control of ANSPs and that can be used meaningfully to compare performance across ANSPs and across time. The measure of output is the “composite flight-hour” as defined in Section 2.3, and the financial cost-effectiveness indicator is the cost of ATM/CNS provision per unit of output.
EUROCONTROL/ PRU
Inputs
Outputs
MET costs
EUROCONTROL Agency costs
Payments to governmental or
regulatory authorities
Payments for delegation of ANS
Total ANS Costs (State Level)
Total ATM/CNS Costs (ANSP Level)
IFR airport movements
En-route flight-hours
Composite flight-hours
Financial cost-effectiveness
indicator
ATM/CNS provision costs
ATM/CNS provision costs
EUROCONTROL/ PRU
Inputs
Outputs
MET costs
EUROCONTROL Agency costs
Payments to governmental or
regulatory authorities
Payments for delegation of ANS
Total ANS Costs (State Level)
Total ATM/CNS Costs (ANSP Level)
IFR airport movements
En-route flight-hours
Composite flight-hours
Financial cost-effectiveness
indicator
ATM/CNS provision costs
ATM/CNS provision costs
Figure 4.1: Conceptual framework for the analysis of financial cost-effectiveness
The following costs categories have therefore been excluded from the financial cost-effectiveness analyses:
• Costs relating to services provided to military OAT, Oceanic ANS, AFIS/ATC at smaller regional aerodromes43, and reported under the “Other” column in the SEID;
• MET costs (whether provided internally or externally);
• Payments to governmental or regulatory authorities;
• EUROCONTROL costs44; and
• Payment to other ANSPs or States for delegated services, including payments for MUAC & CEATS.
The ANS costs per category for individual ANSPs/States, with a breakdown between en-route and terminal costs, are available in Annex 6 of this Report. As identified in previous ACE reports, the allocation of costs between en-route and terminal ANS is not done consistently 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 analysis in this report is “gate-to-gate” ANS. Figure 4.2 shows individual ANSPs’ total gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs in 2010. These costs are used in subsequent chapters of Part II, Part III, and Part IV for the purposes of comparing ANSPs’ ATM/CNS cost-effectiveness.
43 This is the case for Avinor, ENAV, and Finavia. 44 Excluding MUAC and CEATS costs.
Financial cost-effectiveness 38 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Five ANSPs (Aena, DSNA, NATS, DFS, and ENAV) bear 58% of total European gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs, while their share of traffic is 53%. 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).
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
960
1 080
1 200
DS
NA
Aen
a
DF
S
NA
TS
EN
AV
DH
MI
Sky
gui
de
LFV
Avi
nor
Aus
tro
Con
trol
UkS
AT
SE
HC
AA
LVN
L
Be
lgoc
ontr
ol
RO
MA
TS
A
MU
AC
PA
NS
A
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa
)
AN
S C
R
IAA
NA
VIA
IR
Hun
garo
Con
trol
SM
AT
SA
BU
LAT
SA
Cro
atia
Con
trol
Fin
avia
LP
S
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
LGS
Oro
Nav
igac
ija
NA
TA
Alb
ania
MA
TS
EA
NS
M-N
AV
Mo
ldA
TS
A
AR
MA
TS
M€
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (in M€) Cumulative share ATM/CNS provision costs
57.6% of total European gate-to-gate ATM/CNS
provision costs
34.5% of total European gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
7.9% of total European gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Figure 4.2: Distribution of ATM/CNS provision costs in 2010
The impact of size on ANSPs performance is an important policy issue given the infrastructure characteristics of the ANS sector. It should be noted that:
• Under the current full cost recovery regime that applies to most ANSPs, they may have 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 noteworthy that between 2009 and 2010, the share of the five largest ANSPs in the total European system ATM/CNS provision costs decreased from 60% to 58%. This mainly reflects the significant reduction in Aena ATM/CNS provision costs following the implementation of Law 9/2010. It is likely that greater scale effects will be observed in the forthcoming decade as a result of a new regulatory regime introduced by the SES II Performance Scheme and in particular of the incentive scheme which is part of the amended Charging Scheme regulation. Because of their weight in the 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). Section 4.2 compares the financial gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness indicator across ANSPs for the year 2010. It also highlights the en-route and terminal components of this indicator. Section 4.3 presents the analytical framework developed to break down cost-effectiveness into its main economic components. Section 4.4 gives the results obtained from applying this framework to the financial cost-effectiveness indicator, providing insights into differences in ATCO productivity, ATCO employment costs, and support costs.
4.2 Financial cost-effectiveness indicator (2010)
The European system ATM/CNS provision cost per composite flight-hour for 2010 was €419. The financial cost-effectiveness indicators for each ANSP are shown in Figure 4.3. The financial cost per composite flight-hour varies between €725 for Belgocontrol and €173 for EANS, a factor of more than four. EANS, which is among the smallest ANSPs of the European sample, has consistently recorded the lowest unit cost since the inception of this analysis a decade ago. The two dotted lines in Figure 4.3 represent the top and bottom
Financial cost-effectiveness 39 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
quartiles45 and provide an indication of the dispersion of unit ATM/CNS provision costs across the sample of 37 ANSPs. Belgocontrol and LVNL remain the two ANSPs with the highest unit costs, although it should be noted that (1) LVNL46 has significantly reduced its unit cost in 2010 and (2) both ANSPs exclusively provide ATC services in lower airspace.
725
614
542534515
485471464
173
326338366368372385387
346
445
251265274276
303306319
412418420422424432
255
433434441
351363
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Be
lgo
cont
rol
LVN
L
Sky
gui
de
LP
S
Aen
a
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
EN
AV
DF
S
Au
stro
Con
trol
DS
NA
M-N
AV
RO
MA
TS
A
Mol
dAT
SA
UkS
AT
SE
NA
TA
Alb
ani
a
AN
S C
R
Hun
gar
oCon
trol
NA
TS
LFV
BU
LAT
SA
NA
VIA
IR
Avi
nor
IAA
Oro
Na
viga
cija
AR
MA
TS
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa
)
Cro
atia
Con
trol
Fin
avia
SM
AT
SA
HC
AA
PA
NS
A
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
DH
MI
LGS
MU
AC
MA
TS
EA
NS
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
Gate-to-gate ATM/CNSEuropean system average: €419
Ae
na
EN
AV
DF
S
DS
NA
NA
TS
412441
515464471
0
200
400
600
Figure 4.3: Comparison of the financial cost-effectiveness indicator, 2010
The unit costs for the five largest ANSPs47 are displayed in the top right corner of Figure 4.3 above. These ANSPs, which operate in relatively similar economic and operational environments, show unit costs ranging from €515 (Aena48) to €412 (NATS). This range is
45 25% of observations lie below the bottom quartile, whilst 25% lie above the top quartile; the remaining 50% lie between the two quartiles. Thus in Figure 4.3, 75% of ANSPs have ATM/CNS costs per composite flight-hour lower than €441. 46 In 2010, LVNL had no equity in its balance sheet and was fully financed through debt. The objective of LVNL for the next years is to build up an equity capital in order to improve LVNL financial situation and to be in a position to bear potential losses in revenues arising from the traffic risk sharing during the first Reference Period (RP1). The equity capital is being built by adding to the 2010 actual en-route cost-base an exceptional cost item of €22M which was not reported in LVNL 2010 data submission. This amount will contribute to generate an under-recovery for the year 2010 that will be recovered by the Netherlands through the 2012-2014 chargeable unit rates and will be recorded as equity in LVNL balance-sheet. If this exceptional cost item was included in LVNL ATM/CNS provision costs, its cost-effectiveness KPI would be substantially higher at some €698 per composite flight-hour (instead of €614). 47 ENAV 2010 ATM/CNS provision costs comprise costs relating to ATC services (€37.9M) provided by the Italian Air Force (ITAF) mainly at regional civil/military airports. It is foreseen that in future ACE Reports, figures will be reported as ENAV+ITAF. See also Footnote 61. 48 Aena 2010 ATM/CNS provision costs comprise costs relating to ATM/CNS infrastructure shared with the military authority (€16.2M).
Note that this KPI is a factual indicator. A genuine measurement of cost inefficiencies would require full account to be taken of identified and measurable exogenous factors such as cost of living, traffic complexity, and traffic variability (as described in Chapter 3). While some of the more detailed analysis of the components of costs presented later in the chapter may contain some inconsistencies due to different reporting and different interpretations of definitions, the gate-to-gate financial cost-effectiveness indicator itself is robust for each ANSP since, in most cases, it is based on financial numbers that are reconcilable with audited accounts from Annual Reports and output data collected by EUROCONTROL.
Financial cost-effectiveness 40 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
much smaller than observed in the previous years mainly due to the significant decrease in Aena unit ATM/CNS provision costs. Figure 4.3 indicates that in 2010, Aena unit cost is +16% higher than the average of the other four largest ANSPs, while the ACE 2009 analysis showed a gap of +52% in 2009. The decrease in Aena unit ATM/CNS provision costs mainly result from the introduction of a specific law (Law 9/2010) which was adopted in Spain in 2010. Besides a number of structural changes, this law introduced new working conditions for 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 in the past. The Law 9/2010 also requires that the chargeable unit rate of Spain converge towards the corresponding average of the five largest States by 2013. It is also noteworthy that among the five largest ANSPs, NATS is the only one operating outside of the Euro zone and that the level of NATS unit costs expressed in Euro is affected by exchange rate fluctuations49. Between 2007 and 2010 the British Pound depreciated by -17%. Assuming that the Pound had remained at its 2007 level, NATS 2010 unit cost would be above that of ENAV. On the other hand, the level of Skyguide 2010 unit costs expressed in Euro is negatively affected by the significant appreciation of the Swiss Franc compared to the Euro between 2009 and 2010 (9%). It should be noted that the unit ATM/CNS provision costs reported for MUAC in Figure 4.3 (€255) do not include costs of the infrastructure which is made available for joint use and provided free of charges by the ANSPs (Belgocontrol, DFS and LVNL) operating in the Four States50 airspace. To better assess the cost-effectiveness of ATM/CNS provided in each of the Four States national airspaces, MUAC costs and output are consolidated with the costs and outputs of the national providers. The bottom of Figure 4.4 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 4.4 provides a view of this consolidated ANSP costs per composite flight-hour in the airspace of Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany (see blue bars). Figure 4.4 shows that the gate-to-gate unit costs for ATM/CNS provision in the Belgian airspace would amount to €557 per composite flight-hour. While this is notably below Belgocontrol unit costs (-23%), gate-to-gate unit costs for ATM/CNS provision in the Belgian airspace would still be the highest in Europe, just above Skyguide (see Figure 4.3).
557
305
439463
210
725
464
614
257
0
200
400
600
800
Belgocontrol Belgianairspace
MUACBelgium
DFS Germanairspace
MUACGermany
LVNL Dutchairspace
MUACNetherlands
€ p
er c
ompo
site
flig
ht-h
our
MUAC Belgium Germany NetherlandsFlight-hours allocated to: 136 337 250 362 156 441Costs allocated to: €41.6M €64.3M €32.8M
Figure 4.4: Adjustment of the financial cost-effectiveness indicator for ANSPs operating in the
Four States airspace (2010)
49 It should be noted that the changes in unit costs analysed in this Report (see Chapter 5) are not affected by changes in national currency against the Euro. Readers should however be aware of exchange rate fluctuations when comparing the values extracted from different ACE reports. Annex 5 comprises further information on the methodology used to express financial figures in real terms. 50 Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. Note that for the purposes of this report Luxembourg figures are not included as they amount to less than 1% of MUAC total costs.
Financial cost-effectiveness 41 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
The gate-to-gate unit costs in the Dutch airspace would be at €463 (i.e. -25% compared to LVNL), a level below ENAV unit costs, and LVNL would rank seventh instead of second. Figure 4.4 also shows that the unit cost in the German airspace (€439) would be -5% below DFS unit costs (€464). This is not surprising since the size of MUAC operations in German airspace compared to the total en-route and terminal operations of DFS is smaller than for Belgocontrol and LVNL. The gate-to-gate financial cost-effectiveness indicator in Figure 4.3 can be broken down into en-route and terminal components. This is shown in Figure 4.5 below. To facilitate the comparison and interpretation of the results, ANSPs are ranked according to the results obtained in the gate-to-gate financial cost-effectiveness indicator (Figure 4.3). The output units in Figure 4.5 are en-route flight-hours and IFR airport movements, respectively – compared to the gate-to-gate composite flight-hours used in Figure 4.3.
861
745
547537
487525
503 496 480430441427433
403427
399 381
433431375 403
250
363 369
272
347332
208
287287291275 261
235255
226184
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
Bel
goco
ntro
l
LVN
L
Sky
guid
e
LPS
Aen
a
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
EN
AV
DF
S
Aus
tro
Con
tro
l
DS
NA
M-N
AV
RO
MA
TS
A
Mol
dAT
SA
UkS
AT
SE
NA
TA
Alb
ania
AN
S C
R
Hun
garo
Con
trol
NA
TS
LFV
BU
LAT
SA
NA
VIA
IR
Avi
nor
IAA
Oro
Nav
igac
ija
AR
MA
TS
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa)
Cro
atia
Con
trol
Fin
avia
SM
AT
SA
HC
AA
PA
NS
A
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
DH
MI
LGS
MU
AC
MA
TS
EA
NS
€ p
er f
light
-ho
ur
En-route ATM/CNSEuropean system average: €415
Aen
a
EN
AV
DF
S
DS
NA
NA
TS
433430
503487496
0
200
400
600
149139133
94 10091
130
103
151
102
139
94101
88 90102
138
85100 103
26
66
122
94
140
186179
156129
158
75
80114
123
81
120
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Bel
goco
ntr
ol
LVN
L
Sky
guid
e
LP
S
Aen
a
Slo
ven
ia C
ontr
ol
EN
AV
DF
S
Au
stro
Con
tro
l
DS
NA
M-N
AV
RO
MA
TS
A
Mol
dA
TS
A
UkS
AT
SE
NA
TA
Alb
ani
a
AN
S C
R
Hun
garo
Con
tro
l
NA
TS
LF
V
BU
LA
TS
A
NA
VIA
IR
Avi
nor
IAA
Oro
Nav
iga
cija
AR
MA
TS
NA
V P
ortu
gal
(F
IR L
isb
oa)
Cro
atia
Con
tro
l
Fin
avi
a
SM
AT
SA
HC
AA
PA
NS
A
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
DH
MI
LG
S
MU
AC
MA
TS
EA
NS
€ p
er I
FR
air
port
mov
em
ent
Terminal ATM/CNSEuropean system average: €115
Ae
na
EN
AV
DF
S
DS
NA
NA
TS
156
94 100 94
130
0
50
100
150
200
Figure 4.5: Breakdown of financial cost-effectiveness into en-route and terminal, 201051,52
51 The dotted lines on the graphs represent the bottom and top quartiles. 52 MUAC operates exclusively in upper airspace and therefore has no terminal ANS costs.
Financial cost-effectiveness 42 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
It is difficult to determine whether the differences shown in Figure 4.5 above are driven by economic and operational factors (for example, size of operations, economies of scale, or traffic complexity), or purely cost-allocation differences, which are known to exist across States/ANSPs. There are cases where a high en-route cost per flight-hour (top graph) corresponds to a low terminal cost per IFR airport movement (bottom graph) and vice versa. For example:
• SMATSA and Avinor have relatively high unit costs in terminal service provision but relatively low unit costs in en-route.
• Slovenia Control and ENAV have a relatively high unit cost in en-route service provision but a relatively low terminal unit cost.
For ANSPs who own and operate a large number of airports such as Avinor, Finavia and LFV (until the separation of the airport division, now Swedavia AB, in April 2010) differences in terminal unit costs (see Figure 4.5) seem to be mainly be due to differences in cost allocation. Indeed, in Sweden most terminal ANS assets (TWR buildings, ILS) and capital-related costs were allocated to the airport division of LFV in 2010 and not to the ANS department. As a result, these costs are mainly recovered through landing fees rather than terminal ANS charges. Furthermore, in 2011, Aena went through a restructuring process relating to the separation of the airport division (creation of a new company Aena Aeropuertos S.A.) from the ANS department. In September 2011, ferroNATS (a consortium made by NATS and the Spanish construction company Ferrovial) has been awarded a contract to provide ATC services at 10 airports in Spain53. Similarly, ANS CR, in partnership with Saerco, has been awarded a contract to provide ATC services at three airports in Spain Canarias54. It is likely that this restructuring process will affect the level of Aena terminal unit costs in the forthcoming years and it will be informative to monitor the extent to which cost-effectiveness performance will improve. In 2010, several ANSPs used a different methodology to allocate costs between en-route and terminal ANS. This is particularly the case for Belgocontrol where the costs relating to ATM/CNS provision at regional airports used to be reported as en-route costs (in consistency with the en-route costs charged to airspace users). Since 1 January 2010, Belgocontrol does not charge these costs to airspace users (neither in the en-route nor terminal cost base) but for the purposes of the ACE 2010 benchmarking analysis, Belgocontrol reported these costs as terminal ATM/CNS costs.
4.3 Framework for gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness and productivity analysis
The PRU has developed an analytical framework that allows cost-effectiveness to be broken down into a number of key components. This framework helps in understanding differences in cost-effectiveness by allowing examination of the detailed factors underlying it. The framework and the 2010 results for each of its components at European system level are displayed in Figure 4.6 below.
53 Alicante, Valencia, Ibiza, Sabadell, Sevilla, Jerez, Melilla, Madrid Cuatro Vientos, Vigo and A Coruña airports. 54 La Palma, Lanzarote and Fuerteventura.
Financial cost-effectiveness 43 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Employment costs for
ATCOs in OPS€2 226 M
Composite flight-hours
17.8 M
ATCO in OPS hours on duty
23.1 M
ATM/CNS provision costs
€7 476 M
Support cost ratio3.4
ATCO-hour Productivity
0.77
ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour
€96
Financialcost-effectiveness
indicator€419
EUROCONTROL/PRU
Support costs€5 249 M
Support costs per unit of output
€294
ATCOs employment costs per
unit of output€125
Employment costs for
ATCOs in OPS€2 226 M
Composite flight-hours
17.8 M
ATCO in OPS hours on duty
23.1 M
ATM/CNS provision costs
€7 476 M
Support cost ratio3.4
ATCO-hour Productivity
0.77
ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour
€96
Financialcost-effectiveness
indicator€419
EUROCONTROL/PRU
Support costs€5 249 M
Support costs per unit of output
€294
ATCOs employment costs per
unit of output€125
Figure 4.6: Performance framework for gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness analysis (2010)
The right-hand side of Figure 4.6 shows that the financial cost-effectiveness indicator (ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour) is made up of three component performance ratios:
• Higher ATCO-hour productivity (composite flight-hours per ATCO-hour) improves cost-effectiveness;
• Lower ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour improve cost-effectiveness; and,
• All other things being equal, a lower support cost ratio improves cost-effectiveness. These three ratios multiplied together give the overall financial cost-effectiveness indicator. The financial cost-effectiveness indicator can also be broken down into two additive factors, as shown on left-hand side of Figure 4.6:
• ATCO employment costs per unit of output is the ratio of the employment costs for the ATCOs in OPS to the output (measured in composite flight-hours). All other things being equal, lower ATCOs in OPS employment costs per unit of output will improve financial cost-effectiveness. At European level, this component comprises some 30% of the overall financial cost-effectiveness indicator.
• Support costs per unit of output is the ratio of support costs55 to the output. All other things being equal, lower support costs per unit of output will improve financial cost-effectiveness. At European level this component comprises some 70% of the overall financial cost-effectiveness indicator.
The latter indicator is preferred to the support cost ratio for two main reasons. First, the support cost ratio cannot be viewed in isolation since a low ratio may simply be a symptom of high ATCO employment costs. Second, given that there are fixed costs in the provision of ATM/CNS (such as infrastructure and ATM systems), “support costs per unit of output” can give additional insights into the analysis of support costs and scale effects. The analysis of cost-effectiveness provided in Section 4.4 therefore focuses on the support costs per unit of output indicator rather than the support cost ratio. Because of the critical importance of ATCOs in OPS in the provision of ATC services, the framework presented in Figure 4.6 puts a clear focus on this resource. Important support
55 Support costs are defined as the sum of non-ATCO employment costs, non-staff operating costs and capital-related costs.
Financial cost-effectiveness 44 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
functions (with and without operational characteristics) are currently embedded in the so-called “support staff”. The employment costs of these support staff represent the majority of support costs and should be seen as an important contributor for cost-effectiveness performance improvement.
4.4 Breakdown of gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness for individual ANSPs
The breakdown of the overall indicator illustrated in Figure 4.3 into the components discussed above is shown in Figure 4.7, Figure 4.9, Figure 4.11, and Figure 4.14. When displayed, the two dotted lines represent the bottom and top quartiles56 for the three components. In the bottom right of each figure a miniature replica of Figure 4.6 is displayed to guide the reader through the framework. Finally, to summarize and facilitate the interpretation of the results, the concept of the “performance ratio” has been introduced and presented in Section 4.5. Performance ratios are a simple way to capture the relative advantages and weaknesses of an ANSP compared to the European average.
4.4.1 ATCO-hour productivity (2010)
ATCO-hour productivity is the efficiency with which an ANSP deploys and makes use of its ATCOs. In 2010, the European system as a whole handled 0.77 composite flight-hours per ATCO-hour. ATCO-hour productivity for each ANSP is shown in Figure 4.7.
1.85
1.08
0.99 0.98 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.90
0.78 0.78 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.730.69 0.69 0.67 0.65 0.63 0.62 0.62
0.440.41
0.300.26
0.22
0.14
0.79
0.570.55 0.55
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
MU
AC
Sky
guid
e
NA
TS
DF
S
NA
VIA
IR
Aus
tro
Con
trol
AN
S C
R
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa)
IAA
PA
NS
A
EA
NS
LVN
L
Hun
garo
Con
trol
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
SM
AT
SA
Aen
a
Avi
nor
BU
LAT
SA
EN
AV
DH
MI
DS
NA
Bel
goco
ntro
l
HC
AA
LGS
Fin
avia
Cro
atia
Con
trol
LPS
LFV
NA
TA
Alb
ania
MA
TS
RO
MA
TS
A
Oro
Nav
igac
ija
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
UkS
AT
SE
M-N
AV
Mol
dAT
SA
AR
MA
TS
Com
posi
te f
light
-hou
rs p
er A
TC
O-h
our European system average: 0.77
NA
TS
DF
S
Aen
a
EN
AV
DS
NA
0.99 0.98
0.730.75 0.75
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
Figure 4.7: ATCO-hour productivity (gate-to-gate), 2010
There is a wide range of ATCO-hour productivity among individual ANSPs. The ANSP with the highest ATCO-hour productivity is MUAC (1.85) which only provides ATC services in upper airspace, while the ANSP with the lowest ATCO-hour productivity is ARMATS (0.14), i.e. one of the smallest ANSPs in terms of traffic volumes. A somewhat fairer comparison of MUAC ATCO-hour productivity is presented in Figure 4.8 below (see Cluster 2).
56 25% of observations lie below the bottom quartile, whilst 75% lie below the top quartile. (Thus, in Figure 4.7, 75% of ANSPs have ATCO-hour productivity less than 0.90).
Financial cost-effectiveness 45 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Figure 4.7 also indicates that there are substantial differences in ATCO-hour productivity even among the five largest ANSPs. Indeed, NATS ATCO-hour productivity (0.99) is some +35% higher than that of DSNA (0.73). In Spain, the application of Law 9/2010 resulted in a sharp reduction in the number of ATCO-hours on duty, increasing Aena ATCO productivity in 2010. Most of the ANSPs that achieved or are close to top quartile ATCO-hour productivity (ANS CR, Austro Control, DFS, LVNL, MUAC, NATS and Skyguide) are among the most complex ANSPs. On the other hand, ARMATS, UkSATSE and MoldATSA, which belong to the least complex grouping in Figure 3.3, 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 to low traffic volumes and high seasonal variability. It is important to mention that if the European average productivity (0.77) could be raised to the level of the top quartile in Figure 4.7 (0.91), it would bring significant gains in cost-effectiveness. ATCO-hour productivity measured at ANSP level reflects an average performance, which can hide large differences among ACCs even for those operating in the same country/ANSP. On the other hand, ACCs belonging to different ANSPs may share similar characteristics. It is therefore important to analyse and compare productivity at ACC level (see Figure 4.8).
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
Lang
en
Am
ster
dam
Lond
on T
C
Bru
ssel
s
Bre
men
Mila
no
Dub
lin
Pal
ma
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r
Average = 0.66
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
Maa
stric
ht
Pra
ha
Wie
n
Rhe
in
Mun
chen
Pre
stw
ick
Zur
ich
Lond
on A
C
Gen
eva
Rei
ms
Pad
ova
Par
is
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r
Average =1.05
Cluster 1S
ofia
Sta
vang
er
Bra
tisla
va
Nic
osia
Tam
pere
Rig
a
Bod
o
Brin
disi
Mal
ta
Viln
ius
Tira
na
Rov
anie
mi
Ljub
ljana
Dni
prop
etro
vs'k
Sko
pje
Ode
sa
Chi
sina
u
Yer
eva
nL'vi
v
Tal
linn
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
Flig
ht-
hou
rs p
er A
TC
O-h
our
Average = 0.80
Cluster 3b (ACCs < 7 sectors)
Lisb
oaA
nkar
aZ
agre
bR
oma
Ath
inai
+M
aced
onia
Sha
nnon
Bre
stB
orde
aux
Beo
grad
Sev
illa
Mad
ridM
arse
ille
Bar
celo
naC
anar
ias
Mal
mo
Buc
ures
tiK
oben
havn
Ista
nbul
Sto
ckho
lmO
slo
Kyi
v
War
szaw
a
Sim
fero
polB
udap
est
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
Flig
ht-
hou
rs p
er A
TC
O-h
our
Average = 1.04
Cluster 3a (ACCs ≥ 7 sectors)
Cluster 2
Figure 4.8: Summary of productivity results at ACC level (2010)
In Figure 4.8, ACCs 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 clusters can be found in previous ACE reports57. So far, no clear-cut statistical relationship between ATCO productivity, traffic complexity and traffic variability could be inferred because the relationships between all these metrics are not
57 See for example ACE 2008 report, p.104. Report available on the PRC website: (http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/public/standard_page/doc_ace_reports.html).
Financial cost-effectiveness 46 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
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 (0.66 flight-hour per ATCO-hour). Palma (with the lowest productivity) has also the lowest overall complexity score but the highest seasonal traffic variability in Cluster 1.
• Cluster 2 (ACCs serving dense upper airspace) has an average productivity of 1.05 flight-hour per ATCO-hour. Within this cluster, Maastricht has significantly higher productivity (1.85 flight-hours per ATCO-hour, some +77% above the average in Cluster 2). Factors that could explain Maastricht’s higher productivity (in particular advanced ATC systems and procedures) were detailed in p.128 of the ACE 2006 Benchmarking Report. Trend analysis over 2006-2010 suggests that the gap between the productivity of MUAC and the average value for the other ACCs in Cluster 2 has slightly increased (i.e. from +72% in 2006 to +77% in 2010).
• Cluster 3a (ACCs with 7 sectors or more and serving airspace with relatively low complexity) has an average productivity of 1.04 flight-hour per ATCO-hour. Within this cluster, Warszawa has significantly higher productivity (2.2 flight-hours per ATCO-hour). It should also be noted that within this cluster Marseille and Bordeaux have the highest overall complexity, and Canarias, Shannon and Kyiv the lowest.
• Cluster 3b (ACCs with less than 7 sectors serving airspace with relatively low complexity) has an average productivity of 0.80 flight-hour per ATCO-hour. While Yerevan and Chisinau show the lowest productivity, they also have among the lowest overall complexity.
ATCO-hour productivity is affected by a number of factors, including:
• Advanced ATM systems, tools and procedures, with increased ATM system functionality and reliability, allowing greater ATCOs confidence in using them.
• Flexible deployment of operational staff to meet demand through the optimisation of roster cycles and the use of overtime. Manning per sector and rating policies have an impact on the flexibility to change the sector configuration and to adapt to changes in operational conditions.
• Operational concepts and processes affecting the airspace and sector designs, the ASM, ATFM and ATFCM processes and the civil/military arrangements.
• Adequate combination of technical, human and managerial tools such as training, and willingness to work flexibly.
• Enhancement of the cooperation with other ANSPs to achieve synergies (e.g. cross border sectorization and rating).
It is generally considered that SES tools such as FABs, the Network Manager, the performance scheme and the technological pillar (SESAR) should contribute to increase ATCO productivity by a significant factor while ensuring safety standards. Changes over time in ATCO-hour productivity for the European system and for individual ANSPs level are described in Section 5.3 and further analysis of relationship between productivity and quality of service is provided in Chapter 8.
4.4.2 ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (2010)
The average unit ATCO employment costs in the European system amount to €96 per ATCO-hour. Figure 4.9 shows the values for this indicator for all the ANSPs.
