HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY REPORT ON

PRELIMINARY ACE 2016 DATA

IMPORTANT NOTE:

This document comprises preliminary data which are subject to changes before the publication of the final

ACE 2016 Benchmarking Report in May 2018

Report

commissioned by

the Performance

Review Commission

Prepared by the

EUROCONTROL

Performance

Review Unit (PRU)

December 2017

Disclaimer:

The Performance Review Unit (PRU) has made every effort to ensure that the information and analysis contained in this document are as accurate and complete as possible. Should you find any errors or inconsistencies we would be grateful if you could please bring them to the PRU’s attention.

The PRU’s e-mail address is pru@eurocontrol.int

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 4

2 HIGH LEVEL REVENUES, COSTS AND STAFF DATA....................................................................................... 6

3 ECONOMIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS .............................................................................................................. 8

EUROPEAN SYSTEM LEVEL ..................................................................................................................................... 8

ANSP LEVEL ............................................................................................................................................................ 9

4 FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS ............................................................................................................. 10

EUROPEAN SYSTEM LEVEL ................................................................................................................................... 10

ANSP LEVEL .......................................................................................................................................................... 12

4

1 INTRODUCTION

The ACE benchmarking work is carried out by the Performance Review Commission (PRC) supported by the Performance Review Unit (PRU) and is based on information provided by ANSPs in compliance with Decision No. 88 of the Permanent Commission of EUROCONTROL on economic information disclosure

The data processing, analysis and reporting are 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 enables participants to share experiences and gain a common understanding of underlying assumptions and limitations of the data.

This high level summary report presents a preliminary version of the data submitted by 38 Air Navigation Services Providers (ANSPs) in the Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V3.0 for the year 2016.

The objective of this document is to provide a first insight on the level of 2016 cost-effectiveness performance both for the Pan-European system and for individual ANSPs before the release of the ACE 2016 Benchmarking Report, which is planned end of May 2018. The figure below illustrates the timeline for the production of the ACE 2016 Benchmarking report.

Figure 1-1: Timeline for the production of the ACE 2016 Benchmarking Report

It is important that robust ACE benchmarking analysis is available in a timely manner 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.

It should be noted that the data presented in this document are still preliminary and not fully validated. These data reflect the information stored in the ACE database on the 16th November 2017. Figure 1-2 shows the status of the ACE data validation process at that time.

Figure 1-2: Status of data validation process

PRU validation & analysis of data

Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17

Second Meeting ACE 2016 WG

18 Jan. 2018

Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18

3 weeks to provide written

comments

Sept 17

Release 1st Draft Benchmarking Report with Draft Exec. Sum.

+High level analysis of

preliminary ACE 2016 data

Completion of ACE 2016

Benchmarking Report

Start of the validation process

Apr 18

Release 2nd Draft Benchmarking Report with Draft Exec. Sum.

May 18

First Meeting ACE 2016 WG

17 Oct. 2017

Albcontrol DCAC Cyprus HCAA M-NAV ROMATSA

ANS CR DFS HungaroControl MoldATSA Sakaeronavigatsia

ARMATS DHMI IAA MUAC Skyguide

Austro Control DSNA LFV NATS Slovenia Control

Avinor EANS LGS NAV Portugal SMATSA

Belgocontrol ENAIRE LPS NAVIAIR UkSATSE

BULATSA ENAV LVNL Oro Navigacija

Croatia Control Finavia MATS PANSA

█ Data validation process completed

█ Data validation process already started and being finalised

5

This information is therefore subject to changes before the release of the final ACE 2016 Benchmarking Report in May 2018.

Figure 1-3 below shows that 17 ANSPs provided their ACE 2016 data submission on time by the 1st July 2017 and that 27 data submissions were received by the 15th July 2017. Figure 1-3 also indicates that for seven ANSPs the ACE data submission was received more than one month after the deadline.

Figure 1-3: Status of ACE 2016 data submission

Clearly, the timescale for the production of the ACE Benchmarking Report is inevitably delayed if data are not submitted on time.

The remainder of this report is organised as follows:

Section 2: Provides an overview of the status of ACE 2016 data submissions;

Section 3: Provides a high level presentation of 2016 revenues, costs and staff data;

Section 4: Presents a preliminary analysis of economic cost-effectiveness at Pan-European and ANSP level;

Section 5: Presents a preliminary analysis of financial cost-effectiveness at Pan-European and ANSP level, and underlying components.