Financial cost-effectiveness 47 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
170
157149148
134132131
117
106101101
91
8176 76 75 73
69 67
51 5146 46
4035 34
30 26 25 22 1912
8
87898990
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
Ae
na
MU
AC
DF
S
Au
stro
Co
ntro
l
LV
NL
Sky
gui
de
Be
lgo
cont
rol
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa)
NA
TS
Avi
nor
EN
AV
DS
NA
NA
VIA
IR
LFV
IAA
AN
S C
R
PA
NS
A
HC
AA
Slo
ven
ia C
ont
rol
Hu
nga
roC
ont
rol
Fin
avi
a
LP
S
Cro
atia
Co
ntro
l
RO
MA
TS
A
BU
LA
TS
A
SM
AT
SA
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
EA
NS
Oro
Nav
iga
cija
DH
MI
M-N
AV
LGS
MA
TS
NA
TA
Alb
ani
a
UkS
AT
SE
Mol
dA
TS
A
AR
MA
TS
€ p
er h
our
European system average: €96
Aen
a
DF
S
NA
TS
EN
AV
DS
NA
101 91
149170
106
0
50
100
150
200
Figure 4.9: ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (gate-to-gate), 2010
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. For Aena, ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour fell by -13% in real terms, between 2009 and 2010, mainly due to the application of Law 9/2010, which rose the number of contractual working hours and significantly limited the use of overtime. Despite this significant improvement, Aena ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour remain some 57% higher than the average of the other four largest ANSPs. 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 (see discussion in Chapter 3). 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 limitations58 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. Figure 4.10 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 €101 (compared to €96 without adjustment). For many Central and Eastern European ANSPs (PANSA, HungaroControl, ANS CR, BULATSA, LPS, SMATSA, Croatia Control and ROMATSA) the PPP adjustment brings the unit employment costs close to those in Western Europe.
58 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.
Financial cost-effectiveness 48 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
183
141141133
119116114105102101100 96 96
91
81 79 76 74 7365
62 59 5854 51 50
4541
34
2416
123
92
83
143
134
121
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Aen
a
MU
AC
DF
S
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa)
Aus
tro
Con
tro
l
PA
NS
A
LVN
L
Hun
garo
Con
trol
AN
S C
R
Bel
goco
ntro
l
BU
LAT
SA
NA
TS
LPS
RO
MA
TS
A
SM
AT
SA
EN
AV
Cro
atia
Con
trol
Sky
guid
e
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
HC
AA
DS
NA
IAA
M-N
AV
Avi
nor
LFV
NA
VIA
IR
Fin
avia
EA
NS
Oro
Nav
igac
ija
DH
MI
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
NA
TA
Alb
ania
UkS
AT
SE
LGS
MA
TS
Mol
dAT
SA
AR
MA
TS
€ pe
r h
our
ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour in € adjusted for PPPs
ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour in €
Figure 4.10: Employment costs per ATCO-hour with and without PPPs, 2010
4.4.3 ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour (2010)
The ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour result from the combination of the previous two components: ATCO-hour productivity and employment costs per ATCO-hour. All other things being equal, lower ATCO employment costs per unit output will contribute to greater financial cost-effectiveness. This indicator is displayed in Figure 4.11.
226
189185
155152149145135
125
96 94 94 93 92 89 8578
68 6458 58 54 53
46 45 4439 38
106107110110113115
134
122125
0
50
100
150
200
250
Aen
a
Bel
goco
ntro
l
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
Aus
tro
Con
trol
DF
S
LVN
L
LFV
EN
AV
Avi
nor
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa)
DS
NA
Sky
guid
e
M-N
AV
Fin
avia
LPS
HC
AA
NA
TS
Cro
atia
Con
trol
IAA
Hun
garo
Con
trol
RO
MA
TS
A
NA
VIA
IR
AN
S C
R
PA
NS
A
MU
AC
Oro
Nav
igac
ija
BU
LAT
SA
UkS
AT
SE
SM
AT
SA
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
AR
MA
TS
Mol
dAT
SA
DH
MI
MA
TS
EA
NS
LGS
NA
TA
Alb
ania
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
European system average: €125
152135 125
107
226
NA
TS
DS
NA
EN
AV
DF
S
Aen
a
0
50
100
150
200
250
Figure 4.11: ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour, 2010
In order to provide an insight into the relationship between ATCO-hour productivity and employment costs, Figure 4.12 below presents the ANSPs classified in four quadrants
Financial cost-effectiveness 49 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
according to their level of ATCO productivity and employment costs. The quadrants are established on the basis of the European average values for these two metrics.
EANS
ARMATSMoldATSA
M-NAV
UkSATSE
Slovenia Control
Oro Navigacija
ROMATSA
MATS
NATA Albania
LFV
LPSFinavia
Croatia Control
LGS
Belgocontrol
DSNA
Avinor
DHMI
Aena
ENAV
BULATSA
HCAA
SMATSADCAC Cyprus
HungaroControl
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
LVNL
PANSA
IAA
DFS
ANS CR
Austro Control
NAVIAIR
NATS
Skyguide
MUAC
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
ATCO-hour productivity
AT
CO
em
plo
yme
nt c
osts
pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
I II
III IV
Figure 4.12: Components of ATCO employment costs per unit of output, 2010
An ANSP may have high ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour but if its ATCOs are highly productive then it will have lower employment costs per composite flight-hour. This is the case for the ANSPs in the top right (Quadrant II) of Figure 4.12 such as MUAC and to a lower extent Skyguide, which shows ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour above the European average but ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour below the European average (see also Figure 4.11 above). Aena, and to a lesser extent Belgocontrol (Quadrant I) combine higher ATCO employment costs with lower ATCO productivity, resulting in high ATCO employment costs per unit of output (see also Figure 4.11 above). Some ANSPs such as ANS CR (Quadrant IV) have both higher ATCO-hour productivity and lower ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (without PPP adjustment). Finally, ANSPs such as ARMATS, MoldATSA, M-NAV and UkSATSE (Quadrant III) show both lower ATCO-hour productivity and lower ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour.
4.4.4 Support costs per composite flight-hour (2010)
Support costs amount to 70% of total ATM/CNS provision costs. Effective management of these costs, especially in a context of traffic increases, would have a major impact on cost-effectiveness. It is therefore important to understand the components of support costs, and what might drive changes in them. A study of ATM/CNS fragmentation throughout Europe suggested that fragmentation contributed to higher support costs59. Therefore, reducing the current level of fragmentation (e.g. joint procurement and rationalisation of investments within FABs) has the potential to decrease support costs and improve cost-effectiveness. For
59 The impact of fragmentation in European ATM/CNS, Report commissioned by the EUROCONTROL PRC, April 2006. The report is available on the PRC website: (http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/public/standard_page/doc_other_reports.html).
Financial cost-effectiveness 50 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
the purposes of analysing differences in support costs, the part of the framework presented in Section 4.3 which is relating to support costs is further developed in Figure 4.13 below.
Non-ATCO in OPS employment
costs per unit of output(47.0%)
Non-staff operatingcosts per unit of output
(25.4%)
Capital-relatedcosts per unit of output
(25.6%)
Non-ATCO in OPS staffper unit of output
Employment costs per non-ATCO in OPS staff
Exceptionalcosts per unit of output
(2.0%)Depreciation costsper unit of output
Cost of capitalper unit of output
Employment Employment costs for costs for
ATCOsATCOs in OPSin OPS
Composite Composite flightflight --hourshours
ATCO in OPS ATCO in OPS hours on dutyhours on duty
ATM/CNS ATM/CNS
provision costsprovision costs
Support cost ratioSupport cost ratio
ATCOATCO --hour hour productivityproductivity
ATCO employment ATCO employment costs per ATCOcosts per ATCO --hourhour
FinancialFinancialcostcost --effectiveness effectiveness
indicator
EUROCONTROL/PRU
Support costsSupport costsunit of output
ATCOsATCOs employment employment costs per costs per
unit of outputunit of output
Support costsper unit
Of output
Non-ATCO in OPS employment
costs per unit of output(47.0%)
Non-staff operatingcosts per unit of output
(25.4%)
Capital-relatedcosts per unit of output
(25.6%)
Non-ATCO in OPS staffper unit of output
Employment costs per non-ATCO in OPS staff
Exceptionalcosts per unit of output
(2.0%)Depreciation costsper unit of output
Cost of capitalper unit of output
Employment Employment costs for costs for
ATCOsATCOs in OPSin OPS
Composite Composite flightflight --hourshours
ATCO in OPS ATCO in OPS hours on dutyhours on duty
ATM/CNS ATM/CNS
provision costsprovision costs
Support cost ratioSupport cost ratio
ATCOATCO --hour hour productivityproductivity
ATCO employment ATCO employment costs per ATCOcosts per ATCO --hourhour
FinancialFinancialcostcost --effectiveness effectiveness
indicator
EUROCONTROL/PRU
Support costsSupport costsunit of output
ATCOsATCOs employment employment costs per costs per
unit of outputunit of output
Support costsper unit
Of output
Figure 4.13: Framework for support costs analysis (2010)
As shown in Figure 4.13 support costs can be broken down into four separate components that provide further insight into the nature of support costs:
• employment costs for non-ATCO in OPS staff; these cover ATCOs on other duties, trainees, technical support and administrative staff (47.0% of support costs);
• non-staff operating costs mostly comprise expenses for energy, communications, contracted services, rentals, insurance, and taxes (25.4% of support costs);
• exceptional costs (2.0% of support costs); and,
• capital-related costs, comprising depreciation and financing costs for the capital employed (25.6% of support costs).
At system level, employment costs for staff other than ATCOs in OPS account for 47% of total support costs. In the context of planning processes and contract renegotiation for support staff, it is important for ANSPs to monitor this indicator and to set quantitative objectives in terms of employment costs per unit of output.
Financial cost-effectiveness 51 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
536
465
423 420384 380 360 339
336 327 324 319 317 317 312 305
300 297 291 289 285 279 270261
243 234 232 228 226 220 217 214 213206 195
171
128
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Bel
goc
ontr
ol
LVN
L
LPS
Sky
gui
de
NA
TA
Alb
ania
Mo
ldA
TS
A
UkS
AT
SE
RO
MA
TS
A
EN
AV
AN
S C
R
Hun
garo
Con
tro
l
M-N
AV
BU
LAT
SA
DS
NA
DF
S
NA
TS
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
AR
MA
TS
Aus
tro
Con
trol
Aen
a
Oro
Nav
igac
ija
NA
VIA
IR
IAA
SM
AT
SA
LFV
Avi
nor
Cro
atia
Con
tro
l
DH
MI
LGS
NA
V P
ortu
gal
(F
IR L
isbo
a)
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
PA
NS
A
Fin
avia
MA
TS
HC
AA
MU
AC
EA
NS
€ p
er
com
pos
ite f
light
-ho
ur
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
317336 305289
312
0
100
200
300
400
EN
AV
DS
NA
DF
S
NA
TS
Aen
a
European system average: €294
Figure 4.14: Support costs per composite flight-hour60, 2010
The European average support cost per composite flight-hour is €294. Figure 4.14 shows that:
• The level of unit support costs varies significantly across ANSPs – a factor greater than four between Belgocontrol and EANS; and,
• There are important differences in the composition of support costs. In some instances this might indicate the substitution which can take place through the contracting out of support functions.
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. This is particularly the case for the five largest ANSPs. ENAV outsources the maintenance of ATM systems and the corresponding costs are comprised in the non-staff operating costs61. For Aena, DSNA, DFS and NATS some activities are 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 research and development projects can be capitalised in the balance-sheet. Non-ATCO in OPS employment costs per composite flight-hour Like ATCO in OPS employment costs, employment costs for the support staff are also affected by the cost of living62. Using the same methodology as in Figure 4.10, Figure 4.15
60 It should be noted that, although Oro Navigacija and ANS CR reported the cost of capital in their ACE 2010 data submission, these costs were not charged to airspace users (for both en-route and terminal ANS for Oro Navigacija and for terminal ANS for ANS CR). 61 A non negligible part of ENAV non-staff operating costs (some 21% or €37.8M) relates to ATC services provided by the Italian Air Force mainly at regional civil/military airports. It should also be noted that ENAV en-route and terminal depreciation costs are netted-off by revenues (some €13M in 2010) arising from a public funding mechanism whose objective is the economic development of the Southern regions of Italy in the context of the Cohesion Policy of the European Union. 62 There may also be an impact on non-staff operating costs if support functions have been outsourced, particularly if outsourced staff are paid in local currency. However, this relationship is less clear and for the purposes of this analysis, the focus is on employment costs.
Financial cost-effectiveness 52 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
shows the impact of adjusting the non-ATCO in OPS employment costs per composite flight-hour for PPPs. It is noteworthy that Aena average unit employment costs for support staff lies close to the bottom quartile which significantly contrasts with the ATCO unit employment costs (see Figure 4.10). After PPP adjustment, the average unit employment cost for support staff per composite flight-hour amounts to €151 (compared to €138 without adjustment). Figure 4.15 shows that after adjusting for PPPs, the unit employment costs of many Central and Eastern European ANSPs are higher than to those in Western Europe.
210 207 203183
138
108104
201
33
160 158
217
248
375
430416
353
313
271266
217
180 168166
151 149136
117106 104 103 100 97
84 79 74 67
0
100
200
300
400
500
UkS
AT
SE
M-N
AV
BU
LA
TS
A
RO
MA
TS
A
Bel
goc
ont
rol
LPS
LV
NL
AR
MA
TS
PA
NS
A
SM
AT
SA
Oro
Na
viga
cija
AN
S C
R
Mol
dA
TS
A
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
NA
TA
Alb
ania
NA
V P
ortu
gal
(F
IR L
isb
oa)
Hun
garo
Co
ntro
l
Sky
gui
de
DS
NA
Au
stro
Co
ntro
l
DF
S
Cro
atia
Co
ntro
l
LG
S
HC
AA
NA
TS
MU
AC
Aen
a
NA
VIA
IR
IAA
DH
MI
EN
AV
LFV
Avi
nor
Fin
avi
a
MA
TS
EA
NS
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
€ p
er
com
pos
ite f
light
-hou
r
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) per composite flight-hour in € adjusted for PPPs
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) per composite flight-hour in €
Figure 4.15: Non-ATCO in OPS employment costs with and without adjustment for PPPs, 2010
As economic conditions, both cost of living and general wage levels, are converging across Europe, there is a clear upward pressure on employment costs for these ANSPs. In order to sustain the current level of staffing and associated employment costs, it will be of great importance to effectively manage non-ATCO in OPS employment costs. As shown in Figure 4.16, which comprises an extract of the framework presented in Figure 4.13, non-ATCO in OPS employment costs per composite flight-hour can be broken down into two indicators:
(1) the employment costs per non-ATCO in OPS staff; and,
(2) the number of non-ATCO in OPS staff required by unit of output.
Non-ATCO in OPS employmentcosts per unit of output
(47.0%)
Non-ATCO in OPS staffper unit of output
Employment costs per non-ATCO in OPS staff
Non-ATCO in OPS employmentcosts per unit of output
(47.0%)
Non-ATCO in OPS staffper unit of output
Employment costs per non-ATCO in OPS staff
Figure 4.16: Breakdown of non-ATCO in OPS employment costs
In order to provide an insight into the relationship of these two indicators, Figure 4.17 below presents the ANSPs classified in four quadrants according to their level of employment costs per non-ATCO in OPS staff and the number of non-ATCO in OPS staff required per composite flight-hour.
Financial cost-effectiveness 53 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
In Figure 4.17, the quadrants are determined by the European averages i.e. some 62 €’000 for the employment costs per non ATCO-staff, and 2.2 non-ATCO staff for 1000 composite flight-hours.
SMATSA
Slovenia Control
Skyguide
ROMATSA
PANSA
Oro Navigacija
NAVIAIR
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
NATS
NATA Albania
MUAC
MATS
LVNL
LPS
LGS
LFV
IAA
HungaroControl
HCAA
Finavia
ENAV
EANS
DSNA
DHMI
DFS
DCAC Cyprus
Croatia Control
Belgocontrol
Avinor
Austro Control
BULATSA
ANS CR
Aena
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Non-ATCO in OPS staff for 1000 composite flight-hours
Em
plo
yme
nt c
osts
p
er n
on-A
TC
O in
OP
S s
taff
(€'
000
)
ARMATSM-NAV
MoldATSAUkSATSE
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
I II
III IV
Figure 4.17: Employment costs per non-ATCO in OPS staff and support staff per unit of output, 201063
An ANSP may have high employment costs for support staff but if a low number of support staff is required per unit of output it will have lower support staff employment costs per composite flight-hour. This is the case for the ANSPs in the top left of Figure 4.17 such as MUAC and IAA (Quadrant I). Belgocontrol and LVNL (Quadrant II) combine relatively high unit employment costs for support staff with a relatively high number of support staff per composite flight-hour, resulting in high support staff costs per unit of output (see also Figure 4.15 above). DCAC Cyprus and MATS (Quadrant III) have lower unit employment costs for support staff and a low number of support staff per composite flight-hour. Finally, for ANSPs such as NATA Albania, BULATSA, DHMI, LPS and Oro Navigacija (Quadrant IV) lower unit employment costs for support staff are combined with a higher number of support staff per unit of output. Figure 4.17 indicates that there is no clear-cut relationship between these two indicators. However, ANSPs where the unit employment costs for support staff are lower tend to have a larger number of support staff per unit of output. This is particularly the case for four ANSPs, ARMATS, M-NAV, MoldATSA and UkSATSE. These ANSPs are shown in the miniature replica which is inserted in Figure 4.17 (see top-right corner). For these ANSPs, the large numbers of support staff per unit of output are the main driver for the relatively high non-ATCO in OPS employment costs shown in Figure 4.15.
63 As explained in Section 2.5, MET costs are not included in the ACE benchmarking analysis. Therefore to ensure consistency, for those ANSPs where MET services are provided internally, MET staff are deducted from the total support staff reported in Figure 4.17.
Financial cost-effectiveness 54 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
In some cases, a low number of support staff per unit of output might be associated with an ANSP involved in airport management activities (e.g. Aena until 2011 and LFV until April 2010) illustrating potential staff allocation issues. It can also reflect the fact that maintenance activities are outsourced (e.g. ENAV). For this reason, support staff employment costs should not be treated separately but analysed along with the other components of support costs (i.e. non-staff operating costs and capital-related costs). Capital-related costs per composite flight-hour A further component of support cost which shows an important variation between ANSPs is the capital-related costs. As shown in Figure 4.18 capital-related costs can be further broken down into depreciation costs per unit of output and cost of capital per unit of output.
CapitalCapital--relatedrelatedcosts per unit of outputcosts per unit of output
Depreciation costsDepreciation costsper unit of outputper unit of output
Cost of capitalCost of capitalper unit of outputper unit of output
Depreciation costsDepreciation costsper fixed assets per fixed assets
in operationin operation
Cost of capitalCost of capitalper asset baseper asset base
Asset baseAsset baseper unit of outputper unit of output
Unit of output per Unit of output per fixed assets in operationfixed assets in operation
(A)
(B)
(A1)
(A2)
(B1)
(B2)
Figure 4.18: Breakdown of capital-related costs
Depreciation costs per unit of output (A) is the relationship between the average depreciation rate of fixed assets (see A1) with the productivity of fixed assets (see A2).
Cost of capital per unit of output (B) is the relationship between the average rate of return (see B1) with a measure of capital intensity (see B2). These two factors are examined in Figure 4.19. The bar, measured on the left-hand scale, shows the asset base to which the cost of capital is applied, divided by the composite flight-hours, to give a fair comparison across ANSPs. At a minimum, the asset base should comprise fixed assets that are employed to provide ATC services (the yellow bar in the diagram). It is also reasonable to include some current assets which are shown as the blue bar. The sum of these two quantities (fixed assets and current assets) is the asset base to which an average rate64 (see red dots) is applied to calculate the cost of capital65. ANSPs are ranked by their ratio of asset base per composite flight-hour.
64 Commonly referred to the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC). 65 The information provided in Figure 4.19 relates to the assumptions used to compute an economic cost of capital for the purposes of the ACE Benchmarking analysis. This may differ from the cost of capital that is part of the cost-base charged to airspace users, for terminal ANS. See footnote 60.
Financial cost-effectiveness 55 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
0
150
300
450
600
750
900
1 050
1 200
1 350
1 500
1 650
NA
TA
Alb
ania
BU
LAT
SA
EN
AV
NA
TS
DF
S
Oro
Na
viga
cija
NA
VIA
IR
AN
S C
R
Mol
dAT
SA
DH
MI
Bel
goco
ntr
ol
Sky
guid
e
Aen
a
RO
MA
TS
A
LPS
SM
AT
SA
M-N
AV
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
AR
MA
TS
LFV
PA
NS
A
Cro
atia
Con
trol
LVN
L
IAA
Slo
veni
a C
ont
rol
HC
AA
DS
NA
LG
S
Fin
avi
a
Aus
tro
Con
trol
MU
AC
MA
TS
Hun
gar
oCo
ntro
l
NA
V P
ortu
gal
(F
IR L
isbo
a)
Avi
nor
EA
NS
UkS
AT
SE
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
WA
CC
app
lied
to
ass
et b
ase
Fixed assets in asset base Current assets in asset base WACC applied to asset base
Figure 4.19: Asset bases and average WACCs used to compute the cost of capital, 2010
Figure 4.19 shows that out of the 34 ANSPs reporting complete data on the calculation of the cost of capital, eight calculated a cost of capital based only on the value of fixed assets. The remaining 26 ANSPs included current assets which in some cases represent a significant proportion of the asset base. WACCs used to calculate the cost of capital are mostly in the range of 2-8% per year. Figure 4.19 indicates that the rates for MoldATSA, ARMATS and SMATSA are over 10% (20.7%, 15.3% and 12.3%, respectively). These higher (nominal) rates shall be seen in the light of the higher inflation in these countries (6-10% in 2010). On the other hand, some of the WACCs reported in Figure 4.19 appear high considering the low-risk nature of the ANS activity in a context of full-cost recovery for en-route ANS. Both the magnitude of the asset base and the level of the WACCs (and in particular the return on equity) would require further analysis in order to better understand the differences reported in Figure 4.19.
4.5 Performance ratios (2010)
Table 4.1 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 Section 4.4. 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 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 European system will have a performance ratio of one.
Financial cost-effectiveness 56 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
AT
CO
-hou
r pr
od
uctiv
ity
AT
CO
em
ploy
men
t co
sts
per
AT
CO
-hou
r*
Su
ppo
rt c
ost
ratio
*
AT
CO
em
ploy
men
t co
sts
per
co
mp
osi
te
fligh
t-h
our
*
Su
pp
ort
co
sts
pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
ou
r*
Aena ES 0.81 0.98 0.57 1.48 0.55 1.02ANS CR CZ 1.00 1.22 1.11 0.74 1.35 0.90ARMATS AM 1.20 0.18 12.72 0.52 2.32 0.99Austro Control AT 0.94 1.25 0.65 1.17 0.81 1.01Avinor NO 1.14 0.98 0.95 1.22 0.93 1.26Belgocontrol BE 0.58 0.90 0.73 0.87 0.66 0.55BULATSA BG 1.09 0.97 1.89 0.59 1.84 0.93Croatia Control HR 1.24 0.82 1.43 1.05 1.18 1.27DCAC Cyprus CY 1.52 1.01 2.11 0.71 2.14 1.36DFS DE 0.90 1.27 0.65 1.10 0.82 0.94DHMI TR 1.53 0.96 2.85 0.56 2.74 1.29DSNA FR 0.95 0.95 1.05 0.95 1.00 0.93EANS EE 2.43 1.17 2.41 0.86 2.83 2.29ENAV IT 0.89 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.88Finavia FI 1.29 0.84 1.31 1.16 1.11 1.38HCAA GR 1.37 0.90 1.26 1.21 1.13 1.51HungaroControl HU 1.00 1.03 1.29 0.76 1.33 0.91IAA IE 1.15 1.20 1.08 0.88 1.30 1.09LFV SE 1.08 0.80 1.08 1.25 0.86 1.21LGS LV 1.58 0.87 3.66 0.50 3.19 1.30LPS SK 0.79 0.81 1.40 0.69 1.13 0.70LVNL NL 0.68 1.17 0.72 0.81 0.84 0.63MATS MT 1.67 0.71 3.88 0.60 2.77 1.43M-NAV MK 0.97 0.33 3.25 0.89 1.08 0.92MoldATSA MD 0.97 0.29 8.16 0.41 2.37 0.78MUAC 1.64 2.41 0.61 1.11 1.48 1.72NATA Albania AL 0.99 0.73 4.45 0.30 3.27 0.77NATS UK 1.02 1.29 0.91 0.87 1.17 0.96NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) PT 1.21 1.21 0.82 1.22 1.00 1.34NAVIAIR DK 1.13 1.25 1.07 0.84 1.34 1.06Oro Navigacija LT 1.16 0.58 2.79 0.72 1.61 1.03PANSA PL 1.39 1.19 1.19 0.98 1.41 1.38ROMATSA RO 0.97 0.71 1.88 0.73 1.33 0.87Skyguide CH 0.77 1.40 0.73 0.76 1.02 0.70Slovenia Control SI 0.86 0.53 1.27 1.28 0.68 0.98SMATSA RS/ME 1.31 1.01 2.11 0.61 2.14 1.13UkSATSE UA 0.99 0.39 4.98 0.50 1.97 0.82
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Total European System
Performance ratiosPerformance ratios
ANSPs Country Fin
anci
al c
ost-
eff
ectiv
en
ess
KP
I in
dexe
s*
Table 4.1: The components of gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness, 201066
In Table 4.1 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 in Table 4.1). The following example for ANS CR illustrates the interpretation of the performance ratios: 66 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 Table 4.1), the inverse ratio is used, since higher unit employment costs and higher support costs imply lower cost-effectiveness.
Financial cost-effectiveness 57 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
1.00 ANS CR’s gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs per composite flight-hour are in line with (1/1.00 - 1) with the European average.
= 1.22 Its ATCO-hour productivity is +22% higher than the European average, and
X 1.11 the ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour of ANS CR are -10% lower (1/1.11 - 1) than the sample average.
X 0.74 This is outweighed by a higher support cost ratio, which is +35% higher (1/0.74 - 1) than the sample 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):
1.35 ANS CR’s ATCOs in OPS employment costs per composite flight-hour are -26% lower (1/1.35 - 1) than the European average, while
0.90 the support costs per composite flight-hour are +11% higher (1/0.90 - 1) than the sample average.
Financial cost-effectiveness 58 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010) 59 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
5 CHANGES IN FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS (2006-2010)
5.1 Introduction
This chapter examines the changes in financial cost-effectiveness between 2006 and 2010, both for the European system level and for individual ANSPs. The indicators presented in this chapter will not be directly comparable to those in individual ACE reports (including this one), for the following reasons:
• The sample of ANSPs must be consistent; this has to be the 36 which disclosed consistent information over the period67;
• The financial figures in previous years’ calculations have been restated in 2010 prices and 2010 exchange rates in order to ensure consistency in time series comparison. At European system level for the period 2006-2010, price indexes increased by +9.3% (i.e. some +2.2% per annum)68;
• As part of the experience and understanding gained from the last data validation process, the PRU has made some data adjustments in order to ensure comparability over time. These adjustments have been made in a fully transparent way with the cooperation of the participating ANSPs.
The main objective of this Chapter is to look at the medium term developments in financial cost-effectiveness for 2006-2010 at European system level and at ANSP level. A five year period forms a solid basis to derive medium term trends.
The period 2006-2010 was rich in changes and analysing the overall variation in cost-effectiveness cannot be done meaningfully without considering the main events characterising this period. Traffic was rising fast in 2007 (+5.8%) and continued to rise modestly in 2008 (+1.5%) reflecting the early impacts of the financial crisis in 2008. In 2009 the economic situation further deteriorated in Europe and the traffic controlled by ANSPs fell by an unprecedented -6.7%. In 2010, traffic rose by +2.1% to reach a level which is only +2.2% above that of 2006. At European system level, traffic rose by +2.1% in 2010, but this overall growth masks a contrasted situation across the various ANSPs, as illustrated in Figure 5.1. The year 2010 was also marked by a volcanic eruption in Iceland which created severe traffic disruptions across Europe. Although all ANSPs had to introduce specific measures, ANSPs operating on the southern border of Europe (NAV Portugal, Aena, MATS, DCAC Cyprus, HCAA and DHMI) were much less impacted by the volcanic ash crisis than other ANSPs.
Lower Airspace
Annual change in composite flight-hours (2009-2010)
ANSPs not included in trend analysis
< -4%
< 0%
>= 0%
> 4%
> 8%
Figure 5.1: Annual change in composite flight-hours between 2009 and 2010
67 This is not a serious limitation. Only ARMATS is omitted from the historical analysis since it did not start disclosing information until after the start of the period. The ANSPs included in this analysis comprise 99.9% of the 2010 sample in terms of output (composite flight-hours). 68 Source: Inflation rates (average consumer prices) from IMF database available at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/index.aspx.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010) 60 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Figure 5.1 also shows that while 29 ANSPs recorded traffic increases in 2010, the number of composite flight-hours decreased for eight ANSPs, including NATS and DSNA. The highest traffic increases are observed for ANSPs operating in Eastern Europe.
5.2 Medium term changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010)
5.2.1 Changes at European system level (2006-2010)
Figure 5.2 shows how the financial cost-effectiveness indicator has changed over time for Europe as a whole. The blue bars show the ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour, with all years expressed in the same price base (€2010), with the scale on the left-hand axis. To show how the indicator is driven by changes in traffic and costs, indexes of those variables are plotted as the orange and dark blue lines, respectively, with the scale on the right-hand axis. At European system level, unit ATM/CNS provision costs remained fairly constant between 2006 and 201069 (-0.3% in real terms over the period or an annual average of -0.1%). Figure 5.2 indicates that, after two years of moderate reduction (-1.1% in 2007 and -0.6% in 2008) and a staggering increase in 2009 (+8.7%), unit ATM/CNS provision costs significantly fell in 2010 (-6.8%). As indicated on the right-hand side of Figure 5.2, the cost-effectiveness improvement in 2010 results from a combination of a decrease in ATM/CNS provision costs (-4.8%) and an increase in traffic volumes (+2.1%).
-1.1% -0.6%
+8.7%-6.8%
0
100
200
300
400
500
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
€ p
er c
omp
osite
flig
ht-h
our
(201
0 pr
ice
s)
100
102
104
106
108
110
Ind
ex o
f co
sts
and
traf
fic
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour ATM/CNS provision costs index Composite flight-hours index
-4.8%
+0.9%
+4.7%
+1.4%
+5.8%
+1.5%
-6.7%
+2.1%
-10%-8%-6%-4%-2%0%2%4%6%8%
10%
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Figure 5.2: Changes in financial cost-effectiveness KPI (2006-2010, real terms)
This is an important result which indicates that the cost-containment measures implemented by several European ANSPs generated genuine cost savings which led to a decrease of ATM/CNS provision costs in 2010. It should be emphasised that total ATM/CNS provision costs never declined during the decade, even after the traffic downturn in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the outbreak of SARS70 in 2002.
5.2.2 Changes at ANSP level (2006-2010)
Figure 5.3 shows the annual changes in unit ATM/CNS provision costs for each ANSP, between 2006 and 2010 (yellow bars) and between 2009 and 2010 (blue bars). Between 2006 and 2010, unit costs fell for 19 out of 36 ANSPs. Among the five largest ANSPs, unit costs fell in real terms for Aena (-3.2% p.a.) and ENAV (-0.2% p.a.) between
69 It should be noted that in nominal terms, unit ATM/CNS provision costs increased by some +11% between 2006 and 2010, given that at European system level, price indexes increased by +9.3%. 70 Severe acute respiratory syndrome.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010) 61 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
2006 and 2010. On the other hand, during this period unit costs rose for DSNA (+3.0% p.a.), DFS (+1.1% p.a.) and NATS (+2.9% p.a.).
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
DS
NA
Aen
a
DF
S
NA
TS
EN
AV
DH
MI
Sky
gui
de
LFV
Avi
nor
Aus
tro
Co
ntro
l
UkS
AT
SE
HC
AA
LV
NL
Be
lgoc
ont
rol
RO
MA
TS
A
MU
AC
PA
NS
A
NA
V P
ort
ugal
(F
IR L
isbo
a)
AN
S C
R
IAA
NA
VIA
IR
Hu
ngar
oC
ont
rol
SM
AT
SA
BU
LAT
SA
Cro
atia
Co
ntro
l
Fin
avia
LP
S
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
Slo
ven
ia C
ont
rol
LGS
Oro
Nav
iga
cija
NA
TA
Alb
ani
a
MA
TS
EA
NS
M-N
AV
Mo
ldA
TS
A
An
nual
ch
ange
s in
gat
e-to
-gat
e un
it A
TM
/CN
Spr
ovis
ion
cost
s (%
)
Annual changes in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2006-2010 Changes in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2009-2010
European system average (2006-2010): -0.1% p.a.
58% of European system ATM/CNS provision costs
Figure 5.3: Annual changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour, 2006-2010 (real terms)
Figure 5.3 also shows that between 2009 and 2010 (see blue bars) unit costs fell for 24 ANSPs out of 36. Significant reductions (greater than 10%) are observed for seven ANSPs (Aena (-25%), NAV Portugal (-17%), ROMATSA (-16%), DHMI (-14%), HCAA (-14%), LVNL (-11%) and MATS (-11%)).
• For DHMI and ROMATSA, the reduction in ATM/CNS provision costs was exacerbated by a substantial increase in traffic volumes (+14.1% and +7.1%, respectively). Similarly, while in Malta the number of composite flight-hours increased by +12.7% in 2010, MATS could keep its ATM/CNS provision costs fairly constant (+0.8%).
• As already mentioned in Chapter 4, the significant reduction in Aena 2010 gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs mainly results from the implementation of a specific law (Law 9/2010), which introduced new working conditions and resulted in significantly lower ATCO employment costs.
• The -12.3% reduction in NAV Portugal 2010 ATM/CNS provision costs is mainly driven by (a) the cost-containment measures implemented by NAV Portugal (in line with the “Growing and Stability Programme” of the Portuguese Government), and (b) the fact that the 2009 en-route cost-base included exceptional costs relating to the depreciation of pension costs arising from a change in actuarial assumptions in 2005.
• LVNL ATM/CNS provision costs reduced by -10.5% in 2010. This significant decrease mainly reflects the fact that the 2009 cost-base included one-off exceptional costs associated with a staff reduction programme (reduction in the number of support staff of 128 FTEs by 2014 compared to 2008 (100 FTEs by end 2010 and a further 28 in 2014)).
• The substantial decrease in HCAA ATM/CNS provision costs (-11.9%) mainly reflects the implementation of an Economic Stability Programme in Greece which included, inter alia, reductions in the salaries of public administration employees in 2010.
A more detailed analysis of the changes in cost-effectiveness between 2009 and 2010, identifying the cost and the traffic effects is provided in Figure 5.4. This analysis builds on last year ACE Report findings which concluded that given short term rigidities to adjust costs
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010) 62 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
downwards and unavoidable lead time, it was likely that cost-containment measures implemented in 2009 would actually only have an impact on costs in 2010 and onwards.
ARMATS
MoldATSA
M-NAV
EANS
MATS
NATA Albania
Oro Navigacija
LGS
Slovenia Control
DCAC Cyprus
LPS
Finavia
Croatia Control
BULATSA
SMATSA
HungaroControl
NAVIAIR
IAA
ANS CR
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
PANSA
MUAC
ROMATSA
Belgocontrol
LVNLHCAA
UkSATSE
Austro Control
Avinor
LFV
Skyguide
DHMI
ENAV
NATS
DFS
Aena
DSNA
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
-5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Changes in composite flight-hours (2009-2010)
Cha
nges
in A
TM
/CN
S p
rovi
sion
co
sts
(200
9-20
10)
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs
Figure 5.4: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic volumes (2009-2010)
Figure 5.4 shows that 16 ANSPs could reduce their ATM/CNS provision costs between 2009 and 2010 (see bottom part of the chart). At face value, this indicates for these ANSPs a certain degree of reactivity and would suggest that cost-containment measures have been implemented. For four ANSPs (Belgocontrol, M-NAV, NATS and DSNA) these reductions were sufficient to outweigh the decrease in traffic and to achieve reductions in unit costs in 2010. Figure 5.4 also indicates that for 12 ANSPs (Avinor, Croatia Control, EANS, HungaroControl, IAA, LFV, LGS, MoldATSA, NATA Albania, Oro Navigacija, SMATSA and UkSATSE) ATM/CNS provision costs increased by more than +5% in 2010. For MoldATSA, NATA Albania, Oro Navigacija and UkSATSE, this increase should be seen in the light of a substantial rise in composite flight-hours (more than +10% in 2010). All the five largest ANSPs could achieve a reduction in unit ATM/CNS provision costs in 2010 (Aena (-25%), ENAV (-2.8%), DFS (-3.8%), DSNA (-2.1%) and to a lower extent NATS (-0.7%)). For DSNA and NATS, these decreases should be seen in the light of a reduction in traffic volumes in 2010 (-1.3% and -4.2%, respectively). It should be noted that the decrease in DSNA unit ATM/CNS provision costs is affected by a change in data reporting. Indeed, in its 2010 data submission, DSNA separately identified the costs relating to irrecoverable VAT (i.e. some €40M) while these were reported as non-staff operating costs in previous years submissions. Without this change in reporting, DSNA 2010 unit ATM/CNS provision costs would have been slightly higher (+1.6%) than in 2009. Another complementary analysis71 to understand whether and where cost-containment measures have been implemented is to compare the actual 2010 ATM/CNS provision costs with the plans prepared in November 2008, that is when the impact of the financial crisis and economic downturn could not be reflected in ANSPs plans for 2010.
71 As part of the ACE 2007 data submission, both HCAA and UkSATSE did not provide 2010 gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs planned in Nov. 2008 and therefore, they could not be included in this analysis.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010) 63 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
European system level (in €2010) 2009 2010Planned costs in Nov. 2008 (M€) 7 685 7 778Actual costs (M€) 7 337 6 977Difference between actual costs and Nov. 2008 plans (M€) -349 -800Difference between actual costs and Nov. 2008 plans (%) -4.5% -10.3%
Planned composite flight-hours in Nov. 2008 ('000) 17 504 18 046Actual composite flight-hours ('000) 16 093 16 423Difference between actual composite flight-hours and Nov. 2008 plans (%) -8.1% -9.0%
Table 5.1: Comparison of ATM/CNS provision costs and composite flight-hours at system level (data provided in Nov.‘08 versus Nov.‘11) (€2010)
Table 5.1 indicates that for 2009 and 2010, the actual number of composite flight-hours is some 8-9% lower than planned in November 2008. This reflects the impact of the sharp traffic downturn in 2009. Table 5.1 also shows that 2010 actual ATM/CNS provision costs are -10.3% lower than planned in November 2008 (compared to -4.5% for the year 2009). This is a clear indication that, due to short term rigidities and unavoidable lead time to adjust ANS costs downwards, the impact of the cost-containment measures introduced in 2009 mainly materialised in 2010. The “savings” for the year 2010 compared to the plans are valued at some €800M at European system level. This remarkable achievement indicates that, as a whole, the ANS industry was reactive and showed flexibility to adjust costs downwards in response to the sharp traffic decrease in 2009. In order to better understand how these cost-containment measures impacted ANSPs cost-bases and which ANSPs mostly contributed to lower the ATM/CNS provision costs planned for 2010 in November 2008, Figure 5.5 below shows the difference between actual and planned 2010 ATM/CNS provision costs. Similarly, the difference between the actual and planned 2010 traffic is shown on the y-axis.
NATA Albania
ROMATSA
NATS
LFV
HungaroControl
Skyguide
Austro Control
DHMI
LPS
NAVIAIR
ENAV
MATS
ANS CR
Slovenia Control
DSNA
BULATSA
Finavia
LVNL
Croatia ControlDCAC Cyprus
MUAC
Belgocontrol
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
M-NAV
DFS
EANS
SMATSA
Avinor
IAA
Aena
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
-25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Difference between 2010 actual gate-to-gate costs and plans for 2010 provided in Nov. 2008
Dif
fere
nce
be
twee
n 2
010
act
ual
co
mp
osi
te f
lig
ht-
ho
urs
an
d p
lan
s fo
r 20
10 p
rovi
ded
in
No
v. 2
008
I
II
III
IV
2010 actual costs higher than planned2010 actual costs lower than planned
201
0 ac
tual
tra
ffic
low
er
than
pla
nn
ed20
10 a
ctu
al t
raff
ic h
igh
er t
han
pla
nn
ed
Oro Navigacija
LGS
PANSA
MoldATSA
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Figure 5.5: Comparison of 2010 actual ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic with ACE 2007 plans72
72 As part of the ACE 2007 data submission NATS only provided 2010 en-route ATM/CNS provision costs. Therefore, in Figure 5.5 only the en-route flight-hours planned in ACE 2007 for 2010 have been considered for NATS.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010) 64 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Figure 5.5 shows that for 25 ANSPs, actual 2010 costs were lower than planned in November 2008 (and reported as part of the ACE 2007 data cycle). Among the five largest ANSPs, 2010 actual costs were lower than planned for Aena (-18%), DFS (-14%), NATS (-17%), DSNA (-12%) and to a lower extent for ENAV (-2%). Given their weight in the European system, the five largest ANSPs significantly contributed to reduce actual 2010 ATM/CNS provision costs by -10.3% compared to ACE 2007 plans. For six ANSPs, 2010 actual costs are more than -15% lower than planned in November 2008 (i.e. Oro Navigacija (-32%), LGS (-37%), Aena (-18%), IAA (-17%), PANSA (-22%) and NATS (-17%)). It should be noted, however, that these ANSPs (except Aena and NATS) were planning for significant costs increases compared to their 2007 levels. The right hand side of Figure 5.5 shows that for nine ANSPs, actual 2010 costs were higher than planned in November 2008. For three of them, MoldATSA (+48%), NATA Albania (+25%) and ROMATSA (+21%) actual costs were more than +20% higher than planned. It should be noted that in November 2008, ROMATSA was planning for significant cost reductions (-9% compared to 2007 baseline), which did not materialise in 2010. Some States/ANSPs also implemented specific measures focused on reducing or stabilizing the chargeable cost base in order to reduce the impact of the economic downturn on airspace users. The most notable examples include:
• Spain decided not to charge some 10% of its en-route cost-base in 2010.
• Similarly, in Switzerland, EUROCONTROL costs are borne by the Swiss government and not charged to the airspace users.
The impact of such measures is not fully reflected in Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5 since the objective of the ACE data analysis is to focus on the costs relating to the provision of ATM/CNS services and not on the costs charged to airspace users. However, it is noteworthy that some ANSPs could genuinely reduce ATM/CNS provision costs between 2009 and 2010 and at the same time decided not to charge a part of the cost-base to airspace users. This is particularly the case of Oro Navigacija and ANS CR which did not charge the cost of capital to airspace users in 2009 and 2010. Figure 5.5 above also shows that in 2010, actual traffic was lower than planned in ACE 2007 for all the ANSPs, with the exception of MoldATSA (+15%), and to a lower extent, MATS (+2%), NATA Albania (+1%) and DHMI (+1%). For nine ANSPs, the actual 2010 traffic was at least -10% below ACE 2007 plans. This is for example the case of DSNA (-14%) and NATS (-12%), despite the fact that DSNA was planning for a very modest growth and that NATS was already anticipating a decline in composite flight-hours. On the other hand, for PANSA (-31%) and Oro Navigacija (-20%), the optimistic traffic outlook shown in November 2008 did not materialise in 2010.
5.3 Changes in the components of financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010)
This section analyses the changes in the components of financial cost-effectiveness between 2006 and 2010 for the 36 ANSPs that have reported ACE data consistently since 2006. Year-on-year changes that can be observed in the charts could be due to:
• Genuine changes in performance;
• Changes in ANSPs data reporting; and,
• Known errors that were made in data submissions in earlier years and identified during the extensive data validation process carried out by the PRU. Where possible the PRU has made retrospective adjustments to ensure data consistency.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010) 65 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
The maturity in reporting has improved since 2006. Some, but not all, ANSPs have been able to revise their 2005-2008 data to be consistent with the data definitions used in 2009 and 2010. Therefore some caution is needed with the interpretation of these comparisons, since the results can be affected by changes in data reporting.
5.3.1 Changes at European system level (2006-2010)
Figure 5.6 shows how the various component ratios have contributed to the overall change in unit costs between 2006 and 2010 at European system level73:
• The left-hand side indicates that the increase in ATCO-hour productivity (+8.9%) was higher than the increase in ATCO employment costs (+7.3%). This resulted in lower ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour (-1.4%);
• The right-hand side indicates that support costs (+2.4%) rose slightly faster than traffic (+2.2%), and as a result support costs per composite flight-hour remained fairly constant (+0.2%) over the 2006-2010 period;
• The central part shows that, given the weights of ATCO costs (31%) and support costs (69%), overall unit costs remained fairly constant between 2006 and 2010 (-0.3%).
+8.9%+7.3%
-1.4% -0.3%
+0.2%
+2.2%+2.4%
"Traffic effect"
Increased ATCO-hour productivity
Decrease inunit ATM/CNS
provision costs2006-2010
"Support costs effect"
Increased employment
costs per ATCO-hour
Decreased ATCO
employment costs per
composite flight-hour
Increased support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 31%
Weight 69%
Figure 5.6: Breakdown of changes in financial cost-effectiveness, 2006-2010 (real terms)
The strong traffic decrease in 2009 led to a sharp increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs (+8.7%) which significantly affects the changes over 2006-2010 as shown in Figure 5.6. For this reason, Figure 5.7 below focuses on the changes between 2009 and 2010.
+6.6%
-5.1%
-10.9%
-6.8%
-4.9%
-2.9%
+2.1%
"Traffic effect"
Increased ATCO-hour productivity
Decrease inunit ATM/CNS
provision costs
2009-2010
"Support costs effect"
Decreased employment
costs per ATCO-hour
Decreased ATCO
employment costs per
composite flight-hour
Decreased support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 70%
Weight 30%
Figure 5.7: Breakdown of changes in financial cost-effectiveness, 2009-2010 (real terms)
73 Figure 5.6 does not include ARMATS, as it was not part of the ACE sample before 2009. For comparability purposes, ARMATS has been also excluded from the scope of Figure 5.7.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010) 66 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Figure 5.7 indicates that in 2010, ANSPs managed to substantially decrease employment costs per ATCO-hour (-5.1%), while increasing ATCO-hour productivity (+6.6%). These improvements combined with the decrease in support costs (-2.9%) and the +2.1% traffic increase contributed to the -6.8% reduction in unit ATM/CNS provision costs in 2010. Given the weight of Aena in the European system, the changes shown in Figure 5.7 in terms of ATCO-hour productivity and employment costs per ATCO-hour are heavily influenced by the implementation of Law 9/2010 in Spain74. The following sections provide an analysis of the changes in the three main components of the cost-effectiveness indicator: ATCO-hour productivity (Section 5.3.2), ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (Section 5.3.3), and support costs per composite flight-hour (Section 5.3.4).
5.3.2 Changes in ATCO-hour productivity at ANSP level (2006-2010)
As indicated in Figure 5.6, between 2006 and 2010 ATCO-hour productivity rose by +8.9% at European system level. Figure 5.8 shows that this overall change is driven by: • continuous productivity increases
over 2006-2008; • a significant decrease in 2009,
reflecting the -6.7% fall in traffic; and, • a +6.6% productivity increase in
2010, to reach a level (0.77) close to that achieved in 2008 (0.78).
+6.6%-6.4%
+3.9%+5.0%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Com
pos
ite fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Figure 5.8: Changes in ATCO-hour productivity (2006-2010)
Analysis shows that in 2010, ATCO-hours on duty reduced by -4.2% compared to 2009. This indicates that the traffic increase in 2010 (+2.1%) was absorbed using less resources than in 2009. Figure 5.9 shows that the productivity increase at European system level mainly results from an increase in the bottom quartile. This indicates that the rise at European level mainly reflects improvements in ANSPs with relatively lower ATCO-hour productivity levels, while the ATCO-hour productivity of ANSPs in the top quartile remained fairly constant.
0.530.56
0.58 0.58
0.62
0.91 0.920.95
0.92
0.86
0.710.73
0.770.75
0.78
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
AT
CO
-ho
ur
pe
r fli
gh
t-h
ou
r
Top Quartile European average Bottom Quartile
Figure 5.9: Improvement in ATCO-hour productivity (2006-2010)
The information presented in Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.8 for the European system level masks contrasted trends across ANSPs, hence the importance to look at changes in ATCO-hour productivity at ANSP level.
74 This law introduced new working conditions for 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 in the past.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010) 67 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Figure 5.10 shows the annual changes in ATCO-hour productivity for each ANSP, between 2006 and 2010 (yellow bars) and between 2009 and 2010 (blue bars). It also shows the levels of ATCO-hour productivity achieved in 2006 (blue dots).
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Mol
dAT
SA
RO
MA
TS
A
BU
LAT
SA
NA
TA
Alb
ani
a
Ae
na
UkS
AT
SE
MA
TS
SM
AT
SA
LPS
DF
S
NA
VIA
IR
PA
NS
A
DH
MI
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa
)
Oro
Nav
iga
cija
EN
AV
Bel
goco
ntro
l
HC
AA
Avi
nor
IAA
Aus
tro
Con
trol
MU
AC
NA
TS
Cro
atia
Con
trol
AN
S C
R
DS
NA
Sky
guid
e
Hun
garo
Con
trol
Fin
avi
a
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
LFV
LVN
L
Slo
ven
ia C
ontr
ol
LGS
M-N
AV
EA
NS
Ann
ual c
hang
es in
AT
CO
-hou
r p
rodu
ctiv
ity
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
AT
CO
-hou
r p
rodu
ctiv
ity
Annual changes in ATCO-hour productivity 2006-2010 Changes in ATCO-hour productivity 2009-2010 ATCO-hour productivity 2006
Figure 5.10: Average annual changes in ATCO-hour productivity at ANSP level (2006-2010 and 2009-2010)
Between 2006 and 2010, ATCO-hour productivity rose for 24 out of 36 ANSPs. The largest increases are observed for ANSPs starting from a relatively low level in 2006 and which benefited from a solid traffic growth over the period. The significant improvement in ATCO-hour productivity (+45%) observed for Spain in 2010 mainly result from the implementation of Law 09/2010 which resulted in significant reductions in the number of overtime hours performed by Aena ATCOs in OPS. Between 2006 and 2010, ATCO-hour productivity fell for 12 ANSPs. For most of these ANSPs, the decrease in productivity over the period 2006-2010 is mainly driven by a significant reduction in 2009 following the traffic downturn. Since the impact of the economic downturn on traffic was not of the same magnitude across all ANSPs, it is important to analyse the information provided in Figure 5.10 in the light of changes in traffic volumes between 2009 and 2010. It is also important to look at the changes in terms of ATCO-hours on duty75 in order to understand how each individual ANSP reacted to the lower traffic volumes in 2009. This information is provided in Table 5.2 where the change in each ANSP’s productivity indicator (A) between 2009 and 2010 has been broken down into a traffic volume effect (B) and an ATCO-hour effect (C).
75 It is possible that some of the ANSPs showing particularly large productivity changes have recorded ATCO-hours on duty inconsistently across the years. The figures for ATCO-hours on duty are often estimated figures, or figures used for planning purposes, which could deviate from actual hours on duty. Although the SEID V2.6 has brought further clarity and enhanced comparability, this is still an area where accurate and consistent reporting across all ANSPs remains a challenge.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010) 68 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
(A) (B) (C)
Ch
an
ge
s in
AT
CO
-ho
ur
pro
du
ctiv
ity 2
00
9-2
01
0
"Tra
ffic
effe
ct"
"AT
CO
-ho
ur
effe
ct"
Aena ES 44.7% 3.0% -28.8%ROMATSA RO 27.1% 7.1% -15.8%MoldATSA MD 25.9% 24.1% -1.5%ARMATS AM 20.6% 10.4% -8.5%DHMI TR 18.4% 14.1% -3.6%MATS MT 16.4% 12.7% -3.2%BULATSA BG 14.7% 2.4% -10.7%ENAV IT 8.2% 4.0% -3.9%Oro Navigacija LT 8.0% 11.9% 3.6%LGS LV 7.4% 3.5% -3.7%LPS SK 6.6% 5.7% -0.9%Finavia FI 6.4% 0.6% -5.5%IAA IE 6.1% -3.0% -8.6%SMATSA SB 4.9% 4.7% -0.2%PANSA PL 4.3% 5.7% 1.3%M-NAV MK 3.4% -2.0% -5.3%Slovenia Control SI 3.0% 3.3% 0.3%NAVIAIR DK 2.8% 3.7% 0.8%DCAC Cyprus CY 2.8% 7.0% 4.1%Belgocontrol BE 2.4% -0.2% -2.5%HCAA GR 2.2% 2.2% 0.0%DFS DE 1.9% 1.6% -0.3%MUAC 1.5% 2.1% 0.6%Austro Control AT 1.3% -0.5% -1.8%NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) PT 1.2% 5.4% 4.2%Croatia Control HR 0.8% 6.5% 5.6%ANS CR CZ 0.3% 2.6% 2.3%Skyguide CH 0.2% -0.6% -0.8%UkSATSE UA -0.2% 13.2% 13.4%LVNL NL -1.0% 0.3% 1.3%NATA Albania AL -1.4% 10.8% 12.3%NATS UK -2.0% -4.2% -2.2%DSNA FR -2.1% -1.3% 0.8%Avinor NO -3.4% 1.6% 5.2%HungaroControl HU -5.4% 0.1% 5.8%LFV SE -5.9% -0.2% 6.0%EANS EE -6.8% 3.2% 10.8%
Total European System (37 ANSPs) 6.6% 2.1% -4.2%
ANSPs Country
Table 5.2: Changes in ATCO-hours on duty and traffic volumes (2009-2010)
Table 5.2 indicates that 28 ANSPs achieved an increase in ATCO-hour productivity in 2010. The most significant increases in productivity are observed for Aena (+44.7%), ROMATSA (+27.1%), MoldATSA (+25.9%), ARMATS (+20.6%), DHMI (+18.4%), MATS (+16.4%), and BULATSA (+14.7%). It should be noted that for IAA (+6.1%) M-NAV (+3.4%) Belgocontrol (+2.4%) and Austro Control (+1.3%), the increase in ATCO-hour productivity was achieved despite a context of traffic decrease. Table 5.2 also shows that 19 ANSPs could achieve a reduction in the number of ATCO-hours on duty in 2010. This indicates a certain flexibility to deploy operational staff (for example through the use of less overtime hours) to better adapt to the sharp decrease in traffic volumes. ATCO-hour productivity increased for 18 of these 19 ANSPs in 2010. On the other hand, for NATS, the reduction in ATCO-hours on duty (-2.2%) was not sufficient to compensate for the decrease in traffic (-4.2%) and therefore to avoid a decrease in ATCO-hour productivity between 2009 and 2010 (-2.0%).
Positive values in column (A) mean that productivity improvedbetween 2009 and 2010. Positive values in column (B) mean that traffic volumes rose between 2009 and 2010. Positive values in column (C) mean that the number of ATCO-hours rose between 2009 and 2010. 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: DFS’s 2010productivity is +1.9% higher than in 2009 because the traffic increased by +1.6% while the number of ATCO-hours decreased by -0.3%. 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).
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010) 69 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
It can be also noted that for some ANSPs such as EANS, LFV, HungaroControl and Avinor, the decrease in productivity between 2009 and 2010 is mainly due to a significant increase in ATCO-hours on duty.
ATCO productivity improvements 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. In other words, if the traffic growth observed in 2010 further develops in the next years, there is an opportunity to increase ATCO-hour productivity without significantly affecting the other components of cost-effectiveness, while ensuring safety standards.
5.3.3 Changes in ATCO employment costs at ANSP level (2006-2010)
As indicated in Figure 5.6, between 2006 and 2010 ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour increased by +7.3% in real terms at European system level. Figure 5.11 shows that this overall change is driven by:
• a significant employment costs increase in 2007 (+7.5%) and smaller increases in 2008 (+3.3%) and 2009 (+1.8%); and
• a significant decrease in 2010 (-5.1%).
+7.5% +3.3% +1.8%-5.1%
+2.0%+3.5%+3.7%+7.0%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
€ p
er
AT
CO
-hou
r o
n du
ty (
201
0 p
rice
s)
36 ANSPs 35 ANSPs (excl. Aena)
Figure 5.11: Changes in ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (2006-2010)
The decrease in employment costs per ATCO-hour observed in 2010 at European system level (-5.1%) is mainly driven by the reduction of ATCO employment costs at Aena. For this reason, Figure 5.11 also shows the changes in employment costs per ATCO-hour excluding Aena (i.e. see orange bars, +2.0% in 2010). Figure 5.12 shows the annual changes for each ANSP between 2006 and 2010 (yellow bars), and between 2009 and 2010 (blue bars). Between 2006 and 2010, ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour rose for 29 out of 36 ANSPs. In four ANSPs (NATA Albania (+22.2%), MoldATSA (+16.1%), UkSATSE (+15.0%) and Oro Navigacija (+11.2%)), these increases were greater or equal than +10% a year. These four ANSPs all tended to have relatively low levels of ATCO employment costs in 2006. These remain comparatively low in 2010, even after PPP adjustment (see Figure 4.10, p. 48).
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010) 70 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
NA
TA
Alb
ania
Mol
dAT
SA
UkS
AT
SE
Oro
Nav
igac
ija
LV
NL
DH
MI
M-N
AV
Avi
nor
LFV
PA
NS
A
DF
S
NA
VIA
IR
MA
TS
DS
NA
Hu
ngar
oCo
ntro
l
NA
TS
MU
AC
Aus
tro
Co
ntro
l
RO
MA
TS
A
Slo
ven
ia C
ontr
ol
SM
AT
SA
LPS
IAA
Cro
atia
Co
ntro
l
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
EN
AV
Bel
goco
ntro
l
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa)
Sky
guid
e
BU
LAT
SA
HC
AA
AN
S C
R
Fin
avia
Aen
a
LGS
EA
NS
Ann
ual
cha
nges
in A
TC
O e
mpl
oym
ent c
osts
per
AT
CO
-h
our
-105
-70
-35
0
35
70
105
140
175
210
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on
duty
Annual changes in ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO-hour 2006-2010
Changes in ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO-hour 2009-2010
ATCO employment costsper ATCO-hour 2006
Figure 5.12: Average annual changes in ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour, 2006-2010 and 2009-2010 (real terms)
Figure 5.12 also indicates that between 2009 and 2010, employment costs per ATCO-hour increased by more than +15% for five ANSPs, namely NATA Albania (+96%), UkSATSE (+57%), DHMI (+25%), LGS (+18%) and MoldATSA (+17%). It should be noted that the large change in employment costs per ATCO-hour observed for NATA Albania in 2010 might be driven by changes in data reporting. 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 many cases salary conditions are negotiated every year. Employment costs can be profoundly affected by pension arrangements, and particularly whether the pension scheme is defined benefit or defined contribution. In recent years there has been increasing recognition that traditional methods of accounting for the costs of providing for future pensions tend to under-represent costs. New methods, now mandated by IFRS, make a fairer provision for these costs. In the cases where this has been fully applied, recognition of the true costs has resulted in very substantial increases in employment costs, as well as exceptional costs. The impact of this is likely to spread as it is recognised in more and more ANSPs. This is an area which requires the utmost attention given the long term consequences of pensions-related decisions and their magnitude in the cost bases.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010) 71 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
5.3.4 Changes in support costs per composite flight-hour (2006-2010)
As indicated in Figure 5.6, support costs per composite flight-hours remained fairly constant between 2006 and 2010 (i.e. +0.2% in real terms) at European system level. Figure 5.13 shows that with the exception of 2009 (+8.7%), decreases in unit support costs were achieved in all years over the 2006-2010 period. This is particularly the case in 2010 with a reduction of -4.9%. Figure 5.13 also indicates that in 2010, unit support costs (€294) are close to their 2006 level.