15-05-2016

30-05-2016

15-06-2016

01-07-2016

16-07-2016

01-08-2016

17-08-2016

01-09-2016

17-09-2016

03-10-2016

15-05-2017

30-05-2017

15-06-2017

01-07-2017

16-07-2017

01-08-2017

17-08-2017

01-09-2017

17-09-2017

03-10-2017

Oro

Nav

igac

ijaSl

ove

nia

Co

ntr

ol

NA

VIA

IRM

UA

CU

kSA

TSE

Skyg

uid

eP

AN

SAN

AV

Po

rtu

gal

DC

AC

Cyp

rus

Au

stro

Co

ntr

ol

LGS

AN

S C

RD

FSEN

AV

NA

TSSM

ATS

AEN

AIR

ELP

SFi

nav

iaLF

VEA

NS

Alb

con

tro

lH

un

garo

Co

ntr

ol

Cro

atia

Co

ntr

ol

Saka

ero

nav

igat

sia

Bel

goco

ntr

ol

RO

MA

TSA

DH

MI

Mo

ldA

TSA

DSN

AH

CA

AM

-NA

VLV

NL

MA

TS IAA

AR

MA

TSA

vin

or

BU

LATS

A

AC

E 2

01

5 d

ata

pro

vid

ed o

n:

AC

E 2

01

6 d

ata

pro

vid

ed o

n:

Submission of ACE2016 data Submission of ACE2015 data

6

2 HIGH LEVEL REVENUES, COSTS AND STAFF DATA

This section provides a preliminary presentation of high level revenues, costs and staff data provided in ANSPs ACE 2016 data submissions.

Total ANS revenues in 2016 were €9 362M. Almost all en-route revenue comes from the collection of en-route charges (96.4%, see left pie chart). The proportion is lower for terminal revenues (68.7%, see right pie chart), as additional income may directly come from airport operators (22.2% e.g. through a contractual arrangement between the ANSP and the airport operator).

Figure 2-1: Breakdown of gate-to-gate ANS revenues, 2016

From a methodological point of view, the ACE Benchmarking analysis focuses on the specific costs of providing gate-to-gate ATM/CNS services which amounted to €7 978M in 2016. Operating costs (including staff costs, non-staff operating costs and exceptional cost items) accounted for some 82% of total ATM/CNS provision costs, and capital-related costs (depreciation and cost of capital) represented some 18%.

Income from charges 96.4%

Income from the military

0.02%

Income in respect of exempted

flights0.8%

Income from domestic

government0.8%

Financial income1.1%

Other income (incl.

exceptional revenue item)

0.8%

En-route79.6%

Terminal20.4%

Income from charges 68.7%

Income from airport operators

22.2%

Income from the military0.03%

Income in respect of

exempted flights2.2%

Income from domestic

government3.6%

Financial income1.0%

Other income (incl. exceptional

revenue item)2.3%

Total en-route revenue: Gate-to-gate ANS revenue: Total terminal revenue:

€ 7 450 M € 9 362 M € 1 912 M

En-route % Gate-to-gate revenues (€ M) Terminal %

7 183 96.4% Income from charges 1 313 68.7%

n.a. n.a. Income from airport operators 424 22.2%

1.2 0.02% Income from the military 0.6 0.03%

62 0.8% Income in respect of exempted flights 41 2.2%

57 0.8% Income from domestic government 70 3.6%

85 1.1% Financial income 20 1.0%

62 0.8% Other income (incl. exceptional revenue item) 44 2.3%

7 450 100.0% 1 912 100.0%

Total en-route revenue: Gate-to-gate ANS revenue: Total terminal revenue:

€ 7 450 M € 9 362 M € 1 912 M

En-route % Gate-to-gate revenues (€ M) Terminal %

7 183 96.4% Income from charges 1 313 68.7%

n.a. n.a. Income from airport operators 424 22.2%

1.2 0.02% Income from the military 0.6 0.03%

62 0.8% Income in respect of exempted flights 41 2.2%

57 0.8% Income from domestic government 70 3.6%

85 1.1% Financial income 20 1.0%

62 0.8% Other income (incl. exceptional revenue item) 44 2.3%

7 450 100.0% 1 912 100.0%

Preliminary

data

7

Figure 2-2: Breakdown of gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs at Pan-European system level, 2016

The Pan-European ANSPs employed some 55 360 staff1. Some 17 877 staff (32%) were ATCOs working on operational duty, split between ACCs (56%) and APP/TWR facilities (44%). On average, 2.1 additional staff are required for every ATCO in OPS in Europe.

Figure 2-3: Breakdown of ANSPs total ANS staff at Pan-European system level, 2016