-2.5% -0.6%+8.7%
-4.9%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
€ p
er c
ompo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(201
0 pr
ices
)
Figure 5.13: Changes in support costs per composite flight-hour (2006-2010)
Figure 5.14 displays the annual changes in unit support costs for each ANSP76 between 2006 and 2010 (yellow bars) and between 2009 and 2010 (blue bar).
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
LFV
Hun
garo
Con
tro
l
NA
VIA
IR
IAA
Slo
veni
a C
ont
rol
Ae
na
MU
AC
NA
TS
Fin
avi
a
PA
NS
A
Avi
nor
DS
NA
Sky
gui
de
Au
stro
Con
trol
NA
TA
Alb
ani
a
DF
S
EN
AV
SM
AT
SA
Mol
dAT
SA
LP
S
LVN
L
EA
NS
Bel
goco
ntr
ol
UkS
AT
SE
AN
S C
R
LG
S
RO
MA
TS
A
Cro
atia
Con
tro
l
M-N
AV
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
NA
V P
ort
uga
l (F
IR L
isb
oa)
MA
TS
Oro
Nav
igac
ija
BU
LAT
SA
DH
MI
HC
AA
Ann
ual
cha
nge
s in
sup
por
t co
sts
per
com
posi
te f
light
-hou
r
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
Changes in support costs per composite flight-hour 2006-2010
Changes in support costs per composite flight-hour 2009-2010
Support costs per composite flight-hour 2006
Figure 5.14: Average annual change in support cost per composite flight-hour at ANSP level, 2006-2010 and 2009-2010 (real terms)
Between 2006 and 2010, unit support costs fell for 21 ANSPs, and for two ANSPs the reduction was greater than 10% p.a. (DHMI and HCAA). On the other hand, increases in unit support costs larger than +5% p.a. are observed for LFV, HungaroControl, NAVIAIR and IAA. In 2010, 25 ANSPs were in a position to reduce unit support costs (see blue bars in Figure 5.14 above). Support costs are made of non-ATCO in OPS employment costs, non-staff operating costs and capital-related costs. A number of factors have an impact on these costs, some of them are identified below.
76 See also footnote 65, p. 54 for the reported cost of capital for Oro Navigacija and ANS CR.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010) 72 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Non-ATCO in OPS employment costs can be affected by:
• 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.
Non-staff operating costs can be affected by:
• The terms and conditions for renegotiation 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).
Capital-related costs can be affected by:
• The extent of the investment programme.
• Accounting life of the assets.
• The degree to which assets are owned or rented. There are trade-offs among all the components of support costs. For example, outsourcing maintenance activities will reduce non-ATCO in OPS employment costs but increase non-staff operating costs. Similarly, renting rather than owning an asset will reduce capital-related costs but increase non-staff operating costs. Each ANSP should seek opportunities for change and evaluate them rigorously, taking into account all elements of support costs. The right-hand-side of Figure 5.15 below indicates that the -4.9% decrease in unit support costs achieved between 2009 and 2010 results from the combination of lower support costs (-2.9%) with higher traffic than in 2009 (+2.1%). The left-hand-side of Figure 5.15 shows that between 2009 and 2010, all the components of unit support costs decreased at European system level.
-2.8%
-7.4%
-5.9%-4.9%
-2.9%
+2.1%Decreased unit capital-related
costs
Decreased unit non-staff operating
costs (incl. exceptional costs)
Decreased unit employment costs
(exc. ATCOs in OPS)
Decrease insupport costs per composite
flight-hour2009-2010
"Support costs effect"
"Traffic effect"
Weight 47%
Weight 27%
Weight 26%
Figure 5.15: Changes in the components of support costs per composite flight-hour, 2009-2010 (real terms)
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010) 73 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Figure 5.16 shows the changes in the different components of support costs (see the “support costs effect” bar on the right-hand side of Figure 5.15) between 2009 and 2010. Figure 5.16 also indicates that the main contributor for the decrease in support costs is the reduction in non-staff operating costs (-4.5%, or -€63M).
-0.8%
-4.5%
-2.5%
-6.4%
-16.5%
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non-staffoperating
costs
Depreciationcosts
Cost ofcapital
Exceptionalcosts
Mill
ion
€
Figure 5.16: Changes in the components of support costs (2009-2010)
Reductions in the cost of capital (-€31M) and depreciation costs (-€23M) might reflect the postponement of non-essential investment projects, as well as the decision to lower the weighted average cost of capital charged to airspace users in the context of the cost-containment measures implemented in 2009 and 2010 (see also Figure 4.19, p. 55). Another contributions to the decrease in support costs are the reduction in exceptional costs (-€20M, mainly driven by a significant decrease in IFRS transition costs for DFS in 2010) and the decrease in employment costs for support staff (-€19M). Table 5.3 shows the changes in the various components of support costs for individual ANSPs. The right-hand-part of Table 5.3 shows how the three components of support costs (employment costs for “support” staff, non-staff operating costs (including exceptional costs) and capital-related costs) have changed over time for individual ANSPs.
ANSPs Country Cha
nges
in s
uppo
rt
cost
s 20
09-2
010
Sta
ff c
osts
(ex
c.
AT
CO
s in
OP
S)
2009
-201
0
Non
-sta
ff o
pera
ting
cost
s 20
09-2
010
Cap
ital r
elat
ed
cost
s 20
09-2
010
Exc
eptio
nal c
osts
20
09-2
010
HungaroControl HU 23.5% 0.2% -3.8% -13.3%
MoldATSA MD 17.3% -10.2% 29.6% 33.0%
SMATSA YU 12.9% 3.3% 7.8% 27.5% 11.7%
Oro Navigacija LT 12.0% -1.4% 6.1% 33.6%
IAA IE 11.5% 25.8% -4.2% 9.9%
LFV SE 8.0% 40.6% -17.7% -12.7%
EANS EE 6.2% 15.8% 7.5% -2.8%
NATA Albania AL 5.9% 20.3% 1.3% 4.6%
LGS LV 4.8% 16.2% -3.9% 0.0%
Austro Control AT 4.7% 8.7% 9.7% -9.3%
Slovenia Control SI 4.1% 9.1% 5.0% 2.4% -78.3%
Croatia Control HR 2.6% -0.6% 5.7% 5.1%
LPS SK 2.6% 12.7% -3.4% -4.5%
UkSATSE UA 1.8% 6.5% -46.1% 55.8% 132.2%
ENAV IT 1.5% 2.4% 3.7% -1.9% -3.3%
MUAC 0.1% 3.4% -16.9% 3.3%
Skyguide CH 0.0% 4.8% 0.5% -4.8% -79.1%
MATS MT -0.3% -0.8% 15.2% -34.2%
ARMATS AM -1.0% -4.8% -7.3% 4.3% 205.8%
Avinor NO -1.5% -5.3% 1.5% 5.9%
ANS CR CZ -1.9% 4.6% -5.4% -7.8%
NATS UK -4.0% -9.8% 2.6% 1.3% -16.7%
DSNA FR -4.2% -1.1% -6.7% -10.0%
DCAC Cyprus CY -4.4% -20.7% 4.0% -9.8%
PANSA PL -4.7% -8.2% 3.9% -1.1%
Belgocontrol BE -4.8% -4.1% 0.4% 5.4% -93.7%
Aena ES -4.9% -4.5% -14.3% 4.2% -15.3%
NAVIAIR DK -5.0% 1.8% -2.3% -19.0%
DHMI TR -5.2% -1.6% -0.9% -12.6%
Finavia FI -5.3% -17.4% 36.1% -26.5%
DFS DE -5.3% 11.2% -2.2% -18.7% -55.2%
ROMATSA RO -5.5% 14.7% -31.7% -6.0% -17.5%
BULATSA BG -6.3% 4.5% -17.6% -15.4%M-NAV MK -6.7% -8.8% -8.1% -2.3%
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) PT -14.7% -15.9% -15.3% -7.2%
LVNL NL -15.4% -25.9% 11.5% 9.0%
HCAA GR -15.6% -24.9% 18.9% -8.8%
Total European System (37 ANSPs) -2.9% -0.8% -4.5% -3.9% -16.5%
Table 5.3: Breakdown of changes in support costs, 2009-2010 (real terms)
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2010) 74 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Table 5.3 shows that in 2010, support costs decreased in real terms for 21 ANSPs. This result clearly indicates a certain degree of reactivity and suggests that cost-containment measures were implemented by most of these ANSPs. Table 5.3 indicates that support costs increased by more than +20% in 2010 for HungaroControl (+23.5%). This rise is mainly driven by the reporting of exceptional costs (i.e. €16.7M) which reflect the inclusion of one-off exceptional pension-related costs in the 2010 cost-base. For some ANSPs, the increase in support costs in 2010 was compensated by a rise in traffic volumes, therefore resulting in a decrease of unit support costs. This is particularly the case for NATA Albania, LPS and UkSATSE. Between 2009 and 2010, at the exception of ENAV (+1.5%), support costs substantially decreased for all the five largest ANSPs: DSNA (-4.2%), DFS (-5.3%), NATS (-4.0%) and Aena (-4.9%). In 2010, non-ATCOs in OPS employment costs (which are the largest component of support costs) increased for DFS (+11.2%), while they substantially reduced for NATS (-9.8%), Aena (-4.5%) and to a lower extent DSNA (-1.1%). For DFS, the rise in non-ATCOs in OPS employment costs in 2010 (+11.2%) was partly driven by a +6.9% increase in the number of support staff indicated in Figure 5.17.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
Aena DFS DSNA ENAV NATS
FT
E
ATCOs in OPS Support staff
Figure 5.17: Changes in ATCOs in OPS and “support” staff for the five largest ANSPs (2006-2010)
Figure 5.17 also shows that for NATS, the substantial decrease in support staff between 2009 and 2010 (-4.6%) contributed to reduce non-ATCOs in OPS employment costs (-9.8%).
Forward-looking financial cost-effectiveness (2011-2015) 75 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
6 FORWARD-LOOKING FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS (2011-2015)
6.1 Introduction
Besides the disclosure of 2010 data, the SEID requires ANSPs to report five years forward-looking data on plans and projections of traffic demand, costs, staff, capital expenditure and ATC capacity. The objective of this chapter is to aggregate ANSP forward-looking plans and projections in order to assess the cost-effectiveness of the European ATM system as a whole over the 2011-2015 period. Unfortunately, some ANSPs did not provide complete forward-looking data covering the 2011-2015 period, limiting the ability to compute the forward-looking gate-to-gate financial cost-effectiveness KPIs until 2015, and/or the factors affecting future economic performance, namely the planned capital expenditures (capex) and the planned staff and capacity data. The maps displayed in Figure 6.1 show the status of data submission to compute the gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour77. It should be noted that for the first time, NATS was in a position to provide planned costs and traffic data for terminal ANS.
Lower Airspace
Incomplete 2011-2015 data (En-Route)
Lower Airspace
Incomplete 2011-2015 data (Terminal)
Figure 6.1: Status of ANSPs planned costs and traffic data submission
The production of realistic and complete plans is an important element of ANSPs’ performance. EC Regulation 2096/2005 (20 December 2005) on Common Requirements for provision of ANS (which requires ANSPs to produce a Business Plan covering a minimum period of five years and comprising performance objectives in terms of cost-effectiveness) and the EC Regulation 1070/2009 on SES II (21 October 2009) in respect to the Performance Scheme, and its implementing rule (EC N°691/2010) should effectively contribute to enhance the level of maturity of ANSPs planning processes.
6.2 Forward-looking financial cost-effectiveness at European system level
This Section provides information for the ANSPs that consistently reported planned gate-to-gate forward-looking information until 2015.
77 Forward-looking data relating to Austro Control and Aena are included in Section 6.2 although these ANSPs did not report planned costs and traffic data for the year 2015.
Forward-looking financial cost-effectiveness (2011-2015) 76 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
+0.4% -1.5% -2.5% -3.1% -3.7%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
98
106
114
122
130
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 419 421 415 405 392 378
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 105 106 107 107
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 104 108 111 114
2010 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P 2015PEuropean system
-7%-7%
-10%
-9%
-8%-10%
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
2010 2011P 2012P
Gat
e-to
-gat
e A
TM
/CN
S c
osts
(Mill
ions
of E
uro)
14
16
18
20
22
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs (
Mill
ions
)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2010)Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2010)
Figure 6.2: Forward-looking cost-effectiveness at European system level (2010-2015, real terms)78
The left-hand side of Figure 6.2 shows that, at European system level, gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to increase in 2011 (+0.4%) and then decrease by -2.7% p.a. until 2015. Overall, gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to decrease by -10.0% between 2010 and 2015. For the years 2012-2014 which correspond to the SES Performance Scheme RP1, the unit costs profile is in line with States revised Performance Plans submitted at the end of 2011. The right-hand side of Figure 6.2 indicates that in ACE 2010, over the 2010-2012 period, both ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic forecasts have been revised downwards compared to the plans provided in ACE 2007. This reflects the impact of the sharp traffic downturn in 2009 on ACE 2010 plans and indicates that there was a significant degree of reactivity and flexibility from ANSPs to adjust actual and planned costs downwards. A more detailed analysis of the difference between actual 2010 costs and plans made in November 2008 (ACE 2007) is provided in Chapter 5 of this ACE Report. In ACE 2009, ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour were expected to reduce by -11% (or -2.3% p.a.) between 2009 and 2014. According to ACE 2010 plans, unit costs are forecast to decrease by -13% over the same period (or -2.7% p.a.).
Figure 6.3 shows that actual 2010 costs were much lower than planned in ACE 2009 (-3.2%). In other words, in ACE 2010, the changes in unit ATM/CNS provision costs over 2010-2014 are computed using a lower base than in ACE 2009.
Furthermore, Figure 6.3 also shows that in ACE 2010, over the 2011-2014 period, ACE 2009 ATM/CNS costs forecasts have been revised downwards in a greater magnitude than traffic volumes (-1.7% compared to -0.5%, on average over the period). This contributes to the more optimistic unit costs profile in ACE 2010 compared to ACE 2009 plans.
-3.2%-1.7%-0.9%-1.1%
-3.2%
-0.4%
-0.7%-0.8%
-0.3%+0.03%
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
2010 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Gat
e-to
-gat
e A
TM
/CN
S c
osts
(Mill
ions
of E
uro)
16
18
20
22
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs (
Mill
ions
)
Planned costs (ACE 2009) Planned costs (ACE 2010)
Planned traffic (ACE 2009) Planned traff ic (ACE 2010)
Figure 6.3: Changes in planned costs and traffic at European system level (2010-2014, real terms)
This analysis suggests that the cost-containment measures implemented by the ANSPs generated more savings than planned in 2010 and that additional benefits are expected for future years compared to ACE 2009 plans. 78 Aena and Austro Control did not provide complete forward-looking data for 2015. For this reason, in Figure 6.2, the costs and traffic indexes are not computed for the year 2015.
Forward-looking financial cost-effectiveness (2011-2015) 77 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
6.2.1 Changes in planned unit ATM/CNS provision costs at ANSP level
The overall trend in planned ATM/CNS unit cost at European level (see graph in Figure 6.2) is not uniform across Europe. Planned changes in real ATM/CNS unit costs at ANSP level for the period 2010-2015 are displayed in Figure 6.4 for the 35 ANSPs that reported planned unit ATM/CNS provision costs until 2015. Unit costs are planned to rise for eight ANSPs. Two ANSPs, MATS (+16%) and DHMI (+7%) plan for unit costs increases greater than +5% over the 2010-2015 period. Figure 6.4 indicates that 27 ANSPs plan reductions in unit costs between 2010 and 2015. This is particularly the case for MoldATSA (-36%), HCAA (-23%), Croatia Control (-22%), and Belgocontrol (-20%). Among the five largest ANSPs, unit ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to rise between 2010 and 2015 for DFS (+2%) and to decrease for ENAV (-11%) and DSNA (-10%). For NATS, unit ATM/CNS provision costs are expected to remain fairly constant over the 2010-2015 period (+0.5%). For Aena which only reported planned costs data until 2014, unit ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to decrease by -15% between 2010 and 2014. Similarly, for Austro Control which did not provide planned costs and traffic data for 2015, ATM/CNS provision costs are expected to decrease by -6% between 2010 and 2014.
6.3 Changes in fixed assets and capital expenditure (capex)
Figure 6.5 shows the proportion of fixed assets which are in operation and the average remaining accounting life of the asset base, for the ANSPs that consistently reported information on the net book value (NBV) of their fixed assets, between 2006 and 201079. The share of assets under construction remained close to 20% over the 2006-2010 period.
79 No data for ARMATS and HCAA are available for the 2005-2008 period. These two ANSPs are therefore excluded from Figure 6.5.
7%
0%
-7%
-10%
-11%
-14%
-14%
-16%
-7%
-23%
2%
2%
-18%
-8%
2%
16%
-13%
-14%
-16%-18%-22%
-4%
-9%
-7%
-10%
0%
-15%
-6%
5%
-36%
-5%
-17%-11%
2%-8%
-20%
Lower Airspace
Changes in unit ATM/CNS provision costs (2010-2015)
< -15%
[-15% to -4%]
] -4% to 5% ]
] 5% to 15% ]
> 15%
Data not provided
Figure 6.4: ANSPs planned changes in gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs (2010-2015, real terms)
Forward-looking financial cost-effectiveness (2011-2015) 78 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
The value of the assets under construction in 2010 amounted to some €1 702M at European system level, a value which is above the 2010 capex (€1 151M) indicating that assets relating to previous years capex are still not in operation. Among the five largest ANSPs, NATS and ENAV are those with the largest share of assets under construction (42% and 37% respectively). At European system level, the average remaining accounting life of fixed assets is slightly above six years in 2010, a value comparable to that of 2009. This value is highly dependent on the depreciation policy: a more rapid depreciation of new investments and/or write-offs of previous investments tends to reduce the remaining accounting life of fixed assets.
Figure 6.6 shows the capital expenditure (capex) and depreciation costs at European system level, between 2006 and 2014 for the 34 ANSPs that consistently reported this information over this period. In 2010, capex amounted to some €1 151M. It is noteworthy that some 56% of this capex originated from the five largest ANSPs. Overall, the planned cumulative capex for the period 2011-2015 amounts to some €5 677M and represents some 69% of the 2010 total ANS revenues (i.e. €8 210M, see Section 2.4). This indicates that substantial investments programmes are planned for the future years.
A significant proportion of these investments relate to major upgrades or to the replacement of existing ATM systems. It will be important, and a challenge, to start monitoring how these investments relate to IP1 or to the European ATM Master Plan, and gaining an understanding of the quantified contribution to performance improvements. Figure 6.7 compares the capex80 planned in ACE 2007 with the plans provided in ACE 2010 for the years 2010-2012. The actual 2010 capex have been -18% (or -€238M) below ACE 2007 plans. Furthermore, if in ACE 2009 the capex planned for the year 2011 were fairly in line with ACE 2007 plans, Figure 6.7 indicates that in ACE 2010, the 2011 capex have been revised
80 Note that ARMATS, BULATSA, DCAC Cyprus, EANS, HCAA and MoldATSA are excluded from Figure 6.7.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
0
3
6
9
12
15
Ye
ars
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (f ixed assets in operation)
Figure 6.5: Asset structure at European system level (2006-2010)
-2%3%
10%
-14%4%
7%-5% -3%
-2%-9%
7%-2%
10% 2% 5% 0%
0
250
500
750
1 000
1 250
1 500
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Ca
pe
x to
de
pre
cia
tion
ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+4.9%
-9.3%-18.1%
900
1 000
1 100
1 200
1 300
1 400
2010 2011 2012
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
ca
pe
x (M
illio
ns
of E
uro
)
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2010)
Figure 6.6: Forward-looking capex and
depreciation costs at European system level (2006-2014, real terms)
Figure 6.7: Changes in planned capex at European system level (2010-2012, real terms)
Forward-looking financial cost-effectiveness (2011-2015) 79 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
substantially downwards (i.e. -9%, or some -€114M). This suggests that several ANSPs revised their investment plans in the context of the cost-containment measures implemented following the traffic downturn in 2009.
6.3.1 Ratio of cumulative capex (2011-2014) to 2010 revenues at ANSP level
The cumulative capex (2011-2014)81 to 2010 revenues ratio is displayed in Figure 6.8 for each ANSP. The ratio is higher than 100% for 6 ANSPs, including, inter alia: LPS (113%), Croatia Control (112%), NATA Albania (111%), SMATSA (110%), LGS (109%) and UkSATSE (105%). This undoubtedly indicates substantial investments over the 2011-2014 period for these ANSPs, either as an extension of the present investment cycle (e.g. SMATSA, NATA Albania) or the start of a new investment cycle (e.g. UkSATSE, LGS or Croatia Control). Five ANSPs which are part of the FAB Central Europe (FAB CE) stand among the ANSPs with the highest cumulative capex to revenue ratio: LPS (113%), Croatia Control (112%), HungaroControl (91%), ANS CR (87%) and Slovenia Control (86%). In fact, all these ANSPs are planning, or have recently put into operation, significant investments, relating in particular to the construction of new ACC operational units and/or to major upgrades/replacement of ATM systems. Given that several ANSPs plan very substantial capital expenditures, and in order to better understand the specific investment cycles, it is particularly important that ANSPs provide some information on the nature and extent of the planned capex. Additional details on the nature of the major investment projects for each ANSPs are provided in Annex 7 of this Report.
6.4 Changes in ATCOs in OPS and en-route ATC capacity
Figure 6.9 shows the forward-looking projections for ATCOs in OPS until 2015, with a breakdown into those that are operational in ACCs and those that are working in terminal operational units (APPs+TWRs)82.
81 This analysis is based on the 2011-2014 period since Aena, EANS and NAVIAIR did not provided planned capex data for the year 2015. 82 ARMATS is not included in Figure 6.9.
55%
53%
68%
55%
68%
72%
39%
45%
33%
105%
43%
88%
83%
37%
19%
61%
69%
58%
50%
49%110%112%
91%
87%
53%
97%
109%
39%
61%
113% 59%
111%
83%
99%
86%
37%
58%
22%
Lower Airspace
Cumulative capex (2011-2014) to 2010 revenues ratio
] 0% to 50%]
] 50% to 100%]
] 100% to 150%]
> 150%
Data not provided
Figure 6.8: Ratio of ANSPs cumulative capex (2011-2014) to 2010 revenues
Forward-looking financial cost-effectiveness (2011-2015) 80 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
It should be noted that the decreases for ACCs and APPs+TWRs ATCOs in 2011 (i.e. -9%) are mainly due to the fact that Aena did not report the planned number of ACC and APP+TWR ATCOs83. At European system level, the total number of ATCOs in OPS is planned to increase by +4.8% between 2011 and 2015.
1% -1% 1% 0%
-9% 2% 2% 2% -1%
1% -1% 0% 2%-9% 2% 2% 1% -1%
1% 0% 2% -1%-9% 2% 1% 2% 0%
0
2 000
4 000
6 000
8 000
10 000
12 000
14 000
16 000
18 000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P 2015P
Nu
mb
er
of A
TC
Os
in O
PS
Total APPs+TWRs ACCs
Figure 6.9: Planned number of ATCOs in OPS at European system level (2006-2015)
Figure 6.10 shows the number of en-route sectors and corresponding sector-hours planned to be opened between 2011 and 2015. This information provides an insight into the planned level of ATC capacity84 until 2015. It should be noted that the apparent drop of sector-hours in 2011 (-6%) is mainly due to the fact that NATS did not report complete sector-hours data between 2011 and 2015. Figure 6.10 indicates that at European system level, for the 34 ANSPs that consistently reported this information, the total number of sector-hours is planned to increase by +8.2% between 2011 and 2014.
0% 0% -3% 1%
-6% 1%4%
3%2%
2 000 000
2 200 000
2 400 000
2 600 000
2 800 000
3 000 000
3 200 000
3 400 000
3 600 000
3 800 000
4 000 000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P 2015P
En
-ro
ute
se
cto
r-h
ou
rs
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1 000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011P 2012P2013P 2014P2015P
Nu
mb
er
of e
n-r
ou
te s
ect
ors
En-route sector-hours Number of en-route sectors
Figure 6.10: Planned number of en-route sectors and sector-hours at European system level (2006-
2015)
83 Austro Control, LVNL and NAVIAIR are included in Figure 6.9 although these ANSPs did not report planned ATCOs in OPS for 2015. 84 ARMATS and UkSATSE are not included in Figure 6.10.
Part III: Economic cost-effectiveness 81 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
PART III: ECONOMIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Part III: Economic cost-effectiveness 82 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Economic cost-effectiveness 83 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
7 ECONOMIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS
7.1 Introduction
An assessment of the overall economic performance of ANSPs shall take into account both the financial cost-effectiveness, presented in Part II, and the quality of service provided, such as efficient routings and adequate levels of ATC capacity, while ensuring ANS safety. As illustrated in Figure 7.1, there is to some extent a trade-off between financial cost-effectiveness and the quality of service provided.
Economic cost-effectiveness
Financial cost-effectiveness
Quality of service
Figure 7.1: Trade-off between cost-effectiveness and quality of service
Indeed, measures to expand ATC capacity and reduce delays may impose financial costs on airspace users. Therefore, if sole emphasis is placed on financial cost-effectiveness, it could disincentivise such measures, even when the benefits of delays saved outweigh the financial costs to the ANSP (and airspace users). The objectives of this chapter are twofold. Firstly, it is to explain how the quality of service is factually measured and valued in monetary terms.
Economic assessment & interdependencies
There are interdependencies between financial cost-effectiveness and operational performance, linked with demand-capacity balancing. Insufficient ATC capacity results in lower service quality (i.e. delays) with a negative impact on punctuality and airspace users’ costs; while ATC capacity higher than demand may contribute towards lower financial cost-effectiveness (underutilisation of resources). There are also interdependencies between flight-efficiency (economic & environmental impact) and delays (ATC capacity).
Secondly, it is to take a more comprehensive view of an ANSP cost-effectiveness performance by adding the quality of service dimension to the metrics presented in Part II of the report and articulating some of the key trade-offs that become more visible when considering a medium term perspective (five years).
7.2 The measures of quality of service
The quality of service provided by ANSPs impacts the efficiency of aircraft operations; inefficient routings or lack of adequate ATC capacity carry with them additional costs that need to be taken into consideration for a full economic assessment of ANSP performance. A number of factors affect aircraft operations and contribute to the quality of service that is provided to airspace users by an ANSP. These include:
• ATFM ground delays both en-route and airport;
• airborne holding (although these are mostly a consequence of airport constraints);
• horizontal flight-efficiency and the resulting route length extension; and
• vertical flight-efficiency and the resulting deviation from optimal vertical flight profile.
Economic cost-effectiveness 84 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Because of the close link between fuel burn and gaseous emissions85, the last three factors have also an environmental impact in terms of additional green house gases emissions (CO2, N2O, etc.) and emissions affecting local air quality (NOx, CO, PM, etc.), and hence external costs to society at large. As both ATFM delays and flight-efficiency have a cost to airspace users, there are internal trade-offs between these measures of quality of service. Moreover, it is likely that these trade-offs are exacerbated in particularly dense and congested airspaces. The PRU is currently developing a methodology to compute ANS-related inefficiencies at ANSP and FAB levels. It is therefore envisaged that in the future, ACE reports will also include ANS-related inefficiencies in the airborne phase (i.e. flight-efficiency) as part of the economic cost-effectiveness indicator. This would contribute to better reflect the quality of service associated with ATM/CNS provision, although it is important to bear in mind that local flight-efficiency improvements depend to some extent on civil/military coordination issues and European wide improvements in route and airspace designs: two issues which are not necessary under the full control of an ANSP and which might be better addressed at FAB level. For the present report, however, the ANS-related inefficiencies in the airborne phase are not sufficiently mature to permit full consideration in the evaluation of economic cost-effectiveness. As a consequence of this limitation, the quality of service associated with ATM/CNS provision by ANSPs is, for the time being, assessed only in terms of ATFM ground delays, which are calculated consistently for all EUROCONTROL States by the CFMU86.
To incorporate ATFM delays into the measure of cost-effectiveness, the costs of ATFM delays in this report are approximated to be €81 per minute.
ATFM delay costs The cost of ATFM delay is based on the findings of the study “European airline delay cost reference values” by the University of Westminster87 in March 2011. This study is an update of the report published in May 2004. It is based on more recent data and also brings a number of methodological improvements. One of the most important changes compared to the previous study is the consideration of “tactical” delays on the ground (engine off) below 15 minutes. Intuitively, this should reduce the average cost per minute, however other factors have significantly increased, and the overall result is a cost of €81 per minute (applicable to all ATFM delays), which is close to the €82 used in the ACE 2009 report (but which was applicable to ATFM delays above 15 minutes). The estimated costs of ATFM delays includes direct costs (crew, passenger compensation, etc.) the network effect (i.e. cost of reactionary delays) and the estimated costs to an airline to retain passenger loyalty. The cost of time lost by passengers is only partly reflected.
Unavoidably, there is some uncertainty in this estimate and, hence, corresponding cost estimates should be viewed with care. To ensure consistency in time series, the updated cost per minute of ATFM delays has been applied consistently to all years and to all ANSPs.
85 The emissions of CO2 are directly proportional to fuel consumption (3.15 kg CO2/ kg fuel). 86 EUROCONTROL Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU). 87http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/gallery/content/public/Docs/European%20airline%20delay%20cost%20reference%20values%20(Final%20Report,%20V3.2).pdf.
Economic cost-effectiveness 85 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
7.3 The measure of economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness
In this report, the indicator of economic cost-effectiveness is defined as ATM/CNS provision costs plus the costs of ATFM delay, all expressed per composite flight-hour88. The conceptual framework is illustrated in Figure 7.2. The analysis of financial cost-effectiveness is based on the ATM/CNS costs provided by the ANSPs, and is presented in Part II of this report (Chapters 4-6). Table 7.1 shows how the economic cost-effectiveness indicator has been calculated: the costs of ATFM delays are added to the ATM/CNS provision costs to obtain the economic costs of service provision (see column 10). The indicator of economic cost-effectiveness is the economic cost per composite flight-hour. While this approach enables to develop a more comprehensive view of an ANSP cost-effectiveness performance, there are also several drawbacks which need to be borne in mind for the interpretation of the results, in particular the factors affecting performance which are highlighted in Chapter 3. As shown in Table 7.1, ATFM delays vary significantly across the various ANSPs. In 2010, the five largest ANSPs which handle 53% of the European system traffic account for 72% of total ATFM delays. DSNA, DFS and Aena are the main contributors with 29%, 21% and 17% of the system ATFM delays, while NATS89 and ENAV contributed to 4.2% and 0.8%, respectively (see column 5 in Table 7.1). It is noteworthy that Austro Control, with a relatively low share of traffic (i.e. less than 3% of European system traffic) contributed to more than 5% of the total European ATFM delays. There are also a number of ANSPs with very low ATFM delay figures or for which no ATFM delay was reported in 2010 (i.e. LGS).
88 As defined in Annex 2 of this ACE Benchmarking Report. 89 It should be noted that the total ATFM delays data used in this ACE Report for NATS differ from the en-route attributable delays on which NERL delay bonus/penalty system is based in the context of the economic regulation regime in place in the UK.
• The data provided in Table 7.1 and Figure 7.3 relate to gate-to-gate ATFM delays and not only en-route delays; and,
• NERL attributable delays exclude delays relating to causes such as weather which are included in the total ATFM delays analysis in this report.
Costs of ATFM delays
Economic cost-effectiveness
indicator
EUROCONTROL/ PRU
Composite flight-hours
ATFM delay per unit output
Financial cost-effectiveness
indicator
Inputs
PerformanceIndicators
Outputs
ATM/CNS provision costs
Total ATM/CNS Costs (ANSP Level)
IFR airport movements
En-route flight-hours
Figure 7.2: Conceptual framework for the analysis of economic cost-effectiveness
Economic cost-effectiveness 86 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
(1) (2) (3) (4)=(2)+(3) (5) (6)=(4)x€81 (7) (8)=(1)/(7) (9)=(6)/(7) (10)=(8)+(9)
ANSPs Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
A
TM
/CN
S p
rovi
sio
n
cost
s (in
€'0
00)
AT
FM
del
ays
< 1
5 m
in.
('000
min
ute
s)
AT
FM
del
ays
> 1
5 m
in.
('000
min
ute
s)
Tot
al A
TF
M d
ela
ys
('00
0 m
inu
tes)
% s
har
e in
Eur
ope
an
syst
em
AT
FM
de
lays
Co
sts
of
AT
FM
de
lays
(in
€'0
00
)
Com
posi
te f
ligh
t-ho
urs
(in
'000
)
Fin
anci
al g
ate-
to-g
ate
co
st-e
ffec
tiven
ess
Cos
t of
de
lay
per
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
Eco
no
mic
co
st p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
Aena 930 573 728 3 848 4 576 16.7% 370 647 1 807 515 205 720ANS CR 114 714 26 111 137 0.5% 11 133 273 420 41 461ARMATS 6 333 0 0 0 0.0% 0 18 351 0 351BULATSA 73 330 0 0 0 0.0% 0 191 385 0 385Austro Control 171 450 319 1 124 1 442 5.2% 116 829 385 445 303 749Avinor 172 898 11 61 71 0.3% 5 772 469 368 12 381Belgocontrol 147 515 52 261 312 1.1% 25 283 204 725 124 849Croatia Control 68 851 93 378 471 1.7% 38 161 204 338 187 525DCAC Cyprus 40 663 113 896 1 008 3.7% 81 659 148 276 553 829DFS 877 736 1 022 4 676 5 698 20.7% 461 565 1 893 464 244 707DHMI 280 168 133 833 965 3.5% 78 189 1 024 274 76 350DSNA 1 137 731 815 7 091 7 906 28.8% 640 397 2 577 441 248 690EANS 10 732 1 4 5 0.0% 388 62 173 6 179ENAV 653 665 23 199 222 0.8% 17 996 1 387 471 13 484Finavia 57 480 6 20 26 0.1% 2 093 176 326 12 338HCAA 164 266 72 917 989 3.6% 80 099 537 306 149 455HungaroControl 93 736 0 1 2 0.0% 141 224 418 1 419IAA 112 731 3 31 34 0.1% 2 731 308 366 9 375LFV 206 263 25 106 130 0.5% 10 552 533 387 20 407LGS 21 101 0 0 0 0.0% 0 80 265 0 265LPS 48 755 8 28 36 0.1% 2 946 91 534 32 566LVNL 161 441 92 363 455 1.7% 36 830 263 614 140 754MATS 13 884 0 0 0 0.0% 6 55 251 0 251M-NAV 10 376 0 0 0 0.0% 0 24 434 0 434MoldATSA 7 881 0 0 0 0.0% 0 18 432 0 432MUAC 138 759 20 53 73 0.3% 5 924 543 255 11 266NATA Albania 18 724 5 19 24 0.1% 1 945 44 422 44 466NATS 703 647 146 994 1 141 4.2% 92 401 1 708 412 54 466NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) 119 368 6 45 51 0.2% 4 128 345 346 12 358NAVIAIR 109 643 8 52 60 0.2% 4 853 295 372 16 389Oro Navigacija 20 871 0 0 0 0.0% 0 58 363 0 363PANSA 127 801 163 516 679 2.5% 54 959 422 303 130 433ROMATSA 142 690 0 0 0 0.0% 39 330 433 0 433Skyguide 240 642 219 710 929 3.4% 75 257 444 542 169 711Slovenia Control 25 821 0 1 1 0.0% 74 53 485 1 486SMATSA 75 051 0 5 5 0.0% 420 235 319 2 321UkSATSE 168 295 3 23 26 0.1% 2 122 397 424 5 429
Total European System 7 475 585 4 111 23 365 27 476 100% 2 225 542 17 826 419 125 544
Table 7.1: Economic cost-effectiveness indicator, 2010
7.4 Comparison of economic cost-effectiveness (2010)
The overall economic cost-effectiveness indicator is not uniform across Europe. Figure 7.3 displays the comparison of the gate-to-gate economic cost per composite flight-hour by ANSP90. The economic cost effectiveness KPI at European system level amounts to €544 per composite flight-hour in 2010. The two dotted lines displayed in Figure 7.3 represent the bottom and top quartiles which provide an indication of the dispersion in economic unit costs across ANSPs. There is a difference of some €162 between the bottom and top quartile in Figure 7.3. This is higher than in 2009 (€154) and indicates that the dispersion increased in 2010. The economic cost-effectiveness indicator ranges from €849 (Belgocontrol) to €179 (EANS), a factor greater than five.
90 ENAV 2010 ATM/CNS provision costs comprise costs relating to ATC services (€37.9M) provided by the Italian Air Force (ITAF) mainly at regional civil/military airports.
Economic cost-effectiveness 87 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
179
251265266321
338350351358363375381385389407419429432433433434
455461466466484486525
566
690707711720
749754
829849
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Be
lgo
con
tro
l
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
LV
NL
Aus
tro
Co
ntro
l
Ae
na
Sky
gui
de
DF
S
DS
NA
LPS
Cro
atia
Co
ntro
l
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
EN
AV
NA
TS
NA
TA
Alb
ania
AN
S C
R
HC
AA
M-N
AV
RO
MA
TS
A
PA
NS
A
Mo
ldA
TS
A
UkS
AT
SE
Hun
gar
oCon
tro
l
LFV
NA
VIA
IR
BU
LAT
SA
Avi
nor
IAA
Oro
Nav
iga
cija
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa
)
AR
MA
TS
DH
MI
Fin
avi
a
SM
AT
SA
MU
AC
LGS
MA
TS
EA
NS
€ p
er c
om
posi
te f
ligh
t-ho
ur
Financial gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness Unit cost of en-route ATFM delays Unit cost of airport ATFM delays
European system average for economic cost-effectiveness: €544European system average for financial cost-effectiveness: €419
Figure 7.3: Economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness KPI, 2010
Figure 7.4 shows the geographical distribution of the share of ATFM delays in economic gate-to-gate unit costs by ANSP in 2010. For Aena, Austro Control, Croatia Control, DCAC Cyprus, DFS, DHMI, DSNA, HCAA, PANSA and Skyguide the estimated costs of ATFM delays account for more than 20% of the economic unit costs in 2010.
Lower Airspace
Share of ATFM delays in unit economic costs
= 0 %
> 0 %
> 5 %
> 10 %
> 15 %
> 20 %
Figure 7.4: Share of ATFM delays in unit economic costs, 2010
On the other hand, it is important to note that some of these ANSPs managed to reduce ATFM delays despite a significant increase in traffic in 2010. This is in particular the case for DHMI (+14%) and PANSA (+6%). Across Europe, ATFM delays contributed some 23% (12% in 2009) to the total economic gate-to-gate cost in 2010. The ash cloud in April 2010 caused a notable drop in traffic in April 2010, but the impact in terms of ATFM delays was relatively small because flights were cancelled instead of delayed.
Note that this economic cost-effectiveness indicator is a factual indicator. A genuine measurement of cost inefficiencies would require full account to be taken of identified and measurable exogenous factors such as cost of living, traffic complexity, and traffic variability (as described in Chapter 3).
466484
690707720
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Ae
na
DF
S
DS
NA
EN
AV
NA
TS
Economic cost-effectiveness 88 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Several ANSPs (e.g. DCAC Cyprus, Austro Control, PANSA) have had recurrent capacity issues for several years and could not implement the necessary measures to address them in 2010, although the traffic downturn in 2009 was an opportunity to significantly reduce the capacity gap. For DCAC Cyprus, the share of ATFM delays to the total economic costs rose from 55% in 2009 to 67% in 2010. This higher share mainly reflects a sharp increase in en-route ATFM delays (+62%). Austro Control’s share of ATFM delays to the total economic costs rose by +6 percentage points to reach 41% in 2010, despite a slight decrease in traffic volumes (-0.5%). For PANSA, ATFM delays are mainly relating to the technical limitations of the current ATM system and to a shortage of ATCOs. It is expected that the new ATM system Pegasus-21, which is planned to be commissioned in 2012, will contribute to improve this situation. Amongst the five largest ANSPs, for DSNA (36%), DFS (34%) and Aena (28%) the share of ATFM delays amounts to more than 20% of the economic costs. The increase in ATFM delays for DFS was mainly due to staff training relating to the implementation of the VAFORIT system in Rhein ACC. The large share for DSNA and Aena reflects an increase in ATFM delays mainly relating to social tensions (for Aena this is mainly due to the transition period that was on-going in Spain in 2010). Figure 7.5 shows the breakdown of ATFM delays by type and delay cause. Airport ATFM delays represent 30% of the total ATFM delays of which 51% are caused by weather and environment issues which may be difficult for the ANSP to influence. However, 40% of airport ATFM delays result from aerodrome or ATC capacity problems. This can rise up to 100% in individual ANSPs (see Figure 7.6 below).
En-route ATFM delays70%
Airport ATFM delays30%
9%
51%
40%
Other
Aerodrome & ATC capacity
Weather and environment
Figure 7.5: Breakdown of ATFM delays, 2010
As indicated above, ATFM delays (and the associated costs to airspace users) arise from both en-route and airport ATFM delays. The results should be interpreted with a degree of caution, especially in cases where ATFM delays largely arise from airport ATFM delays. Airport ATFM delays, and associated costs, may arise from airport constraints, which are outside the direct control of the respective ANSP (such as compliance with environmental constraints or lack of airport infrastructure). Figure 7.6 shows the distribution of delays by cause for those ANSPs with more than 100 000 minutes of ATFM delays. The number of these ANSPs increased from 15 to 16, between 2009 and 2010.
Economic cost-effectiveness 89 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Airp
ort
En
-rou
te
Airp
ort
En
-rou
te
Airp
ort
En
-rou
te
Airp
ort
En
-rou
te
Airp
ort
En
-rou
te
Airp
ort
En
-rou
te
Airp
ort
En
-rou
te
Airp
ort
En
-rou
te
Airp
ort
En
-rou
te
Airp
ort
En
-rou
te
Airp
ort
En
-rou
te
Airp
ort
En
-rou
te
Airp
ort
En
-rou
te
Airp
ort
En
-rou
te
Airp
ort
En
-rou
te
Airp
ort
En
-rou
te
Aena ANS CR AustroControl
Belgocontrol CroatiaControl
DCACCyprus
DFS DHMI DSNA ENAV HCAA LFV LVNL NATS PANSA Skyguide
En-route Other
En-route Weather
En-route ATC capacity
Airport Other
Airport Weather
Airport ATC & Aerodromecapacity
Figure 7.6: Causes of en-route and airport ATFM delays, 2010
Figure 7.6 indicates that en-route ATFM delays for the most of the ANSPs are mainly associated with ATC capacity issues (see purple bar). The airport ATFM delays recorded for Aena, Austro Control, Croatia Control, DCAC Cyprus, DHMI, HCAA and Skyguide are mainly associated with aerodrome capacity issues (see light blue bar). On the other hand, the airport ATFM delays for ANS CR, Belgocontrol, DFS, DSNA, ENAV, LFV, LVNL, NATS and PANSA are mainly due to weather (see green bar). This reflects the impact of the adverse weather conditions faced by these ANSPs during the 2010 winter season. In absence of exceptional events (i.e. severe weather, industrial actions, etc.), the level of ATFM delays should mainly depend on the extent to which the ATC capacity provided by an ANSP is in line with the traffic demand. In the medium-term, the level of capacity provided can be gradually increased through a variety of measures including the recruitment of additional ATCOs and capital investment (e.g. ATM systems with higher capabilities, etc.). Between 2006 and 2010, ANSPs invested some €6.0 billion with different investment cycles and magnitudes across ANSPs. Average ANSPs “capex to revenue” ratios – a measure of the magnitude of the investment - for the period 2006-2010 are shown in Figure 7.7. For 16 ANSPs, the “capex to revenue” ratio is higher than 15% indicating substantial investments on the period.
Lower Airspace
Cumulative capex to revenue ratio (2006-2010)
<= 5 %
> 5 %
> 10 %
> 15 %
> 20 %
Data not provided
Figure 7.7: ANSPs cumulative capex (2006-2010)
Economic cost-effectiveness 90 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
7.5 Trends in economic cost-effectiveness (2006-2010)
This section analyses the changes of the economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness indicator between 2006 and 2010 at European system level. Note that, for the reasons detailed in Chapter 5, the indicators presented in this section are not directly comparable to those in previous ACE reports.
+1.0% +1.2% +0.7%+4.6%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(20
10 p
rice
s)
Unit costs of airport ATFM delaysUnit costs of en-route ATFM delaysATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+5.8%
+1.5%
-6.7%
+11.1%+9.2%
+4.7%
+0.9% +1.4%
-4.8%
+2.1%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours Unit costs of ATFM delays
-31.6%
77.5%
Figure 7.8: Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (2006-2010, real terms)
The left-hand side of Figure 7.8 shows that at system level, economic costs per composite flight-hour slightly increased between 2006 and 2009 (i.e. +1.0% p.a. in real terms) and then substantially rose in 2010 (i.e. +4.6% in real terms). As a result, at European system level, unit economic costs increased by +7.7% in real terms between 2006 and 2010. Since, in the meantime, average consumer prices grew by some +9.3%, the economic unit costs increased by some +17% in nominal terms. The left-hand side of Figure 7.8 indicates that in 2009, traffic volumes significantly fell ( -6.7%) reflecting the impact of the economic crisis on the ANS industry. In the meantime, gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs slightly increased (+1.4% in real terms), leading to a +8.7% increase in unit costs. Figure 7.8 also shows that this significant increase was compensated by a sharp decrease in the unit costs of ATFM delays (-31.6%) and as a result unit economic costs remained fairly constant in 2009 (+0.7%). In 2010, the number of composite flight-hours increased by +2.1%. This is much lower than the levels achieved before the economic crisis (+4-6% a year over 2004-2007) indicating that traffic growth did not bounce back in 2010 following the downturn experienced in 2009. In the meantime, ATM/CNS provision costs fell by -4.8% in real terms. However, this decrease was outweighed by a sharp increase in the unit costs of ATFM delays (+77.5%) which is disappointing given the relatively low traffic growth experienced in 2010. Overall, the result was a +4.6% rise in unit economic costs in 2010. Figure 7.9 shows that the increase in the unit costs of ATFM delays in 2010 (+77.5%) is mainly due to an increase in en-route ATFM delays (i.e. from 8.8M minutes to 19.3M minutes). The substantial increase in en-route ATFM delays for three of the five largest ANSPs (Aena, DFS and DSNA) significantly contributed to the increase observed at European system level.
6.4
8.1
19.3
8.8
27.5
15.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2009 2010
Mill
ion
s o
f m
inu
tes
En-route ATFM delays Airport ATFM delays
Figure 7.9: Changes in ATFM delays, (2009-2010)
Economic cost-effectiveness 91 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
The changes in economic gate-to-gate unit costs at European system level mask a contrasted picture for the 36 ANSPs that consistently reported ACE data since 2006. Between 2006 and 2010, economic gate-to-gate costs per composite flight-hour fell for 19 ANSPs:
• For 14 ANSPs, the performance improvement was mainly due to a reduction in unit ATM/CNS provision costs;
• For 5 ANSPs, the main driver for the decrease in economic gate-to-gate unit cost was a reduction in ATFM delays.
It is important to note that differences in the investment cycle can affect the economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness either through high levels of delay prior to a major ATM investment, or through high capital-related costs (depreciation, cost of capital) after the major ATM investment (see also Chapter 3 on factors affecting performance).
The top of Figure 7.10 shows the evolution of economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness for ANSPs with a complexity score higher than 4 minutes of interaction per flight-hour and the bottom of Figure 7.10 for those ANSP with a complexity score below 4 minutes. It is important to note that changes in traffic volumes between 2009 and 2010 significantly differ between these two groups. Indeed, while for the 22 less “complex” ANSPs traffic volumes increased by +5.7% in 2010, they remained fairly constant for the 15 most “complex” ANSPs (+0.5%).
The top chart in Figure 7.10 suggests that:
• The rise in unit economic costs for LVNL (+2.7%), Austro Control (+11.0%), DFS (+13.7%), Skyguide (+2.9%), DSNA (+41.1%) and LPS (+1.5%) is mainly due to an increase of ATFM delays in 2010. For HungaroControl (+14.3%) and SMATSA (+6.8%), the increase in unit economic costs mainly results from a rise in ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hours.
• In 2010, five ANSPs could reduce their economic gate-to-gate unit costs (Aena (-7.5%), ANS CR (-6.1%), Belgocontrol (-2.9%), ENAV (-4.3%) and to a lower extent Slovenia Control (-0.4%). For Slovenia Control and ANS CR, this is mainly due to a decrease in ATFM delays. On the other hand, for Aena and Belgocontrol the reduction in unit economic costs results from a decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs which more than compensated for the rise in ATFM delays. For ENAV, the improvement in economic cost-effectiveness results from a decrease in both ATFM delays and unit ATM/CNS provision costs.
• Unit economic costs remained fairly constant between 2009 and 2010 for NATS (+0.1%) and MUAC (-0.1%).
The bottom chart in Figure 7.10 indicates that:
• Five ANSPs experienced no ATFM delays throughout the 2006-2010 period despite high traffic growth in many of these ANSPs.
• 13 ANSPs managed to reduce their economic cost-effectiveness KPI between 2009 and 2010, mainly through a decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs. HCAA (-19.3%), PANSA (-16.3%) and DHMI (-14.9%) achieved to reduce both ATFM delays and unit ATM/CNS provision costs. Nevertheless, the quality of service provided is still an issue for these ANSPs for which the share of ATFM delays in total economic costs is higher than 20% (see also Figure 7.4 above).
• In 2010, unit economic costs increased for 8 ANSPs and in particular for DCAC Cyprus (+23.0%), Croatia Control (+14.2%) and LFV (+13.7%). The unit costs of ATFM delays recorded for DCAC Cyprus which were already high in 2009 (€371) increased by +49.2% in 2010 and represents some 67% of economic cost-effectiveness KPI.
Eco
nom
ic c
ost-
effe
ctiv
enes
s 92
A
CE
201
0 B
ench
mar
kin
g R
epor
t with
201
1-20
15 o
utlo
ok
0
10
0
20
0
30
0
40
0
50
0
60
0
70
0
80
0
90
0
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
Bel
goco
ntro
lLV
NL
Aus
tro
Con
trol
Aen
aS
kygu
ide
DF
SD
SN
ALP
SS
love
nia
Con
trol
EN
AV
NA
TS
AN
S C
RH
unga
roC
ontr
olS
MA
TS
AM
UA
C
€ per composite flight-hour
AT
M/C
NS
pro
visi
on
cost
s p
er c
om
posi
te fl
ight
-ho
urA
TF
M d
ela
y co
sts
per
com
po
site
flig
ht-h
our
0
10
0
20
0
30
0
40
0
50
0
60
0
70
0
80
0
90
0
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
20062007200820092010
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
Cro
atia
Co
ntr
ol
NA
TA
Alb
an
iaH
CA
AM
-NA
VR
OM
AT
SA
PA
NS
AM
old
AT
SA
UkS
AT
SE
LF
VN
AV
IAIR
BU
LA
TS
AA
vin
or
IAA
Oro
Na
vig
aci
jaN
AV
Po
rtu
ga
l(F
IR L
isb
oa
)A
RM
AT
SD
HM
IF
ina
via
LG
SM
AT
SE
AN
S
€ per composite flight-hour
Fig
ure
7.1
0: C
han
ges
in e
con
om
ic c
ost
-eff
ecti
ven
ess
by
AN
SP
(20
06-
2010
)
Annex 1 – Status on ANSPs Annual Reports 93 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
ANNEX 1 – STATUS ON ANSPS YEAR 2010 ANNUAL REPORTS
Ava
ilabi
lity
of a
pub
lic
Ann
ual
Re
port
s (A
R)
Ava
ilabi
lity
of
Man
age
me
nt R
epor
t
Ava
ilabi
lity
of A
nnu
al
Acc
ount
s
Inde
pen
dent
aud
ited
acco
unts
Sep
arat
e ac
coun
ts fo
r en
-ro
ute
and
term
inal
A
NS
cos
ts
Info
rmat
ion
prov
ided
in
Eng
lish
PRU comments
Aena No Includes airport activities.
ANS CR No
ARMATS No No No No No No PRU 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 “Collège des Commissaires”. No cash flow statement.
BULATSA No
Croatia Control No
DCAC Cyprus No No No No No No
DFS No Separate accounts are used for internal reporting purposes and charges calculation.
DHMİ No Includes airport activities.
DSNA No
EANS No
ENAV No No
Finavia No Detailed accounts only available for total Finavia.
HCAA No No No No No No
HungaroControl No
IAA No
LFV No Information from the first quarter included both airport operation and air navigation services.
LGS No
LPS No
LVNL 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 comprising a Balance Sheet statement.
MUAC n/appl
NATA Albania No
NATS Several ARs for individual group companies.
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) No
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 balance-sheet statement.
Annex 1 - Table 0.1: Status on ANSP’s 2010 Annual Reports
Annex 1 – Status on ANSPs Annual Reports 94 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Annex 2 – Performance indicators used for the comparison of ANSPs 95 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 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 controlled91 and, for terminal ANS, the number of IFR airport movements controlled. Those output measures can be derived from the EUROCONTROL database and therefore readily available and consistent across the ANSPs included in the analysis. 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 analysis92. 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 European system. This average weighting factor is based on the total monetary value of the outputs over the period 2002-2010 and amounts to 0.26. The composite gate-to-gate flight-hours are consequently defined as:
Composite gate-to-gate flight-hours = En-route
flight-hours + (0.26 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-effectiveness93.
91 Controlled flight-hours are calculated by the CFMU 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 CFMU (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 CFMU environment. 92 See also working paper on “Cost-effectiveness and Productivity Key Performance Indicators”, available on the PRC web site at www.eurocontrol.int/prc. 93 Further details on the theoretical background to producing composite indicators can be found in a working paper on “Productivity of European ANSPs: basic concepts and application" (Sept. 2003).
Annex 2 – Performance indicators used for the comparison of ANSPs 96 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Annex 3 – Traffic complexity indicators at ANSP level 97 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
ANNEX 3 – TRAFFIC COMPLEXITY INDICATORS AT ANSP LEVEL
[1] [2] [3] [4][5] =
[2]+[3]+[4][6] =
[1]x[5]
ANSPs Ad
just
ed
de
nsi
ty
Ve
rtic
al in
tera
ctio
ns
Hor
izon
tal i
nter
act
ion
s
Sp
eed
inte
ract
ions
Str
uct
ural
com
plex
ityin
dica
tor
Ag
gre
gate
d co
mp
lexi
ty
sco
re
Skyguide 11.45 0.28 0.55 0.21 1.04 11.96Belgocontrol 8.76 0.42 0.53 0.42 1.36 11.93DFS 10.44 0.29 0.53 0.26 1.08 11.26NATS 9.99 0.37 0.41 0.31 1.09 10.90MUAC 10.53 0.25 0.51 0.16 0.92 9.71LVNL 9.91 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.94 9.33Austro Control 8.27 0.21 0.49 0.22 0.92 7.60ANS CR 8.18 0.17 0.50 0.20 0.87 7.15DSNA 9.33 0.15 0.39 0.14 0.69 6.44Slovenia Control 7.51 0.15 0.49 0.12 0.76 5.71ENAV 5.62 0.27 0.55 0.19 1.01 5.70SMATSA 9.04 0.05 0.47 0.06 0.58 5.23HungaroControl 7.55 0.07 0.44 0.14 0.66 4.95LPS 6.21 0.14 0.48 0.17 0.78 4.86Aena 6.64 0.17 0.39 0.13 0.69 4.55Croatia Control 6.51 0.06 0.47 0.08 0.61 4.00PANSA 4.28 0.14 0.52 0.25 0.92 3.92NAVIAIR 4.04 0.18 0.55 0.21 0.93 3.78DHMI 5.55 0.14 0.38 0.11 0.63 3.51ROMATSA 5.33 0.07 0.39 0.15 0.61 3.26LFV 3.11 0.22 0.46 0.23 0.91 2.84DCAC Cyprus 4.40 0.14 0.39 0.11 0.63 2.79M-NAV 4.61 0.11 0.42 0.06 0.59 2.73HCAA 4.28 0.11 0.39 0.09 0.59 2.52BULATSA 6.78 0.05 0.25 0.06 0.36 2.45NATA Albania 5.54 0.06 0.33 0.05 0.43 2.41NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) 3.42 0.17 0.39 0.08 0.65 2.21Avinor 2.03 0.33 0.47 0.25 1.04 2.12EANS 3.32 0.15 0.29 0.19 0.62 2.07LGS 2.99 0.10 0.43 0.14 0.68 2.02Finavia 1.95 0.27 0.34 0.36 0.98 1.90UkSATSE 3.04 0.05 0.39 0.18 0.62 1.89Oro Navigacija 2.94 0.07 0.37 0.17 0.62 1.82IAA 4.08 0.07 0.22 0.10 0.40 1.61MoldATSA 1.71 0.05 0.39 0.19 0.63 1.08ARMATS 1.17 0.09 0.37 0.17 0.62 0.73MATS 1.18 0.11 0.36 0.12 0.59 0.70
Average 7.22 0.21 0.44 0.19 0.84 6.08
Annex 3 - Table 0.1: Traffic complexity indicators at ANSP level, 2010
Annex 3 – Traffic complexity indicators at ANSP level 98 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
[1] [2] [3] [4][5] =
[2]+[3]+[4][6] =
[1]x[5]
ANSPs ACC name Adj
uste
d de
nsity
Ver
tical
inte
ract
ions
Hor
izon
tal i
nte
ract
ion
s
Spe
ed in
tera
ctio
ns
Str
uct
ura
l com
ple
xity
Agg
rega
ted
com
ple
xity
sc
ore
Aena Palma 5.8 0.25 0.38 0.28 0.91 5.3 115Aena Barcelona 6.5 0.21 0.44 0.12 0.76 5.0 276Aena Madrid 7.0 0.12 0.36 0.08 0.55 3.9 333Aena Sevilla 4.9 0.19 0.35 0.10 0.64 3.1 288Aena Canarias 2.4 0.19 0.27 0.12 0.58 1.4 248ANS CR Praha 8.2 0.16 0.50 0.19 0.86 7.0 315ARMATS Yerevan 1.2 0.07 0.37 0.17 0.61 0.7 320Austro Control Wien 8.4 0.17 0.50 0.18 0.85 7.1 324Avinor Oslo 3.1 0.34 0.47 0.22 1.02 3.2 192Avinor Bodo 0.9 0.33 0.46 0.27 1.06 0.9 185Avinor Stavanger 1.1 0.25 0.43 0.27 0.95 1.0 189Belgocontrol Brussels 8.8 0.42 0.53 0.42 1.36 11.9 157BULATSA Sofia 6.9 0.05 0.25 0.05 0.35 2.5 347Croatia Control Zagreb 6.7 0.06 0.47 0.08 0.61 4.1 342DCAC Cyprus Nicosia 4.4 0.14 0.39 0.11 0.63 2.8 318DFS Langen 10.6 0.39 0.51 0.44 1.34 14.2 147DFS Munchen 9.6 0.32 0.48 0.30 1.10 10.6 229DFS Rhein 11.8 0.20 0.56 0.16 0.92 10.9 347DFS Bremen 4.4 0.32 0.50 0.40 1.22 5.4 129DHMI Istanbul 5.5 0.20 0.29 0.11 0.60 3.3 286DHMI Ankara 5.4 0.10 0.41 0.10 0.61 3.3 339DSNA Reims 10.4 0.20 0.40 0.16 0.76 7.9 330DSNA Paris 8.5 0.23 0.27 0.28 0.78 6.6 243DSNA Marseille 7.8 0.16 0.42 0.13 0.72 5.6 318DSNA Bordeaux 10.1 0.11 0.38 0.09 0.58 5.9 336DSNA Brest 9.4 0.09 0.43 0.08 0.59 5.5 348EANS Tallinn 3.3 0.15 0.29 0.19 0.62 2.1 310ENAV Milano 6.4 0.43 0.58 0.37 1.37 8.8 174ENAV Padova 6.6 0.28 0.62 0.19 1.09 7.2 301ENAV Roma 5.5 0.24 0.52 0.14 0.90 4.9 285ENAV Brindisi 3.7 0.14 0.49 0.10 0.73 2.7 315Finavia Tampere 1.6 0.28 0.27 0.31 0.86 1.4 253Finavia Rovaniemi 0.5 0.46 0.41 0.41 1.28 0.6 235HCAA Athinai+Macedonia 4.3 0.09 0.38 0.07 0.53 2.3 318HungaroControl Budapest 7.7 0.06 0.44 0.13 0.64 4.9 333IAA Dublin 5.5 0.30 0.40 0.36 1.06 5.8 126IAA Shannon 3.9 0.04 0.20 0.06 0.31 1.2 332LFV Malmo 3.4 0.16 0.49 0.16 0.80 2.7 312LFV Stockholm 2.2 0.35 0.39 0.37 1.10 2.4 233LGS Riga 3.1 0.09 0.44 0.13 0.66 2.0 337LPS Bratislava 6.3 0.13 0.48 0.17 0.78 4.9 322LVNL Amsterdam 9.9 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.94 9.3 161MATS Malta 1.1 0.09 0.34 0.11 0.54 0.6 336M-NAV Skopje 4.8 0.10 0.43 0.05 0.58 2.8 324MoldATSA Chisinau 1.7 0.05 0.39 0.19 0.63 1.1 323MUAC Maastricht 10.5 0.25 0.51 0.16 0.92 9.7 342NATA Albania Tirana 5.5 0.06 0.33 0.05 0.43 2.4 323NATS London TC 25.1 0.46 0.50 0.33 1.29 32.4 112NATS Prestwick 5.0 0.33 0.40 0.40 1.13 5.6 228NATS London AC 8.9 0.31 0.34 0.24 0.89 7.9 304NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) Lisboa 3.5 0.17 0.39 0.08 0.64 2.2 298NAVIAIR Kobenhavn 3.8 0.16 0.55 0.17 0.89 3.3 303Oro Navigacija Vilnius 2.9 0.07 0.37 0.17 0.62 1.8 307PANSA Warszawa 3.9 0.11 0.53 0.19 0.83 3.2 332ROMATSA Bucuresti 5.4 0.06 0.39 0.15 0.60 3.2 329Skyguide Zurich 10.3 0.30 0.53 0.24 1.07 11.0 285Skyguide Geneva 11.8 0.22 0.57 0.17 0.96 11.4 310Slovenia Control Ljubljana 7.5 0.15 0.49 0.12 0.76 5.7 288SMATSA Beograd 9.2 0.05 0.47 0.06 0.57 5.3 347UkSATSE Simferopol 4.2 0.02 0.36 0.16 0.54 2.2 347UkSATSE L'viv 2.8 0.02 0.52 0.19 0.73 2.1 342UkSATSE Kyiv 2.4 0.13 0.35 0.24 0.71 1.7 323UkSATSE Odesa 2.2 0.04 0.47 0.12 0.63 1.4 332UkSATSE Dnipropetrovs'k 3.2 0.06 0.30 0.15 0.51 1.6 341
7.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.8 5.9 292European system average
Ave
rage
use
d fli
ght
leve
l
Annex 3 - Table 0.2: Traffic complexity indicators at ACC level, 2010
Annex 4 – Cost of capital reported by ANSPs 99 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
ANNEX 4 – COST OF CAPITAL REPORTED BY ANSPS
ANSPs Comments
Aena Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the net current assets with an average rate of 5.6%.
ANS CR Gross cost of capital computed as the product of an average rate of 5.0% and an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and a part of the working capital.
ARMATS Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the long-term assets and the average net current assets (working capital) with an average rate of 15.3%.
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 2.48%.
Avinor Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets in operations at year-end with a weighted average cost of capital (calculated at Avinor Group level) of 9.5%.
Belgocontrol Gross cost of capital which comprises the financial cost of debt and the product of the yearly average Belgian OLO rate (linear bonds, 1.9%) with an asset base corresponding to the total NBV of fixed assets less the borrowings.
BULATSA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the net current assets with an average rate of 7%.
Croatia Control Corresponds to the product of the asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the current assets with an average rate of 5.1%.
DCAC Cyprus Corresponds to the product of the asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets in operation and the current assets with an average rate of 6.0%.
DFS Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets in operation and the net current assets with an average rate of 4.53%.
DHMİ Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets with an average rate of 6.52%.
DSNA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets in operation and net current assets with an average rate of 3.54%.
EANS Computed as the sum of the cost of equity (8% required return on equity) and the cost of debt.
ENAV Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets with an average rate of 2.2%.
Finavia Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets with an average rate of 4.7% including the return on equity (7.0%) and the cost of debt (1.9%).
HCAA Corresponds to the product of the average operating capital employed with an average rate of 2.3%.
HungaroControl Gross cost of capital calculated using the return on equity (i.e. 7.3%) applied to the average NBV of fixed assets and net current assets.
IAA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets with an average rate of 7.08%.
LFV Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the current assets with an average rate of 1.7%.
LGS Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the current assets with an average rate of 8.1%.
LPS Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the current assets with an average rate of 8.0%.
LVNL Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets with an average rate of 3.4%.
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 and the net current assets with an average rate of 5.5%.
MoldATSA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets in operation and the net current assets with an average rate of 20.7%, plus a part of the capex in the year not capitalised in the balance-sheet.
MUAC Corresponds to the product of the actual interest paid by EUROCONTROL to the banks (1.0%) 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 the net current assets with an average rate of 4.2%.
NATS Economic cost of capital computed as the product of the regulatory rate of return (6.6%) with the regulatory asset base for en-route ANS and with the
Annex 4 – Cost of capital reported by ANSPs 100 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
capital employed for terminal ANS.
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the current assets with an average rate of 7.8%.
NAVIAIR Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the net current assets with an average rate of 3.8%.
Oro Navigacija Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the net current assets with an average rate of 4.0%.
PANSA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising long-term assets and net current assets (excluding the provision for over/under recoveries) with an average rate of 3.5%.
ROMATSA Gross cost of capital calculated using the return on equity (i.e. 8%) applied to the average NBV of fixed assets and the 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 rate of 2.50%.
Slovenia Control Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the net current assets with an average rate of 4.0%.
SMATSA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the net current assets with an average rate of 12.3%.
UkSATSE Includes elements of capital expenditure.
Annex 4 - Table 0.1: Comments on cost of capital reported by ANSPs, 2010
Annex 5 – Exchange rates, inflation rates and PPPs 2010 data 101 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
ANNEX 5 – EXCHANGE RATES, INFLATION RATES AND PURCHASING POWER PARITIES (PPPS) 2010 DATA
ANSPs Countries 2010
Exchange rate (1 €=)
2010 Inflation rate (%)
2010 PPPs
Comments
Aena Spain 1 2.0 0.93
ANS CR Czech Republic 25.25 1.2 18.47
ARMATS Armenia 493.25 7.3 260.80 PPPs from IMF database
Austro Control Austria 1 1.7 1.11
Avinor Norway 8.59 2.3 11.69
Belgocontrol Belgium 1 2.3 1.12
BULATSA Bulgaria 1.96 3.0 0.87
Croatia Control Croatia 7.30 1.1 5.09
DCAC Cyprus Cyprus 1 2.6 0.89
DFS Germany 1 1.2 1.05
DHMI Turkey 2.00 8.6 1.26
DSNA France 1 1.7 1.13
EANS Estonia 15.65 2.7 0.68
PPP adjustment made on Euros since EUROSTAT PPPs for Estonia are based on the Euro and not the EEK
ENAV Italy 1 1.6 1.05
Finavia Finland 1 1.7 1.19
HCAA Greece 1 4.7 0.92
HungaroControl Hungary 274.78 4.7 169.20
IAA Ireland 1 -1.6 1.12
LFV Sweden 9.56 1.9 11.72
LGS Latvia 0.70 -1.2 0.45
LPS Slovak Republic 1 0.7 0.68
LVNL Netherlands 1 0.9 1.09
MATS Malta 1 2.0 0.73
M-NAV F.Y.R. Macedonia 61.16 1.5 23.83
MoldATSA Moldova 16.34 7.4 8.16 PPPs from IMF database
MUAC 1 0.9 1.09 Netherlands PPPs and inflation rate used for MUAC
NATA Albania Albania 133.25 3.6 57.83
NATS United Kingdom 0.85 3.3 0.86
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
Portugal 1 1.4 0.83
NAVIAIR Denmark 7.44 2.2 10.22
Oro Navigacija Lithuania 3.45 1.2 2.06
PANSA Poland 3.99 2.7 2.42
ROMATSA Romania 4.21 6.1 2.14
Skyguide Switzerland 1.38 0.6 1.97
Slovenia Control Slovenia 1 2.1 0.83
SMATSA Serbia and Montenegro
102.82 6.2 46.92 Data for Serbia only since ACE data is provided in Serbian Dinar
UkSATSE Ukraine 10.53 9.4 4.47 PPPs from IMF database
Annex 5 - Table 0.1: 2010 Exchange rates, inflation rates and PPPs data
Annex 5 – Exchange rates, inflation rates and PPPs 2010 data 102 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 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 2010 prices using national inflation rates. Finally, for comparison purposes in 2010, all national currencies are converted to Euros using the 2010 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 2010 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 2010 data. The exchange rates used in this Report to convert the 2010 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 EUROSTAT (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home) or from International Monetary Fund (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/01/weodata/index.aspx), when data is not available in EUROSTAT. For the projections (2011-2015), 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 5 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 3.94 between the PPPs for Ukraine (3.57 UAH per international dollar in 2010) and the PPPs for France (0.905 Euro per international Dollar). This factor is applied to the PPPs for France as disclosed in the EUROSTAT database (i.e. 1.134) to express the PPPs for Ukraine in PPS (4.47 = 1.134 × 3.94). A similar methodology is used to express Moldova and Armenia PPPs in PPS.
Ann
ex 6
– K
ey d
ata
103
AC
E 2
010
Ben
chm
arki
ng
Rep
ort w
ith 2
011-
2015
out
look
AN
NE
X 6
- K
EY
DA
TA
AN
SP
s
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
Ae
na8
19 5
14
00
013
17
56
750
200
3 98
715
884
3 7
841
92 5
72
00
00
09
54
013
47
196
727
1 0
12 0
86
00
01
3 17
56
750
295
8 00
020
41
040
510
AN
S C
R1
00 1
46
00
01
806
685
325
00
102
962
22 1
37
00
018
60
36
00
22
359
122
28
30
00
1 99
268
536
00
012
5 3
21A
RM
AT
S4
025
00
05
00
00
4 0
293
373
00
00
00
00
3 37
37
398
00
05
00
00
7 4
03A
ust
ro C
ont
rol
168
26
00
00
468
1 81
031
10
017
0 8
4939
45
90
00
00
390
00
39
849
207
71
90
00
468
1 81
070
10
021
0 6
98A
vin
or92
17
50
00
00
00
092
175
081
43
70
00
00
3 70
20
85
139
92 1
75
81 4
37
00
00
03
702
017
7 3
14B
elg
oco
ntro
l1
59 0
03
00
00
11 4
25
617
4 13
71
517
5 1
9625
21
40
00
00
419
4 17
77
29
816
184
21
70
00
01
1 42
51
036
8 31
322
205
012
BU
LA
TS
A78
17
40
00
050
50
00
78 6
795
404
00
00
01
268
655
07
327
83 5
78
00
00
505
1 26
865
50
86 0
06C
roat
ia C
ont
rol
55 9
84
07
057
00
00
00
63 0
417
590
00
00
00
00
7 59
063
57
40
7 05
70
00
00
070
631
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
39 5
08
00
00
00
00
39 5
080
00
00
00
00
039
50
80
00
00
00
039
508
DF
S6
65 2
50
00
00
03
7 87
40
070
3 1
231
96 7
83
00
00
011
87
10
020
8 65
48
62 0
33
00
00
04
9 74
50
091
1 7
77D
HM
I2
56 1
94
00
07
792
1 85
40
00
265
840
105
22
40
00
00
00
010
5 22
43
61 4
18
00
07
792
1 85
40
00
371
064
DS
NA
1 0
70 8
54
00
019
94
50
07
833
01
098
633
212
49
50
00
39
717
00
2 40
50
254
617
1 2
83 3
49
00
05
9 66
20
010
23
80
1 35
3 2
49E
AN
S12
41
80
00
00
00
012
418
976
00
00
00
00
976
13 3
94
00
00
00
00
13 3
94E
NA
V5
54 1
34
00
015
89
223
20
90
7 69
179
960
1 7
2537
80
80
00
26
123
37
346
01
146
220
102
643
591
94
30
00
42
015
60
555
08
837
1 01
870
4 3
68F
ina
via
29 4
96
00
128
044
00
00
30 0
6415
43
20
00
036
20
2 16
00
17
954
44 9
28
00
128
080
20
2 16
00
48 0
18H
CA
A1
68 9
32
00
00
00
00
168
932
12 5
17
00
00
00
00
12
517
181
44
90
00
00
00
018
1 4
49H
unga
roC
ontr
ol
73 6
81
00
01
811
534
3 09
10
079
117
18 4
77
157
00
660
775
00
19
475
92 1
57
157
00
1 87
853
43
866
00
98 5
92IA
A1
08 8
12
00
02
203
017
80
011
1 1
9321
41
20
00
00
87
00
21
499
130
22
40
00
2 20
30
265
00
132
692
LFV
146
44
20
725
074
10
2 43
00
015
0 3
380
27 6
60
00
00
00
02
7 66
01
46 4
42
27 6
60
725
074
10
2 43
00
017
7 9
97LG
S18
72
40
00
00
128
222
019
074
2 88
30
00
00
120
111
03
113
21 6
06
00
00
024
833
30
22 1
87LP
S45
95
20
07
0512
131
443
1 06
30
48 1
995
001
00
093
02
560
5 15
250
95
30
070
521
431
445
1 11
90
53 3
51LV
NL
160
58
40
00
2 40
80
361
781
016
4 8
0952
66
10
00
06
278
18
1 54
20
60
499
213
24
50
00
2 40
86
278
543
323
022
5 3
08M
AT
S12
06
00
00
270
00
00
12 3
300
1 30
90
00
1 57
70
00
2 88
612
06
01
309
00
270
1 57
70
00
15 2
16M
-NA
V9
896
00
00
052
00
9 9
4880
60
00
00
00
080
610
70
20
00
00
520
010
754
Mol
dAT
SA
7 26
20
00
03
95
00
7 3
061
704
00
00
00
00
1 70
48
966
00
00
395
00
9 0
09M
UA
C0
04
02 2
790
00
00
040
2 2
79n
/app
ln
/app
ln
/app
ln
/app
ln
/app
ln/
app
ln
/app
ln
/app
ln
/app
ln/
appl
00
402
279
00
00
00
402
279
NA
TA
Alb
ani
a17
64
00
00
00
1 58
629
40
19 5
201
216
00
00
021
640
01
472
18 8
56
00
00
01
802
334
020
992
NA
TS
593
55
70
00
00
1 99
10
-58
259
4 9
669
826
187
01
10
00
067
30
019
7 51
06
03 3
83
187
011
00
00
2 66
40
-582
792
476
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa
)1
26 1
86
00
00
1 05
20
00
127
237
22 3
81
00
00
00
798
02
3 17
91
48 5
67
00
00
1 05
20
798
015
0 4
17N
AV
IAIR
80 8
17
00
01
761
078
2 10
50
84 7
6128
92
82
974
00
00
21
149
03
2 07
21
09 7
45
2 97
40
01
761
099
2 25
40
116
832
Oro
nav
igac
ija18
32
30
097
69
016
415
70
18 8
102
594
00
14
152
02
334
02
816
20 9
16
00
111
221
018
719
10
21 6
26P
AN
SA
136
90
50
00
868
055
160
0-1
8 08
312
0 8
4127
82
80
00
670
011
265
9-2
27
29
043
164
73
30
00
1 53
90
663
1 25
9-1
8 31
014
9 8
84R
OM
AT
SA
153
88
80
00
5 17
599
343
687
016
0 5
7917
90
40
00
00
516
10
18
420
171
79
20
00
5 17
599
395
18
80
178
999
Sky
guid
e1
13 1
43
039
23
40
02
514
1 57
02
526
5 89
816
4 8
8570
87
70
00
00
962
3 40
83
615
78
862
184
02
00
39
234
00
2 51
42
532
5 93
39
513
243
746
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol27
65
30
00
140
00
72-1
20
726
658
3 16
811
10
274
610
023
6-1
92
3 65
830
82
111
10
274
201
00
308
-1 3
9930
316
SM
AT
SA
58 3
98
04
893
00
02
965
00
66 2
574
888
00
00
063
160
75
564
11
690
63 2
86
04
893
00
03
596
607
5 56
477
947
UkS
AT
SE
154
09
30
00
00
00
015
4 0
9333
86
20
00
00
00
03
3 86
21
87 9
55
00
00
00
00
187
955
En
-ro
ute
AN
S r
even
ue
s (i
n €
'000
)T
erm
ina
l AN
S r
eve
nu
es (
in €
'000
)G
ate
-to
-gat
e A
NS
rev
enu
es (
in €
'00
0)
An
nex
6 -
Tab
le 0
.1:
Bre
akd
ow
n o
f to
tal A
NS
rev
enu
es (
en-r
ou
te, t
erm
inal
an
d g
ate-
to-g
ate)
, 201
0
Ann
ex 6
– K
ey d
ata
104
AC
E 2
010
Ben
chm
arki
ng
Rep
ort w
ith 2
011-
2015
out
look
AN
SP
s
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
Aen
a64
5 10
04
0 08
46
241
7 28
56
2 18
10
076
0 8
90
285
473
14 3
16
00
00
029
9 78
893
0 5
7354
399
6 2
417
28
562
181
00
1 0
60 6
78A
NS
CR
91
07
12
24
20
06
68
66
30
01
00
62
92
3 6
42
55
80
00
00
24
20
111
4 7
142
80
00
06
68
66
30
01
24
83
0A
RM
AT
S3
411
00
025
40
03
66
52
922
00
00
02
922
6 3
33
00
02
54
00
6 5
87
Aus
tro
Con
trol
137
351
15
019
00
11
534
00
163
90
434
099
3 3
11
00
00
03
7 41
017
1 4
5018
330
00
11 5
340
02
01 3
14A
vino
r77
536
970
283
07
048
00
85 8
36
95 3
622
88
043
10
00
09
8 67
317
2 8
98
3 8
51
71
40
7 0
48
00
18
4 5
10
Bel
goco
ntro
l94
855
7 43
91
134
01
2 79
241
633
015
7 8
53
52 6
604
42
666
70
00
05
7 75
414
7 5
1511
866
1 8
010
12 7
9241
633
02
15 6
07B
UL
AT
SA
63
28
15
60
24
40
04
85
10
21
67
4 3
89
10
05
01
50
69
00
00
23
11
66
97
3 3
30
7 1
08
53
00
4 8
51
02
39
86
05
8C
roa
tia C
on
trol
60 2
18
3 9
00
00
00
06
4 1
18
8 6
32
00
00
00
8 6
32
68
851
3 9
00
00
00
07
2 7
50
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
35
87
74
10
25
71
00
2 4
26
00
48
11
54
78
61
02
64
72
00
00
6 2
84
40
66
35
12
86
18
20
2 4
26
00
54
39
9D
FS
676
583
32
595
00
00
070
9 1
78
201
153
8 5
40
456
00
00
210
149
877
736
41 1
354
560
00
09
19 3
27D
HM
I21
1 89
91
9 56
12
397
01
6 88
90
025
0 7
47
68 2
690
00
00
06
8 26
928
0 1
6819
561
2 3
970
16 8
890
03
19 0
15D
SN
A90
2 60
86
4 59
89
973
08
2 79
145
447
32 7
641
138
18
223
5 12
321
57
32
341
00
09
704
268
742
1 13
7 7
3186
171
12
315
082
791
45 4
4742
468
1 4
06
923
EA
NS
9 9
07
51
00
00
09
95
88
25
14
60
00
00
97
11
0 7
321
97
00
00
01
0 9
29
EN
AV
545
878
35
237
00
51
602
973
063
3 6
90
107
787
14 6
88
00
00
012
2 47
665
3 6
65
49
92
50
05
1 6
02
97
30
75
6 1
65
Fin
avia
22 9
772
500
233
03
576
179
029
46
534
503
2 4
55
789
00
00
37
747
57
480
4 95
51
022
03
576
179
067
212
HC
AA
140
056
9 69
83
272
01
2 36
00
016
5 3
86
24 2
1088
951
50
00
02
5 61
416
4 2
6610
587
3 7
870
12 3
600
01
91 0
00H
unga
roC
ontr
ol74
777
1 99
689
30
4 78
967
80
83 1
34
18 9
581
11
319
90
00
02
0 27
09
3 7
363
109
1 0
920
4 78
967
80
103
403
IAA
91 7
866
463
1 62
31
977
8 08
20
010
9 9
31
20 9
451
61
629
33
870
00
23
241
112
73
18
07
91
91
62
36
48
08
20
01
33
17
2LF
V17
3 53
17
373
409
00
00
181
31
332
732
017
40
00
03
2 90
620
6 2
637
373
583
00
00
214
219
LG
S1
4 7
86
40
11
71
60
00
01
6 9
04
6 3
15
70
30
00
00
7 0
18
21
10
11
10
41
71
60
00
02
3 9
21
LPS
43 9
281
114
916
02
862
257
049
07
74
827
433
77
00
00
5 33
74
8 7
55
1 5
47
99
30
2 8
62
25
70
54
41
4LV
NL
107
316
8 20
687
80
15
862
32 8
420
165
10
454
125
1 8
01
00
00
05
5 92
616
1 4
4110
007
878
015
862
32 8
420
221
030
MA
TS
10 5
130
00
686
00
11 1
99
3 37
10
00
00
03
371
13
884
00
068
60
014
570
M-N
AV
9 0
8662
40
057
40
010
28
31
290
199
432
00
00
1 92
11
0 3
7682
24
320
574
00
12 2
04M
oldA
TS
A6
335
647
181
033
50
07
49
81
545
124
34
00
00
1 70
47
88
17
71
21
50
33
50
09
20
1M
UA
C13
8 75
90
00
00
413
8 7
63
00
n/a
ppl
n/a
ppl
n/ap
pln/
appl
n/ap
pln/
app
l13
8 7
59
00
00
04
13
8 7
63
NA
TA
Alb
an
ia1
6 5
76
28
83
30
09
10
00
18
10
42
14
89
60
00
00
2 2
44
18
72
43
85
33
00
91
00
02
0 3
48
NA
TS
544
339
138
5 07
00
00
054
9 5
47
159
308
122
3 23
70
00
016
2 66
770
3 6
4725
98
308
00
00
712
214
NA
V P
ort
uga
l (F
IR L
isbo
a)95
06
25
31
53
80
09
58
30
01
10
34
12
4 3
06
00
00
00
24
30
611
9 3
685
31
53
800
9 5
83
00
13
4 6
47
NA
VIA
IR82
33
74
59
01
20
88
87
7 2
28
00
96 2
50
27
30
60
00
00
02
7 3
06
109
643
4 5
90
1 2
0888
77
22
80
01
23
55
7O
ro n
avig
acija
17 5
5643
824
90
1 11
70
019
36
03
316
68
50
00
00
3 43
32
0 8
7150
62
980
1 11
70
022
793
PA
NS
A1
00
76
24
62
91
62
40
9 9
48
56
90
11
7 5
31
27
03
92
13
18
74
00
00
30
04
31
27
80
16
76
02
49
80
9 9
48
56
90
14
7 5
75
RO
MA
TS
A12
1 33
57
585
3 45
10
9 07
30
014
1 4
44
21 3
551
33
59
60
00
02
2 78
614
2 6
908
920
3 5
470
9 07
30
01
64 2
30S
kygu
ide
176
349
8 79
60
00
00
185
14
564
293
3 8
97
00
018
10
68
371
240
642
12 6
930
00
181
02
53 5
16S
love
nia
Co
ntro
l22
821
1 33
947
40
1 47
011
70
26 2
20
3 00
046
14
90
00
03
511
25
82
11
80
05
23
01
47
01
17
02
9 7
30
SM
AT
SA
62
11
74
47
60
01
66
30
068
25
71
2 9
34
93
20
00
00
13
86
67
5 0
515
40
90
01
66
30
08
2 1
23
UkS
AT
SE
140
188
1 45
71
808
07
636
00
151
08
928
107
00
00
00
28
107
168
295
1 45
71
808
07
636
00
179
196
Gat
e-to
-gat
e A
NS
co
sts
(in
€'0
00)
En
-ro
ute
AN
S c
ost
s (i
n €
'000
)T
erm
inal
AN
S c
ost
s (i
n €
'000
)
An
nex
6 -
Tab
le 0
.2:
Bre
akd
ow
n o
f to
tal A
NS
co
sts
(en
-ro
ute
, ter
min
al a
nd
gat
e-to
-gat
e), 2
010
Ann
ex 6
– K
ey d
ata
105
AC
E 2
010
Ben
chm
arki
ng
Rep
ort w
ith 2
011-
2015
out
look
AN
SP
s
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
Ae
na
40
1 7
68
10
1 1
93
90
45
73
6 1
51
15
53
16
45
10
01
85
93
93
1 9
49
38
98
52
3 5
84
5 0
15
28
5 4
73
58
7 7
07
13
3 1
42
12
9 4
42
59
73
52
0 5
46
93
0 5
73
AN
S C
R5
0 9
48
14
42
91
8 6
67
7 0
27
09
1 0
71
15
63
33
28
73
28
41
43
80
23
64
26
6 5
82
17
71
72
1 9
51
8 4
64
01
14
71
4A
RM
AT
S1
67
57
19
32
55
79
11
43
41
11
41
56
25
32
65
42
14
2 9
22
3 0
90
1 3
44
65
11
12
11
27
6 3
33
Au
stro
Co
ntr
ol
10
4 3
06
16
77
71
4 5
13
1 7
55
01
37
35
12
2 5
37
5 0
51
5 7
25
78
60
34
09
91
26
84
32
1 8
28
20
23
82
54
10
17
1 4
50
Avi
no
r5
4 0
16
15
41
96
02
92
07
20
77
53
66
2 7
25
26
88
24
08
51
67
00
95
36
21
16
74
14
2 3
01
10
11
53
74
10
17
2 8
98
Be
lgo
con
tro
l7
0 1
28
10
10
41
2 2
26
2 2
15
18
29
4 8
55
39
75
25
01
67
39
34
37
63
52
66
01
09
87
91
5 1
20
19
61
92
65
22
44
14
7 5
15
BU
LA
TS
A3
7 7
73
6 3
31
9 7
47
9 4
29
06
3 2
81
7 0
95
1 1
07
1 3
94
45
40
10
05
04
4 8
68
7 4
38
11
14
29
88
20
73
33
0C
roa
tia C
on
tro
l3
7 1
53
13
06
66
91
83
08
30
60
21
85
59
51
37
79
11
74
90
8 6
32
42
74
81
4 4
43
7 8
28
3 8
31
06
8 8
51
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
11
39
41
6 1
11
5 1
16
3 2
56
03
5 8
77
1 5
84
2 0
34
66
35
05
04
78
61
2 9
78
18
14
55
77
93
76
10
40
66
3D
FS
46
0 1
20
83
44
46
9 9
00
48
23
51
4 8
83
67
6 5
83
12
8 7
07
31
42
72
2 6
25
12
76
85
62
62
01
15
35
88
82
71
14
87
19
2 5
25
61
00
32
0 5
09
87
7 7
36
DH
MI
87
93
36
7 6
33
25
02
33
1 3
11
02
11
89
92
5 5
41
22
45
81
1 9
01
8 3
68
06
8 2
69
11
3 4
74
90
09
13
6 9
24
39
67
90
28
0 1
68
DS
NA
63
5 7
31
15
6 5
29
87
71
32
2 6
35
09
02
60
81
54
20
45
1 0
23
23
61
26
28
50
23
5 1
23
78
9 9
35
20
7 5
52
11
1 3
25
28
92
00
1 1
37
73
1E
AN
S5
03
02
13
61
80
49
38
09
90
75
70
12
69
33
50
82
55
59
92
26
31
89
79
73
01
0 7
32
EN
AV
28
0 2
32
14
9 2
42
93
30
12
1 5
80
1 5
24
54
5 8
78
52
16
12
8 4
10
22
31
04
35
65
50
10
7 7
87
33
2 3
93
17
7 6
52
11
5 6
10
25
93
72
07
36
53
66
5F
ina
via
15
07
65
57
31
54
57
83
02
2 9
77
21
38
58
77
02
95
91
38
90
34
50
33
6 4
61
14
34
34
50
42
17
20
57
48
0H
CA
A1
12
00
41
8 0
73
6 7
82
3 1
98
01
40
05
61
4 5
65
7 4
37
1 2
66
94
20
24
21
01
26
56
92
5 5
10
8 0
48
4 1
40
01
64
26
6H
un
garo
Co
ntr
ol
34
21
21
5 0
26
8 9
90
2 6
65
13
88
47
4 7
77
10
06
33
32
81
84
68
97
2 8
26
18
95
84
4 2
74
18
35
41
0 8
36
3 5
62
16
71
09
3 7
36
IAA
55
57
51
8 6
23
12
21
75
37
10
91
78
69
82
03
87
24
93
72
31
60
20
94
56
5 3
95
22
49
51
7 1
54
7 6
87
01
12
73
1L
FV
11
1 9
00
36
76
61
9 7
50
1 9
78
3 1
38
17
3 5
31
28
57
74
15
60
00
32
73
21
40
47
64
0 9
22
19
75
01
97
83
13
82
06
26
3L
GS
7 6
79
2 3
86
3 2
36
1 4
85
01
4 7
86
2 5
11
1 4
76
1 7
22
60
60
6 3
15
10
19
13
86
24
95
72
09
20
21
10
1L
PS
23
97
81
0 1
84
6 4
74
3 2
92
04
3 9
28
2 8
31
1 0
54
58
13
61
04
82
72
6 8
09
11
23
87
05
53
65
30
48
75
5L
VN
L7
7 3
24
19
37
27
62
42
99
60
10
7 3
16
38
19
49
36
93
74
12
82
10
54
12
51
15
51
82
8 7
41
11
36
55
81
70
16
1 4
41
MA
TS
3 6
77
5 4
84
93
64
16
01
0 5
13
1 8
17
1 1
88
25
41
12
03
37
15
49
46
67
11
19
05
28
01
3 8
84
M-N
AV
5 8
45
1 0
84
1 6
52
50
40
9 0
86
78
52
21
22
85
60
1 2
90
6 6
30
1 3
05
1 8
81
56
00
10
37
6M
old
AT
SA
2 3
23
1 1
65
80
22
04
60
6 3
35
48
43
93
18
54
84
01
54
52
80
71
55
79
87
2 5
30
07
88
1M
UA
C1
09
82
31
2 4
50
15
46
61
02
00
13
8 7
59
00
00
00
10
9 8
23
12
45
01
5 4
66
1 0
20
01
38
75
9N
AT
A A
lba
nia
3 8
44
7 1
20
2 6
93
2 9
19
01
6 5
76
1 3
80
39
22
33
14
20
2 1
48
5 2
24
7 5
13
2 9
26
3 0
61
01
8 7
24
NA
TS
27
6 7
32
86
64
97
8 0
86
79
36
62
3 5
05
54
4 3
39
10
6 5
50
41
17
55
17
02
64
43
76
91
59
30
83
83
28
21
27
82
38
3 2
56
82
01
02
7 2
74
70
3 6
47
NA
V P
ort
uga
l (F
IR L
isb
oa
)7
3 9
78
12
43
45
55
83
09
10
95
06
22
0 9
56
1 3
23
1 5
68
45
90
24
30
69
4 9
34
13
75
77
12
73
55
10
11
9 3
68
NA
VIA
IR5
0 3
89
16
19
79
82
85
92
30
82
33
71
9 3
76
4 2
01
2 1
00
1 6
29
02
7 3
06
69
76
52
0 3
99
11
92
87
55
20
10
9 6
43
Oro
na
viga
cija
9 9
06
2 9
79
3 0
29
1 3
32
31
01
7 5
56
1 7
70
70
05
55
24
74
33
31
61
1 6
76
3 6
80
3 5
84
1 5
80
35
32
0 8
71
PA
NS
A7
3 6
98
14
25
38
58
74
22
40
10
0 7
62
19
52
83
69
72
41
41
39
90
27
03
99
3 2
26
17
95
01
1 0
01
5 6
24
01
27
80
1R
OM
AT
SA
77
24
81
9 6
60
7 7
75
10
15
16
50
01
21
33
51
3 0
06
4 5
54
1 1
85
1 5
47
1 0
64
21
35
59
0 2
54
24
21
48
96
01
1 6
99
7 5
63
14
2 6
90
Sky
guid
e1
15
54
32
0 5
13
34
78
54
89
66
12
17
6 3
49
43
62
27
39
31
1 6
42
1 6
37
06
4 2
93
15
9 1
65
27
90
64
6 4
27
6 5
33
61
22
40
64
2S
love
nia
Co
ntr
ol
16
25
43
39
72
35
37
21
96
22
82
12
54
33
14
10
53
26
3 0
00
18
79
73
71
12
45
87
53
10
22
5 8
21
SM
AT
SA
31
39
21
1 5
32
7 6
21
11
44
11
33
62
11
75
60
42
05
92
71
32
53
02
81
2 9
34
36
99
61
3 5
90
10
33
41
3 9
71
16
17
5 0
51
UkS
AT
SE
80
44
31
9 1
21
6 4
22
31
80
72
39
51
40
18
81
7 3
84
3 7
54
1 0
44
5 1
27
79
82
8 1
07
97
82
82
2 8
75
7 4
66
36
93
33
19
41
68
29
5
To
tal
3 6
07
04
91
01
3 1
73
69
3 9
49
37
1 8
91
82
80
65
76
8 8
68
1 0
86
20
93
21
59
71
89
75
68
9 3
54
19
80
11
70
6 7
16
4 6
93
25
81
33
4 7
71
88
3 7
05
46
1 2
45
10
2 6
07
7 4
75
58
5
En
-ro
ute
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(in
€'0
00)
Ter
min
al A
TM
/CN
S c
ost
s (i
n €
'000
)G
ate
-to
-gat
e A
TM
/CN
S c
ost
s (i
n €
'000
)
An
nex
6 -
Tab
le 0
.3:
Bre
akd
ow
n o
f A
TM
/CN
S p
rovi
sio
n c
ost
s (e
n-r
ou
te, t
erm
inal
an
d g
ate-
to-g
ate)
, 201
0
Ann
ex 6
– K
ey d
ata
106
AC
E 2
010
Ben
chm
arki
ng
Rep
ort w
ith 2
011-
2015
out
look
AN
SP
s
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
Aen
a83
9 43
225
3 37
015
2 60
117
3 79
81
419
202
390
191
766
880
262
130
1 4
19 2
02
AN
S C
R11
3 17
32
4 09
40
47
641
184
908
163
983
8 7
9712
128
184
908
AR
MA
TS
4 80
052
20
4 03
49
355
6 8
678
911
597
9 35
5A
ustr
o C
ont
rol
171
226
43
918
25
570
102
947
343
661
57 3
372
09 6
7276
652
343
661
Avi
nor
67
544
24
686
00
92 2
30B
elgo
cont
rol
180
114
5 94
650
18
1 64
72
68 2
081
79 7
2841
116
47 3
6426
8 20
8B
ULA
TS
A10
6 61
984
00
76
754
184
212
156
349
12 3
0315
560
184
212
Cro
atia
Con
tro
l4
9 44
08
504
5 22
73
8 14
11
01 3
1159
652
22 9
3218
727
101
311
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
24
839
9 30
30
28
542
62 6
8438
309
24 3
750
62
684
DF
S71
5 25
91
6 85
06
0 45
388
6 32
71
678
889
462
927
1 0
43 5
601
72 4
021
678
88
9D
HM
I50
9 60
59
8 70
71
055
71
009
680
377
598
415
36 0
4245
920
680
377
DS
NA
676
504
135
856
167
276
463
1 0
88 9
892
90 4
806
97 5
211
00 9
881
088
98
9E
AN
S8
740
6 08
00
3 23
918
059
13 5
922
186
2 2
811
8 05
9E
NA
V86
2 49
449
1 47
511
4 81
783
6 77
42
305
560
1 2
52 2
702
50 4
878
02 8
042
305
56
0F
inav
ia5
0 18
31
0 63
70
16
909
77 7
2941
032
32 6
894
008
77
729
HC
AA
179
994
00
01
79 9
94H
unga
roC
ontr
ol6
2 42
12
807
17
737
65
336
148
301
80 8
1444
564
22 9
2214
8 30
1IA
A6
7 74
15
1 44
40
74
849
194
034
49 7
631
12 0
9932
172
194
034
LFV
114
475
52
748
56
752
336
826
560
802
24 8
924
96 0
7934
631
555
602
LGS
22
348
2 44
31
89
515
34 3
2427
689
3 0
903
544
34
324
LPS
32
355
3 36
70
35
072
70 7
9459
910
3 4
907
394
70
794
LVN
L8
6 19
56
769
04
8 87
51
41 8
39-3
4 6
021
38 2
3638
205
141
839
MA
TS
5 31
60
09
457
14 7
735
404
4 4
904
878
14
773
M-N
AV
9 34
70
06
203
15 5
5012
823
1 9
258
021
5 55
0M
oldA
TS
A6
229
708
99
4 26
911
305
11 1
910
113
11
305
MU
AC
72
664
3 41
30
34
987
111
064
076
077
34 9
8711
1 06
4N
AT
A A
lban
ia1
7 74
21
9 28
312
23
2 18
669
333
39 7
2228
623
987
69
333
NA
TS
617
609
393
815
470
022
452
651
1 9
34 0
976
20 2
689
88 8
083
25 0
221
934
09
7N
AV
Por
tuga
l (F
IR L
isbo
a)
46
649
21
697
64
706
146
539
279
591
89 1
401
36 5
9153
860
279
591
NA
VIA
IR12
1 12
93
7 20
81
17
3 65
02
31 9
9895
606
103
005
33 3
8723
1 99
8O
ro n
avig
acija
34
692
962
1 15
89
519
46 3
3144
554
591
1 1
864
6 33
1P
AN
SA
127
909
18
998
12
295
51
436
210
638
144
869
22 0
6643
702
210
638
RO
MA
TS
A13
5 78
01
1 25
10
116
645
263
676
208
841
41 2
1413
621
263
676
Sky
guid
e27
0 49
61
4 60
45
2 42
910
6 32
74
43 8
562
31 2
777
894
204
686
443
856
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol9
272
9 63
525
55
414
24 5
764
102
12 2
258
249
24
576
SM
AT
SA
60
900
71
475
02
5 18
51
57 5
6184
865
42 0
3430
662
157
561
UkS
AT
SE
66
062
44
370
4 23
510
6 12
72
20 7
941
95 6
491
449
23 6
9622
0 79
4
Tot
al6
54
7 29
81
89
7 78
51
04
0 23
14
39
5 29
013
880
604
5 7
07 9
095
414
003
2 4
81 2
6713
603
18
0
AN
SP
BA
LA
NC
E S
HE
ET
in (
€'0
00)
An
nex
6 -
Tab
le 0
.4:
Bal
ance
Sh
eet
dat
a at
AN
SP
leve
l, 20
10
Ann
ex 6
– K
ey d
ata
107
AC
E 2
010
Ben
chm
arki
ng
Rep
ort w
ith 2
011-
2015
out
look
AN
SP
s
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)
Ae
na
1 8
55
299
046
206
4954
538
74
90
30
25
04
15
71
00
91
34
1 7
35
846
1 0
60
13
540
8 8
32
AN
S C
R18
91
120
219
638
115
29
25
73
16
987
68
61
33
08
51
031
58
08
42
5 2
50
AR
MA
TS
87
00
02
713
172
049
27
82
457
32
46
08
055
82
50
097
3A
ust
ro C
ont
rol
270
20
6045
19
7511
29
493
108
089
61
13
15
9 5
56
157
24
1 6
23
59
49
9A
vin
or
371
94
3632
163
021
02
734
27
18
1 0
12
17
42
98
23
61
973
26
42
96
2 9
64
Be
lgoc
on
tro
l22
03
50
113
751
175
55
16
39
76
490
78
61
18
16
41
341
75
11
83
8 3
91
BU
LA
TS
A19
56
60
183
830
456
19
14
914
11
04
1 2
16
92
11
9 2
32
103
13
5 3
42
12
95
5C
roat
ia C
on
tro
l23
22
412
64
629
107
21
14
711
90
743
89
12
4 5
11
143
19
6 6
25
21
53
5D
CA
C C
ypru
s7
07
30
41
02
038
27
018
84
81
29
79
222
58
98
28
60
5D
FS
1 7
16
71
761
3136
15
0581
461
64
59
115
38
15
28
01
34
61
45
7 8
14
370
47
5 9
25
287
56
6D
HM
I84
33
536
343
41
821
30
02
21
091
474
1 0
28
5 0
80
41
96
86
32
24
246
94
08
84
6 6
67
DS
NA
2 6
99
369
315
304
133
1 1
151
34
842
59
26
234
07
86
81
40
31
83
1 3
18
1 2
961
68
8 8
29
321
55
5E
AN
S4
14
80
213
24
27
170
013
61
93
1 9
20
223
6 9
60
2 7
48
EN
AV
1 3
36
170
5146
38
1911
88
95
39
415
12
22
94
38
34
1 1
55
71
15
027
02
39
418
7 0
63
Fin
avi
a19
42
70
12
30
77
945
83
045
96
18
0 6
53
133
19
0 7
48
19
91
1H
CA
A53
015
00
00
4646
68
890
05
00
1 8
70
23
53
45
45
02
954
33
65
05
9 2
94
Hun
garo
Con
tro
l18
21
19
128
054
115
16
17
06
81
473
19
41
46
17
088
13
6 1
36
21
09
6IA
A21
24
020
252
416
36
20
761
63
488
14
62
28
92
866
10
4 4
78
29
57
1L
FV
531
120
052
37
729
06
11
34
36
01
13
32
25
37
3 5
00
306
49
0 2
12
76
97
7L
GS
81
00
00
3310
22
832
54
330
38
56
12
643
62
43
63
11
8L
PS
100
23
73
49
1611
81
21
17
28
047
35
47
4 8
83
467
2 0
64
10
08
7L
VN
L18
23
620
238
81
4612
86
81
69
72
589
26
09
6 3
47
122
19
5 6
17
39
15
5M
AT
S5
60
00
13
04
30
231
414
02
85
0 3
83
284
9 9
65
2 4
89
M-N
AV
66
14
016
78
47
041
50
24
273
37
52
09
629
40
83
22
75
4M
oldA
TS
A5
51
11
15
16
97
465
16
831
53
34
8 7
74
223
2 7
36
960
MU
AC
227
30
4513
54
100
132
052
00
653
22
72
93
13
0n
/ap
pl
n/a
ppl
45
90
5N
AT
A A
lba
nia
46
80
01
20
80
070
37
50
303
29
49
53
217
29
00
21
69
6N
AT
S1
39
613
488
157
416
422
733
150
1 0
301
60
4 5
41
92
91
14
5 8
12
468
57
6 9
84
182
03
7N
AV
Po
rtu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa
)20
93
90
52
762
87
55
15
54
32
070
28
91
52
54
61
202
18
52
04
3 3
00
NA
VIA
IR19
76
716
2011
50
99
34
13
11
30
692
11
31
75
64
084
13
0 3
60
27
52
5O
ro n
avi
gaci
ja8
21
10
10
247
48
752
80
302
34
53
91
047
75
76
24
47
4P
AN
SA
404
13
3161
79
261
347
61
32
311
20
1 6
92
11
11
28
15
22
933
34
63
63
7 4
11
RO
MA
TS
A44
05
728
144
00
392
04
08
205
01
58
42
20
29
9 2
00
220
30
4 4
80
30
93
5S
kygu
ide
326
69
4264
60
186
136
139
18
68
81
41
30
82
03
26
1 2
05
123
15
0 5
21
54
14
2S
love
nia
Con
tro
l9
08
08
11
52
51
032
25
021
45
07
2 1
14
405
8 0
69
9 8
52
SM
AT
SA
233
65
431
39
3712
58
483
165
086
61
54
19
6 3
50
791
04
28
01
3 7
24
UkS
AT
SE
981
341
055
104
126
2 7
73
39
74
822
17
00
6 0
88
57
37
44
32
74
085
61
81
62
5 2
33
Tot
al
16
94
42
41
41
028
1 2
542
52
23
733
11
79
32
67
48
740
3 1
63
3 5
44
57
80
89
49
41
2 7
58
70
57
451
10
38
6 3
39
2 2
26
24
7
An
nex
6 -
Tab
le 0
.5:
To
tal s
taff
an
d A
TC
Os
in O
PS
dat
a, 2
010
Ann
ex 6
– K
ey d
ata
108
AC
E 2
010
Ben
chm
arki
ng
Rep
ort w
ith 2
011-
2015
out
look
AN
SP
s
Size of controlled airspace
Number of ACC operational units
Number of APP operational units
Number of TWR operational units
Number of AFIS
Total distance in charging area
Total IFR flights controlled by the ANSP
Total flight-hours controlled by the ANSP
IFR Airport mov controlled by the ANSP
Composite flight-hours
Aen
a2
19
0 0
00
519
370
819
09
3 4
231
711
33
11
324
05
91
82
6 7
441
80
6 7
29A
NS
CR
79
50
01
44
01
57 0
29
446
652
22
42
28 2
45
170
064
27
3 1
80A
RM
AT
S2
9 8
00
11
22
8 2
72
407
52
87
112
53
72
0 8
721
8 0
52A
ustr
o C
ont
rol
80
00
01
66
01
96 7
07
548
891
54
02
86 2
16
373
656
38
4 9
45A
vin
or71
9 0
00
317
1728
133
92
0 7
9253
8 7
10
310
00
260
3 1
854
69
378
Bel
goco
ntr
ol
39
50
01
45
01
60 0
19
662
543
42
21
10 1
56
353
429
20
3 5
41B
UL
AT
SA
145
12
01
35
01
28 9
18
204
505
24
11
68 8
94
82
055
19
0 5
75C
roa
tia C
on
trol
158
00
01
910
01
11 9
77
000
456
83
31
81 4
96
84
344
20
3 7
82D
CA
C C
ypru
s17
4 0
00
12
20
93 8
98
220
284
75
41
30 6
69
63
835
14
7 5
36D
FS
388
00
04
016
09
79 5
41
051
2 77
3 4
24
1 3
63 2
22
2 0
06
451
1 8
93
375
DH
MI
982
00
02
1737
225
64 7
01
713
934
63
88
10 5
88
806
363
1 0
23
649
DS
NA
1 0
10
00
05
1280
01
378
85
2 1
682
700
54
62
099
43
61
80
8 5
482
57
7 2
98E
AN
S7
7 1
02
12
20
39 2
51
615
154
98
553
89
33
1 4
646
2 2
07E
NA
V73
4 0
00
423
1211
709
94
5 4
421
588
35
81
084
84
31
14
3 3
511
38
6 9
44F
ina
via
415
00
02
719
658
74
0 2
0623
1 8
35
110
48
524
9 5
961
76
434
HC
AA
538
00
01
1618
153
30 8
29
825
654
65
24
87 8
38
187
517
53
7 3
85H
un
garo
Con
tro
l9
3 0
00
11
21
144
32
8 9
1062
1 8
98
196
14
810
5 6
422
24
061
IAA
457
00
02
33
01
85 2
20
931
510
39
62
53 0
91
207
552
30
7 9
31L
FV
626
00
02
2635
22
38 9
98
314
659
61
64
02 1
68
493
534
53
2 5
72L
GS
95
30
01
22
045
83
0 6
6520
7 2
23
62 9
04
62
847
79
510
LP
S4
8 7
00
12
50
61 1
02
233
369
49
181
77
63
6 3
369
1 3
77L
VN
L5
2 0
00
13
40
183
33
0 1
5053
1 6
83
144
09
944
9 5
582
62
883
MA
TS
231
00
01
21
029
06
4 6
669
5 2
56
46 5
87
32
804
55
255
M-N
AV
24
80
01
22
114
92
4 5
7612
4 9
82
20 5
79
12
505
23
883
Mo
ldA
TS
A3
3 7
00
10
43
10 5
72
109
54
40
414
64
41
3 5
821
8 2
33M
UA
C26
0 0
00
10
00
1 3
22 8
90
863
1 52
2 4
10
543
14
0n/
app
l5
43
140
NA
TA
Alb
ani
a3
5 9
00
11
11
29 8
64
425
181
46
538
83
32
1 0
224
4 3
88N
AT
S88
0 0
00
316
160
685
38
7 8
262
132
74
71
258
31
51
70
3 0
161
70
8 2
93N
AV
Po
rtug
al (
FIR
Lis
bo
a)66
5 0
00
14
60
183
60
1 2
3742
5 5
98
273
61
227
0 4
643
45
075
NA
VIA
IR15
8 0
00
17
71
115
96
1 3
0960
7 0
11
204
22
234
1 7
272
94
514
Oro
na
viga
cija
74
70
01
34
028
88
1 0
9717
0 9
01
47 5
39
37
718
57
505
PA
NS
A33
4 0
00
14
110
240
15
2 8
7858
4 9
07
346
26
928
8 3
394
22
455
RO
MA
TS
A25
5 0
00
12
160
209
75
0 8
1746
9 5
37
284
08
817
3 4
393
29
915
Sky
guid
e7
3 4
00
24
70
123
13
7 5
771
164
63
03
22 1
20
461
886
44
4 1
62S
love
nia
Co
ntr
ol1
9 9
00
13
30
30 7
73
155
248
75
643
44
53
7 1
345
3 2
57S
MA
TS
A14
4 6
76
18
80
140
53
0 6
0253
9 6
58
216
51
56
9 6
122
34
908
UkS
AT
SE
776
44
25
1232
02
68 3
42
581
429
41
33
48 2
29
185
803
39
7 3
23
To
tal
642
474
4193
10
164
34
5 6
431
3 9
10 9
02
14 8
15
994
17
82
5 6
48
An
nex
6 -
Tab
le 0
.6:
Op
erat
ion
al d
ata
(AN
SP
an
d S
tate
leve
l), 2
010
Annex 7 – Information on ANSPs major capex projects 109 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
ANNEX 7 – INFORMATION ON ANSPS MAJOR CAPEX PROJECTS This Annex presents, for each individual ANSP, information on the nature of the capex (historic and planned) between 2006 and 2015, including a breakdown of the major capex projects by area (i.e. ATM, Communication, Surveillance, etc.). It also indicates the dates of commissioning, major upgrades and replacement of the main ATM systems (FDPS, RDPS, HMI and VCS) for each ACC. Aena
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 Canarias
2013 All ACCs All ACCs All ACCs Madrid
2014 Palma
2015 Sevilla
ATM COM NAV SUR
€483.1M €69.7M €74.1M €135.4M
Building Years
€36.0M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement ANS CR
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1994* C: 2000* C: 2007* C: 2007*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
€100.4M (2008-2016)
€22.2M€7.1M
€8.1M
ATM COM NAV SUR Building Years
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement ARMATS
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2000* C: 2000* C: 2000* C: 2000*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
(2013-2016) (2013-2016)
€0.5M €1.6M(2011-2016)€3.7M
Building Years
€3.6M
€0.4M
ATM COM NAV SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Annex 7 – Information on ANSPs major capex projects 110 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Austro Control
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1986* C: 1986* C: 1986* C: 1996*
2006
2007
2008
2009
€5.5M 2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
€5.7M €15.7M €111.7M€36.1M
€13.6M
ATM COM NAV SUR Building Other Years
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement AVINOR
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1996 (Oslo)2004 (Stav.)2008 (Bodo)*
C: 1996 (Oslo)2004 (Stav.)2008 (Bodo)*
C: 2004 (Stav.)* C: 2007 (Bodo)*
2006
2007 Bodo
2008 Bodo Bodo
2009 Oslo Oslo
2010
2011
2012
2013 Stavanger
2014
2015
Building Years
€91.7M(2009-2016)
€17.9M
ATM COM NAV SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement Belgocontrol
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2009* C: 2003* C: 2009* C: 2008-2009*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Building Years
€6.2M(2011-2016)
€2.4M€10.9M
(2011-2016)
€16.8M
ATM COM NAV SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Annex 7 – Information on ANSPs major capex projects 111 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
BULATSA
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2005* C: 2005* C: 2005* C: 2003*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
COM NAV
€8.7M €9.4M€6.1M €6.0M
€19.6M
SUR Building YearsATM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement Croatia Control
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2005* C: 2005* C: 2005* C: 2005*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
€3.1M
€7.2M
€47.0M
ATM COM NAV SUR Building Years
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement DCAC Cyprus
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2000* C: 2000* C: 2000* C: 1998*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
€26.5M(2003-2013)
€8.9M
€13.1M
€5.2M€2.9M
Building YearsATM COM NAV SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Annex 7 – Information on ANSPs major capex projects 112 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
DFS
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1981 (Karl.)2004 (Bremen)1999 (Langen)
1999 (München)*
C: 1981 (Karl.)2004 (Bremen)1999 (Langen)
1999 (München)*
C: 1981 (Karl.)2004 (Bremen)1999 (Langen)
1999 (München)*
C: 2009 (Karl.)2003 (Bremen)2002 (Langen)
2002 (München)*
2006 Karlsruhe
2007
2008Bremen, Langen,
MünchenLangen, München
2009 Karlsruhe
Karlsruhe
Bremen
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 Langen (2015-16) Langen (2015-16) Langen (2015-16)
Karlsruhe
Langen (2012-2013)
München (2013-2014)
2010
ATM COM
Karlsruhe€105.5M(2004-2018)
€10.7M€104.1M
(2002-2014)
€40.9M(2008-2018)
NAV SUR Building Years
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement DHMI
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2008(All ACCs)*
C: 2008(All ACCs)*
C: 2008(All ACCs)*
C: 2005(All ACCs)*
2006
2007 All ACCs
2008
2009
€3.3M 2010
2011
2012 All ACCs All ACCs All ACCs
2013
2014 All ACCs
2015
SUR Building Years
€85.5M€42.3M
€15.0M €47.0M
ATM COM NAV
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement DSNA
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
2007 All ACCs
2008
2009 All ACCs
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
€610M*(2003-2016)
** The amount provided under "Other" (i.e. €45M) relates to the new airport Notre Dame des Landes in Nantes and includes capex relating to ATM, CNS and building
ATM
€45M(2012-2017)
SUR Building Other YearsCOM NAV
€80M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Annex 7 – Information on ANSPs major capex projects 113 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
EANS
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2002* C: 2002* C: 2002* C: 1998*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
NAV SUR Building Years
€9.0M
€2.7M €2.5M€2.9M
€0.2M
ATM COM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement ENAV
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
** The amount provided under "Other" (i.e. €17M) relates to MET
Building Other Years
€380.0M(2004-2015)
€124.5M €99.3M
€204.8M€64.7M €17.0M**
ATM COM NAV SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Finavia
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2000 (Tamp.)2009 (Rovan.)*
C: 2000 (Tamp.)2009 (Rovan.)*
C: 2000 (Tamp.)2009 (Rovan.)*
C: 2009(All ACCs)*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012 Tampere Tampere Tampere
2013
2014
2015
Building Years
€13.9M
€5.8M(2011-2016)
€12.1M(2011-2016)
€1.0M
ATM COM NAV
€3.7M(2013-2016)
SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Annex 7 – Information on ANSPs major capex projects 114 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
HCAA
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2000* C: 2000* C: 2000* C: 1999*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
YearsATM COM NAV SUR
€10.3M €6.2M
€14.4M
Building
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement HungaroControl
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1998* C: 1998* C: 1998* C: 2009*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
€12.6M
ATM COM NAV SUR Years
€16.8M
€19.1M€1.5M
€0.3M
Building
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement IAA
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 All ACCs
2010
2011 All ACCs All ACCs All ACCs
2012
2013 All ACCs
2014
2015
€12.0M
** The capex provided under "Building" (i.e. €9.8M) comprises an amount relating to Cork Tower (i.e. €7.3M, over 2007-2010) which also includes capex relating to ATM systems
Building Years
€62.0M
€22.4M €9.8M**
ATM COM NAV SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Annex 7 – Information on ANSPs major capex projects 115 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
LFV
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2005(All ACCs)*
C: 2009(All ACCs)*
C: 2005(All ACCs)*
C: 2010(All ACCs)*
2006
2007
2008
2009 All ACCs All ACCs
2010
2011 Malmo Malmo
2012 Stockholm Stockholm
2013
2014
2015
Years
€77.1M €5.3M
€10.6M
€6.9M
ATM COM NAV SUR Building
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement LGS
Years FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1999* C: 1999* C: 1999* C: 2003*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
COM NAV SUR Other
€12.6M
€1.6M
Building
€4.1M(2011-2016+)
ATM
€13.5M(2006-2016+)
€2.3M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement LPS
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1999* C: 2005* C: 1999* C: 2009*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
€2.2M 2012
2013
2014
2015
ATM COM NAV SUR Building Years
€34.1M
€5.2M€1.6M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Annex 7 – Information on ANSPs major capex projects 116 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
LVNL
COM NAV SUR Building Years FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1998* C: 1998* C: 1998* C: 1988*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
€33.0M€9.8M
€6.0M
ATM
€105.2M(2009-2016)
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
MATS
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1996* C: 1996* C: 1996* C: 1996*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
€0.3M 2012
2013
2014
2015
ATM COM NAV SUR Building Years
€1.3M
€7.5M
€4.8M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement M-NAV
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2002* C: 2002* C: 2002* C: 2003*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€0.7M 2014
2015
ATM COM NAV SUR Building
€7.3M €0.9M€2.9M
Years
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Annex 7 – Information on ANSPs major capex projects 117 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
MoldATSA
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1998* C: 1998* C: 1998* C: 2001*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
** The amount provided under "Other" (i.e. €0.8M) relates to MET
ATM COM NAV SUR
€4.0M€1.5M
€1.5M €1.8M
€1.2M
€0.8M**
Building Other Years
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
MUAC
COM NAV SUR Building Years FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2008* C: 2008* C: 2002* C: 1995*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
€17.1M
ATM
€100.3M(2003-2016)
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement NATA Albania
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2004* C: 2004* C: 2004* C: 2008*
2006
2007
2008
2009
€0.3M 2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Building Years
€14.1M €1.3M €18.8M
ATM COM NAV SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Annex 7 – Information on ANSPs major capex projects 118 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
NATS
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2001 (All ACCs)*
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
2008 London AC
2009 London AC, Prestwick Prestwick
2010 Prestwick London TC London TC
2011 London AC and TC London AC London TC
2012 London AC
2013
2014 London TC, Prestwick London TC, Prestwick
2015
SUR Building Years
€695.5M(2003-2014)
€191.0M(1999-2013)
€18.0M
€105.9M(2011-2014)
ATM COM NAV
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement NAV Portugal
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2001* C: 2001* C: 2001* C: 1999*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
SUR Building Years
€57.3M €5.0M €2.9M €7.1M €6.8M
ATM COM NAV
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement NAVIAIR
COM NAV SUR Building Years FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2007* C: 2006* C: 2007* C: 2007*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
€5.5M€17.6M
ATM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Annex 7 – Information on ANSPs major capex projects 119 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Oro Navigacija
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2005* C: 2005* C: 2005* C: 2005*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 (2015-2017) (2015-2017) (2015-2017) (2015-2017)
ATM COM NAV Building
€4.8M(2006-2016)
€3.2M(2009-2016) €3.3M
(2010-2016)
YearsSUR Other
€11.3M
€1.2M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement PANSA
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2001* C: 2001* C: 2001* C: 2001*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
€33.8M€47.5M
SUR Building Years
€26.8M
€18.1M€3.9M
ATM COM NAV
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement ROMATSA
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2003* C: 2003* C: 2003* C: 2004*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 (2015-2017)
Building Years
€11.3M €74.5M
€8.7M
€4.2M
ATM COM NAV SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Annex 7 – Information on ANSPs major capex projects 120 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Skyguide
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 1999 (Geneva)2007(Zurich)*
C: 2004(All ACCs)*
C: 2003/06 (Gen)2004/05 (Zurich)*
C: 2004/05 (Gen)2009/10 (Zurich)*
2006 Geneva Geneva (stripless)
2007
2008
2009
2010 All ACCs (ARTAS v7)Geneva
(INCH evolution)
2011 Zurich (v2)Zurich
(CFL/ INCH evolution)All ACCs (v4.6)
2012
2013
2014
2015 Zurich
€8.0M
Building Years
€36.7M(2005-2014)
ATM COM NAV SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement Slovenia Control
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2007* C: 2000* C: 2000* C: 1998*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Building Years
€18.4M
€2.1M(2009-2016)€10.6M
(2011-2017) €2.5M€5.9M
(2011-2017)
ATM COM NAV SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement SMATSA
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C: 2004* C: 2004* C: 2004* C: 2004*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
€4.9M€17.6M
ATM COM NAV SUR Building Years
€40.9M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Annex 7 – Information on ANSPs major capex projects 121 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
UkSATSE
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:2000 (Kyiv)2003 (Odesa, L'viv)2006 (Simf., Dnip.)*
2006 Kharkiv
2007
2008 Kyiv
2009
2010 Kyiv
2011 L'viv L'viv L'viv Kyiv
2012 Kyiv, Simferopol Kyiv Kyiv L'viv
2013 Odesa Odesa, Simferopol Odesa, Simferopol
2014
2015
€83.0M €44.0M €56.0M €123.0M€18.0M
Building YearsATM COM NAV SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Annex 7 – Information on ANSPs major capex projects 122 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Annex 123 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
ANNEX 8 - ANSP FACT SHEETS
Annex 124 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 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 + 11 members + Secretary
Chairman is the CEO
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Ministry of Development
Secretary of Statefor Planning and
Infrastructure
Ministry ofDefence
EA / EMA
AENA
DGACAESA
General Secretaryfor Transport
Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Environment Affairs
Secretary of Statefor Environment
AEMET
CIDEFO
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
Aena (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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 MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE:Jose Manuel Vargas Gomez
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Jose Manuel Vargas Gomez
DIRECTOR OF AIR NAVIGATION:Ignacio Gonzalez Sanchez
5 ACCs (Madrid, Barcelona, Canary Islands, Palma, Sevilla)19 APPs (Valencia TACC, Malaga APP and Santiago TACC + 16 APPs co-located with TWR units)37 TWRs
Note: This Fact Sheet reflects the situation as of 15/03/2012.
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
1 041Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
1 033Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
931Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
1 039
159Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
1 855ATCOs in OPS
1 324Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
1 827IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
70En-route sectors
4 576Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
4 157Gate-to-gate total staff
125ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
ANS CR, Czech Republic
www.rlp.cz
Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic
79 500
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 (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
ANS CR (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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
125Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
125Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
115Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
137
18Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
189ATCOs in OPS
228Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
170IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
9En-route sectors
137Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
876Gate-to-gate total staff
126ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
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 + 3 members appointed by the stockholders
Chairman is ARMATS DG
ARMATS
Ministry ofEnvironment
Ministry ofDefence
General Departmentof Civil Aviation
(GDCA)
Air Force Air DefenceAviation
MetereologicalCentre
Government
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
ARMATS (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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:Eduard Musoyan
DIRECTOR OF AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES:Artur Gasparyan
1 ACC (Yerevan)2 APPs (Yerevan, Gyumri)2 TWRs (Shirak, Zvartnots)
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
7Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
7Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
6Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
5
1Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
87ATCOs in OPS
13Total 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€)
457Gate-to-gate total staff
127ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Austro Control, Austria
www.austrocontrol.at
Österreichische Gesellschaft für Zivilluftfahrt mbH
80 000
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,
2 from the field of aviation, 1 from the fieldof consulting, 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 (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
Austro Control (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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. Caspar Einem
MANAGING BOARD:Dr. Heinz SommerbauerMag. Johann Zemsky
1 ACC (Wien)6 APPs (Wien, Graz, Innsbruck, Klagenfurt, Linz, Salzburg)6 TWRs
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
211Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
201Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
171Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
172
42Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
270ATCOs in OPS
286Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
374IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
11En-route sectors
1 442Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
896Gate-to-gate total staff
128ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Avinor, Norway
www.avinor.no
AVINOR
2 169 000
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 (8 members)CEO + 7 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: 719 000 km² - Oceanic:1 450 000 km²
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
Avinor (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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
177Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
185Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
173Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
90
7Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
371ATCOs in OPS
310Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
603IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
19En-route sectors
71Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 012Gate-to-gate total staff
129ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Belgocontrol, Belgium
www.belgocontrol.be
Belgocontrol
39 500
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARD (10 members)Chairman + CEO + 8 members
Members appointed by Ministry of MobilityCEO represents staff.
EXECUTIVE BOARD (4 members)CEO + 3 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 (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
Belgocontrol (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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:Charles-Louis d’Arenberg
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Jean-Claude Tintin
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
205Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
216Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
148Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
171
13Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
220ATCOs in OPS
110Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
353IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
7En-route sectors
312Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
907Gate-to-gate total staff
130ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
BULATSA, Bulgaria
www.atsa.bg
Bulgarian Air Traffic Services Authority
145 120
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
117 120 km² plus 28 000 km² over the Black Sea.
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
BULATSA (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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:Iskra Angelova
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Diyan Dinev
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
86Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
86Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
73Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
105
2Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
195ATCOs in OPS
169Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
82IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
6En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 216Gate-to-gate total staff
131ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
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 Protectionand Rescue Directorate
(NPRD)
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
Croatia Control (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- Limited liability company as of 1 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:Ante Cajic
DIRECTOR GENERAL:Dražen Ramljak
1 ACC (Zagreb)5 APPs (Zagreb, Pula, Zadar, Split, Dubrovnik)4 APP/TWRs (Brac, Losinj, Osijek, Rijeka)6 TWRs (Zagreb, Pula, Split, Dubrovnik, Zadar, Lucko)1 AFIS (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
71Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
73Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
69Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
56
9Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
232ATCOs in OPS
181Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
84IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
8En-route sectors
471Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
743Gate-to-gate total staff
132ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
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 SupervisoryAuthority����NSA
Air Navigation Services
Department
Ministry of
Finance
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
DCAC Cyprus (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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:Leonidas Leonidou
HEAD OF NSA:Panayiota Demetriou
HEAD OF ANS SECTION (COO):Nicos Nicolaou
HEAD OF AIR TRANSPORT AND AIRPORTS SECTION:Iacovos Demetriou
1 ACC (Nicosia)2 APPs (Larnaca, Paphos)2 TWRs (Larnaca, Paphos)
- DCAC Cyprus owns and operates 2 airports
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
40Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
53Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
41Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
34
5Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
70ATCOs in OPS
131Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
64IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
3En-route sectors
1 008Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
188Gate-to-gate total staff
133ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
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 appointed by the GovernmentMembers represent: 1 (Chairman) from M of TBU
1 M of TBU2 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 (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
DFS (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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:Prof. Klaus-Dieter Scheurle
CHAIRMAN OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD:Dieter Kaden
1 UAC (Karlsruhe)1 ACC/UAC/APP (München)2 ACCs/APPs (Bremen, Langen)1 ACC (co-located with Maastricht UAC) for OAT in upper airspace 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
912Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
878Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
878Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
664
80Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
1 716ATCOs in OPS
1 363Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
2 006IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
108En-route sectors
5 698Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
5 280Gate-to-gate total staff
134ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
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 (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
DHMI (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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)17 APPs37 TWRs 22 AFISs- DHMI is responsible for the administration of 45 State
Airports. ATS services are provided by DHMI in 37 Airports
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
371Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
319Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
280Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
608
70Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
843ATCOs in OPS
811Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
806IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
22En-route sectors
965Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
5 080Gate-to-gate total staff
135ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
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 (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
DSNA (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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)68 TWRs
- Delegation of airspace to Skyguide and Jersey
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
1 353Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
1 407Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
1 138Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
767
120Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
2 699ATCOs in OPS
2 099Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
1 809IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
87En-route sectors
7 906Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
7 868Gate-to-gate total staff
136ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
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 members of the Supervisory Board;
3 appointed by M of F.
EXECUTIVE BOARD (3 members) CEO + 2 members
CEO appointed by the Supervisory Board
CivilAviation
Administration����NSA
EANS
Ministry ofFinance
Ministry of EconomicAffairs and
Communications
Government
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
EANS (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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
13Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
11Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
11Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
15
5Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
41ATCOs in OPS
54Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
31IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
3En-route sectors
5Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
136Gate-to-gate total staff
137ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
ENAV, Italy
www.enav.it
Company for Air Navigation Services
734 000
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 (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
ENAV (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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
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
704Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
735Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
654Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
1 031
166Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
1 336ATCOs in OPS
1 085Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
1 143IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
61En-route sectors
222Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
2 943Gate-to-gate total staff
138ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Finavia, Finland
www.finavia.fi
Finavia
415 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
The BOARD (6 members)Chairman + 5 members (1 member represents staff)All members are appointed by the Council of State.
Chief Executive Officer of Finavia is not a member of the Board.
Chief Executive Officer
COUNCIL of STATE(Government)
Chaired by the Prime Minister
Finnish Transport Safety Agency
����NSA
Ministry of Transport andCommunication (M of TC)
Finavia
Air NavigationServices (ANS)
AirportServices
CommercialServices
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
Finavia (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER:Kari Savolainen
VICE PRESIDENT - AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES:Raine Luojus
1 ACC (Tampere - from end of November 2010) 5 APPs (Helsinki, Jyväskylä, Kuopio, Tampere-Pirkkala, Rovaniemi) 2 Mil-APPs (Halli, Kauhava) 19 TWRs 6 AFISs (Enontekiö, Kittilä, Kajaani, Savonlinna, Kuusamo, Varkaus)
- Finavia owns and operates 25 airports- Partly internal MET provision, partly outsourced- Delegation of ATS in certain areas to LFV and Avinor- 194 ATCOs in OPS reported below do not include those providing services to military OAT flights
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
48Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
67Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
57Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
52
11Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
194ATCOs in OPS
110Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
250IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
5En-route sectors
26Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
459Gate-to-gate total staff
139ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
HCAA, Greece
www.hcaa.gr
Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority
538 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and 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 and Networks
(M of ITN)
Ministry of Defence(M of D)
Hellenic Civil AviationAuthority (HCAA)
Air NavigationDirectorate
AdministrativeSupport
Directorate
AirTransportDirectorate
Hellenic NationalMeteorological
Service (HNMS)
Hellenic Air NavigationSupervisory Authority
(HANSA)
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
HCAA (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- State body - 100% State-owned
Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority
Air Navigation Airspace Committee
Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure and 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:F. Papadimitropoulou
DEPUTY GOVERNORS:G. NanidisS. Konsolakis
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF AIR NAVIGATION:G. Kontogiannis
1 ACC16 APPs 18 TWRs15 AFISs
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
181Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
191Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
164Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
180
18Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
530ATCOs in OPS
488Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
188IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
12En-route sectors
989Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 870Gate-to-gate total staff
140ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
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 (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
HungaroControl (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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 1 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)2 TWRs (Budapest and Sármellék)1 AFIS (Sármellék)- HungaroControl provides Training activities (ATM
training courses, language courses) in its Civil Aviation Training Centre (CATC)
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
99Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
103Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
94Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
65
14Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
182ATCOs in OPS
196Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
106IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
7En-route sectors
2Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
731Gate-to-gate total staff
141ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
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
Departmentof Defence
Irish Aviation Authority
Departmentof Transport
(D of T)
Commission for Aviation Regulation
Departmentof Finance(D of F)
Safety RegulationDivision����NSA
OperationalDivision
TechnicalDivision
Standing CivilMilitary ANSCommittee
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
IAA (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- Commercial company as of 1994 governed by Companies Acts, 1963 to 2006- 100% State-owned (Department of Finance) - 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:Donie Mooney
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
133Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
133Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
113Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
116
15Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
212ATCOs in OPS
253Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
208IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
11En-route sectors
34Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
488Gate-to-gate total staff
142ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
LFV, Sweden
www.lfv.se
LFV, Swedish Air Navigation Services
626 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
BOARD OF DIRECTORS (8 members) Chairman + DG + 6 members
6 members (Chairman + DG + 4 members) are appointed bythe Government; 2 members are appointed by Trade Unions.
EXECUTIVE BOARD (8 members) DG + 7 members
DG appointed by the Government
Ministry of Enterprise,Energy and Communications
(M of EEC)
SwedishTransportAgency����NSA
Ministryof Defense
ProductionTerminal
ProductionEn-route
Products&
Services
BusinessSupport
LFV holding(Subsidiaries)
LFV
SwedaviaSwedishArmedForces
Parliament
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
LFV (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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:Nils Gunnar Billinger
DIRECTOR GENERAL:Thomas Allard
2 ACCs (Stockholm and Malmö) 26 APPs (2 APPs combined with ACCs + 24 APPs combined with TWRs)35 TWRs 2 AFISs
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
178Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
214Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
206Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
167
15Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
531ATCOs in OPS
402Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
494IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
21En-route sectors
130Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 133Gate-to-gate total staff
143ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
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 (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
LGS (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- Joint-stock company since 1997- 100% State-owned
Civil Aviation Agency
Civil Aviation Agency
Air Transport Department
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:Aivita Lublina - Goldmane
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD:Davids Taurins
1 ACC (Riga)2 APPs (Riga, Liepaja)2 TWRs (Riga and Liepaja)In Liepaja APP and TWR are combined in one ATS unit.- ATC services delegated to Latvia by Lithuania over a part of
the Baltic Sea
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
22Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
24Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
21Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
24
2Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
81ATCOs in OPS
63Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
63IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
3En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
330Gate-to-gate total staff
144ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
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 (9 members) CEO + 8 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
Directorate ofCivil Aviation
����NSA
Ministry ofDefence (M of D)
Inter-MinisterialCommission
Defence-Transports
AirportsAir Traffic Services
of the SlovakRepublic (LPS SR)
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
LPS (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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):Civil Aviation Authority
CHAIRPERSON OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Peter Horal
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)
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
53Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
54Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
49Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
36
6Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
100ATCOs in OPS
82Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
36IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
5En-route sectors
36Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
473Gate-to-gate total staff
145ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
LVNL, Netherlands
www.lvnl.nl
Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland
52 000
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 Civil Aviation and
Maritime Affairs(DGLM)
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
LVNL (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- Corporate Entity as of 1993 (by Air Traffic Law)- 100% State-owned
Directorate-General for Civil Aviation and Maritime Affairs (DGLM)
Directorate-General for Civil Aviation and Maritime Affairs (DGLM)
Directorate-General for Civil Aviation and Maritime Affairs (DGLM)
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):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
225Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
221Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
161Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
91
4Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
182ATCOs in OPS
144Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
450IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
5En-route sectors
455Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
892Gate-to-gate total staff
146ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
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 appointed by the Government, representingthe MFEI.
The Board of Directors appoints the CEO.
Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport & Communications
(MITC)
Civil AviationDirectorate����NSA
Malta Air Traffic Services Ltd (MATS)
Ministry of Finance,Economy and Investment
(MFEI)
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
MATS (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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 THE SUPERVISORY BOARD: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
15Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
15Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
14Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
5
1Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
56ATCOs in OPS
47Total 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€)
140Gate-to-gate total staff
147ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
M-NAV, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
www.mnavigation.mk
Air Navigation Services
24 800
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 (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
M-NAV (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- Joint-stock company - 100% State-owned
Safety Dept. of Civil Aviation Agency
ATM Dept. of Civil Aviation Agency
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:Dragan Andreevski
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
11Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
12Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
10Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
9
0Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
66ATCOs in OPS
21Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
13IFR 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
148ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
MoldATSA, Moldova
www.moldatsa.md
Moldavian Air Traffic Services Authority
33 700
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
MoldATSAAircraftOperator
Government
Economy Ministry
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
MoldATSA (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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:Valentin Dogotari
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Sorin Stati
HEAD OF ATM DIVISION:Serghei Gheorghita
1 ACC (Chisinau)1 APP (Chisinau)4 TWRs (Chisinau, Balti, Cahul, Marculesti)
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
9Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
9Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
8Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
7
1Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
55ATCOs in OPS
15Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
14IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
2En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
315Gate-to-gate total staff
149ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
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
NSA’s)
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
MUAC (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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:David McMillan
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
402Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
139Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
139Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
69
10Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
227ATCOs in OPS
543Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
n/applIFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
16En-route sectors
73Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
653Gate-to-gate total staff
150ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
NATA Albania, Albania
http://www.anta.com.al/
National Air Traffic Agency
35 900
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARD (6 members) Chairman + 5 members
Chairman is the Director of Transport and Telecommunications (MPATT)
All 6 members are nominated by the METE, 2 areproposed by the MPATT, 2 members by the METE
and 2 by the Finance Ministry.
MANAGEMENT BOARD (5 members) Director General + 4 Divisions Chiefs (Economic,
Operational, Services-Security, Technical)
Director General appointed by MPATT through the Supervisory Board of NATA
Ministry of Public Affairs,Transport and
Telecommunications(MPATT)
Civil Aviation Agency (CAA)����NSA
Ministry of Economy,Trade and Energy
(METE)
National Air TrafficAgency (NATA)
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
NATA Albania (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- Since May 1999 NATA is a joint-stock company- 100% State owned
MPATT and Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)
MPATT and Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Energy (METE)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Agency (CAA)
CHAIRMAN OF SUPERVISORY BOARD:Ervin Minarolli
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO) OF NATA:Petrit Sulaj
DIRECTOR OF THE ATS DEPARTMENT:Edmond Metaj
1 ACC (Tirana)1 APP (Tirana)1 TWR (Tirana)1 AFIS (Tirana)
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
21Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
20Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
19Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
37
13Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
46ATCOs in OPS
39Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
21IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
3En-route sectors
24Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
303Gate-to-gate total staff
151ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
NATS, United Kingdom
www.nats.co.uk
NATS Ltd
3 000 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
NATS BOARD OF DIRECTORS (13 members)
Chairman + 12 members. Chairman is appointed by the shareholders. Out of the 12 members,
9 are non-executive directors (5 appointed by the Airline Group +3 partnership directors appointed
by the Govt + 1 by BAA);3 are executive directors (Chief Executive NATS,
Finance Director, and Managing Director, NATS Services).
Senior Leadership Team, Operations Senior Leadership Team, Services
NATS Executive
Ministry of Defence (MoD)
NATS Holdings Ltd
Private Owners
UK CAA����NSA
Contract 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
BAA
Continental: 880 000 km² - Oceanic: 2 120 000 km²
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
NATS (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- Public Private Partnership as of 2001 - 49% State-owned (Govt retains a Golden Share) - 51% private-owned (42% by the Airline Group, 4% by BAA and 5% by UK NATS employees)- The Airline Group comprises 7 UK 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 SERVICES:Paul Reid
MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATS OPERATIONSIan Hall
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
792Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
713Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
704Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
826
125Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
1 396ATCOs in OPS
1 258Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
1 703IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
71En-route sectors
1 141Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
4 541Gate-to-gate total staff
152ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
NAV Portugal, Portugal
www.nav.pt
Navegação Aérea de Portugal - NAV Portugal, E.P.E.
5 855 000
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 8 Directorates and 5 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: 5 190 000 km²
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
NAV Portugal (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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
150Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
135Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
119Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
41
9Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
209ATCOs in OPS
274Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
270IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
7En-route sectors
51Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
702Gate-to-gate total staff
153ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
NAVIAIR, Denmark
www.naviair.dk
Air Navigation Services
158 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
EXECUTIVE BOARD (3 members)CEO + 2 members
The CEO is appointed by the Supervisory Board.
SUPERVISORY BOARD1 Chairman + 8 Members
Ministry of Transport(MoT)
Air NavigationService (NAVIAIR)
Danish CAA(Trafikstyrelsen)
����NSA
Bornholm Airport
AccidentInvestigation Board
(AIB)
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
NAVIAIR (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- Company owned by the state- 100% State-owned
Civil Aviation Administration (Trafikstyrelsen)
Civil Aviation Administration (Trafikstyrelsen
Civil Aviation Administration (Trafikstyrelsen)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Danish CAA (Trafikstyrelsen)
CHAIRMAN OF SUPERVISORY BOARDAnne Birgitte Lundholdt
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Morten Dambæk
(excluding Greenland)1 ACC (Copenhagen)7 APPs7 TWRs1 AFIS
- ANS Greenland upper airspace is delegated to Isavia and NAV Canada
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
117Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
119Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
110Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
155
16Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
197ATCOs in OPS
204Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
342IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
7En-route sectors
60Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
692Gate-to-gate total staff
154ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
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 Minister.
SUPERVISORY BOARD (5 members)Chairman + 4 members
(Chairman + 3) represent M of TC1 represent Oro Navigacija.
Ministry of Transportand Communications
(M of TC)
Civil AviationAdministration
����NSA
Oro Navigacija Airlines Airports
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
Oro Navigacija (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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:Tomas Karpavičius
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
22Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
23Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
21Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
36
5Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
82ATCOs in OPS
48Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
38IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
2En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
302Gate-to-gate total staff
155ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
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 is managed
by the President and his two Vice-Presidents. The President is nominated by the Prime Minister. The two Vice-Presidents are nominated by the MoT
NO SUPERVISORY BOARD
Ministry of Transport,Construction and
Maritime Economy
Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA)
Polish AirportsState Enterprise
(PPL)
Civil AviationOffice (CAO)
����NSA
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
PANSA (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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 Banaszek
VICE PRESIDENT- AIR NAVIGATION DEPARTMENT:Maciej Rodak
VICE PRESIDENT- FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT:Maciej Piotrowski
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
150Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
148Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
128Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
144
19Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
404ATCOs in OPS
346Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
288IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
8En-route sectors
679Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 692Gate-to-gate total staff
156ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
ROMATSA, Romania
www.romatsa.ro
Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration
255 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
ADMINISTRATION BOARD (7 voting members) Chairman + 6 members
Chairman is CEO.Members represent: MoT, M of Public Finance, MoD
and other entities + additional non voting participants representing staff.
STEERING COMMITTEEDuties taken up by DG.
DG is appointed by the MoT.DG + other directors.
Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure (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
Council
Directorate Generalof Infrastructure and
Air Transport����NSA
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
ROMATSA (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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 and InfrastructureEnforcement and safety oversight is delegated and discharged through the RCAA
Both Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure and Ministry of Defence, and discharged through the RCAA and Air Force Staff
Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):- Directorate General of Infrastructure and Air Transport- Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority (RCAA)
CHAIRMAN OF THE ADMINISTRATION BOARD:Bogdan Donciu
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Bogdan Donciu
1 ACC (Bucharest + 1 secondary location - Arad) 2 APPs16 TWRs
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
179Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
164Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
143Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
138
10Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
440ATCOs in OPS
284Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
173IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
8En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 584Gate-to-gate total staff
157ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Skyguide, Switzerland
www.skyguide.ch
Skyguide
73 400
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 (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
Skyguide (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- 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
244Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
254Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
241Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
275
24Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
326ATCOs in OPS
322Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
462IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
19En-route sectors
929Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 308Gate-to-gate total staff
158ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Slovenia Control, Slovenia
www.sloveniacontrol.si
Slovenia Control Ltd
19 900
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
Supervisory BoardChairman from MoT + 3 members from MoT, MoD, MoF
appointed by the Government + 2 staff reps. appointedby “employees board”
Director General (CEO) of Slovenia Controlappointed by the Government for a period of 5 years
Aircraft Accidentand IncidentInvestigation
Division
Ministry ofTransport
Civil AviationDirectorate
Civil AviationAuthority����NSA
Ministry ofFinance
The CapitalAssets
ManagementAgency
Slovenia Control Ltd
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
Slovenia Control (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- In May 2004 the provision of ANS was separated from the Slovenian Civil Aviation Authority and became a 100% state-owned enterprise, Slovenia Control Ltd
Ministry of Transport (Civil Aviation Directorate)
Ministry of Transport (Civil Aviation Directorate)
Ministry of Finance (The Capital Assets Management Agency)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Authority
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Mirko Komac
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Franc Željko Županič
1 ACC (Ljubljana)3 APPs (Ljubljana, Maribor, Portorož)3 TWRs (Ljubljana, Maribor, Portorož)
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
30Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
30Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
26Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
19
7Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
90ATCOs in OPS
43Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
37IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
3En-route sectors
1Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
214Gate-to-gate total staff
159ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
SMATSA, Serbia and Montenegro
http://www.smatsa.rs
Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services SMATSA llc
144 676
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 theRepublic of Serbia
Government ofMontenegro
Civil Aviation Agency of Montenegro
SMATSA
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
SMATSA (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- Limited liability company founded in 2003- 92% owned by Serbia and 8% owned by Montenegro- Integrated civil/military ANSP
Note: This Fact Sheet reflects the situation as of 25/04/2012.
- 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:Tatjana Isakovic
PRESIDENT OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Jelica Petrovic Vujacic
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERNikola Stankov
1 ACC (Belgrade)8 APPs/TWRs (Belgrade, Batajnica, Kraljevo, Nis, Uzice, Vrsac, Podgorica, Tivat)
- 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
78Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
82Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
75Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
128
84Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
233ATCOs in OPS
217Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
70IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
8En-route sectors
5Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
866Gate-to-gate total staff
160ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
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 » airline• Medical Certification Center
Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine
(State Aviation Service)
Institutional arrangements and links (2012)
Corporate governance structure (2012)
Scope of services
Status (2012)
UkSATSE (2012)
Key financial and operational figures (2010)
- Self-financing enterprise- 100% State-owned
State Aviation Service
State Aviation Service
Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Not applicable since Ukraine is not bound by SES Regulations
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF UkSATSE:Yuriy Cherednichenko
5 ACC/APPs (Kyiv, Simferopol', Dnipropetrovs'k, Odesa, L'viv)7 APPs (Donetsk, Kharkiv, Luhansk, Ivano-Frankivs'k, Zaporizhzhia, Uzghorod, Chernivtsi)22 TWRs
Upper AirspaceLower Airspace
GATOAT
Oceanic ANSMET
188Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
179Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
168Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
110
44Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
981ATCOs in OPS
348Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
186IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
33En-route sectors
26Minutes of ATFM delays ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
6 088Gate-to-gate total staff
161ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Annex 162 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
Glossary 163 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 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
CEATS Central European Air Traffic Services
CFMU Central Flow Management Unit
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
Glossary 164 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
HMI Human-Machine Interface
HQ Headquarters
HungaroControl HungaroControl, Hungary
IAA Irish Aviation Authority, Ireland
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
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
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
VFR Visual Flight Rules VOR Very high frequency Omni-directional Range
Glossary 165 ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report with 2011-2015 outlook
EUROCONTROL
REPORT COMMISSIONED BY THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMISSION
ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE)2010 Benchmarking Report
with 2011-2015 outlook
Prepared by the Performance Review Unit (PRU)with the ACE Working Group
May 2012May 2012
REPORT COMMISSIONED BY THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMISSION
ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE)2010 Benchmarking Report
with 2011-2015 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) 2
010
Benc
hmar
king
Rep
ort w
ith 2
011-
2015
out
look
Cover ACE Layout A3.indd 1 7/05/12 13:40