1 At the time of writing this report Belgocontrol had not yet submitted data on the breakdown of total ANS staff.

Staff costs 66.0%

Non-staff operating costs 16.3%

Depreciation costs 11.8%

Cost of capital 6.3%

Exceptional Items -0.4%

Total ATM/CNS provision costs: € 7 978 M

€ M % € M % € M %

Staff costs 4 074 65.1% 1 190 69.2% 5 264 66.0%

ATCOs in OPS employment costs 2 000 n/appl 594 n/appl 2 594 n/appl

Other staff employment costs 2 074 n/appl 596 n/appl 2 670 n/appl

Non-staff operating costs 1 010 16.1% 286 16.7% 1 297 16.3%

Depreciation costs 786 12.6% 160 9.3% 945 11.8%

Cost of capital 414 6.6% 89 5.2% 504 6.3%

Exceptional Items -25 -0.4% -7 -0.4% -32 -0.4%

6 259 100.0% 1 719 100.0% 7 978 100.0%

En-route Terminal Gate-to-gate

Total ATM/CNS provision costs

49%

51%

Staff costs 66.0%

Non-staff operating costs

16.3%

Exceptional Items

-0.4%

Depreciation costs

11.8%

Cost of capital 6.3%

ATCOs in OPS employment costs

Other staff employment costs

ATCOs in OPS

32%

ATCOs on other duties

4%Ab-initio tra inees

1%

On-the-job

tra inees1%

ATC assistants

4%

OPS-Support

7%

Technical

support s taff for

maintenance18%

Technical support s taff for planning

& development

5% Admin.16%

Staff for anci llary

services3%

Internal MET2%

Other

7%

56%

44%

APPs + TWRs ATCOs in OPS

ACC ATCOs in OPSPrelim

inary data

8

3 ECONOMIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS

This section provides a preliminary analysis of economic cost-effectiveness at Pan-European and ANSP level.

EUROPEAN SYSTEM LEVEL

The PRC introduced in its ACE Benchmarking Reports the concept of economic cost-effectiveness. This indicator is defined as gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs plus the costs of ground ATFM delays for both en‐route and airport, all expressed per composite flight-hour. This economic performance indicator is meant to capture trade‐offs between ATC capacity and costs2.

Figure 3-1 analyses the changes in economic cost-effectiveness between 2011 and 2016 at Pan-European system level. The left-hand side of Figure 2.6 shows the changes in unit economic costs, while the right-hand side provides complementary information on the year-on-year changes in ATM/CNS provision costs, composite flight-hours and unit costs of ATFM delays.

Figure 3-1: Trend of unit economic costs at Pan-European system level, 2011-2016 (real terms)3

Between 2011 and 2016, economic costs per composite flight-hour decreased by -1.6% p.a. in real terms. Over this period, ATM/CNS provision costs remained close to their 2011 level (-0.3% p.a.) while the number of composite flight-hours slightly increased (+0.9% p.a.). Although the unit costs of ATFM delays reduced by -3.8% p.a. on average over the period, the sharp decreases observed in 2012 (-39.3%) and 2013 (-18.2%) were followed by consecutive increases in 2014 (+11.4%), 2015 (+38.8%) and 2016 (+7.4%).

In 2016, composite flight-hours rose by +2.5% while ATM/CNS provision costs remained fairly constant (-0.1%). As a result, unit ATM/CNS provision costs reduced by -2.6% in 2016. In the meantime, the unit costs of ATFM delays increased by +7.4% and therefore unit economic costs decreased by -1.1% compared to 2015. However, it is important to note that as of April 2016 the Network Manager (NM) introduced a new methodology to improve the accuracy of ATFM delays calculation4. This change

2 See Annex 2 of the ACE 2015 Benchmarking Report for more information on the methodology used to compute composite

flight-hours and economic costs. 3 Sakaeronavigatsia is excluded from the trend analysis provided in this section since no data is available prior to 2015 for this

ANSP. 4 ANSPs noticed that the use of the Ready Message (REA) - whilst attempting to improve punctuality for aircraft – could result

in artificial changes to the computed ATFM delay for individual flights and for the ANSP that has requested the regulation. The ANSPs brought this to the attention of the Network Management Board (NMB). The ANSPs, together with the airspace users and the Network Manager reviewed the existing situation and developed a more accurate process which avoids artificial changes to the computed ATFM delay when a REA message is used. The more accurate process was presented to the NMB and approved in March 2015 for implementation with NM software release 20.0 on April 04 2016. More information on this adjustment is available at: http://ansperformance.eu/references/methodology/ATFM_delay_calculation.html.

-5.7% -3.8% -0.5% +3.2% -1.1%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

€p

er c

om

po

site

flig

ht-

ho

ur

(20

16

pri

ces)

ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour Unit costs of en-route ATFM delays Unit costs of airport ATFM delays

-0.1% -2.0%

+0.5% +0.4%

-0.1%-1.9% -0.1%

+2.3% +1.7% +2.5%

-39.3%

-18.2%

+11.4%

+38.8%

+7.4%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours Unit costs of ATFM delays

Preliminary

data

9

resulted in substantially less ATFM delays compared to those computed using the old methodology. If computed according to the old methodology, the unit costs of ATFM delays would rise by +20.2% in 2016 and unit economic costs would be +0.8% higher than in 2015 (instead of -1.1% lower when the new methodology is used to compute 2016 ATFM delays).

Further analysis on the impact of the new ATFM delays calculation methodology on the unit economic costs will be available in the ACE 2016 Benchmarking Report.

ANSP LEVEL

The economic cost-effectiveness indicator at Pan-European level is €488 per composite flight-hour, and, on average, the unit costs of ATFM delays represent some 16% of the unit economic costs.

Figure 3-2: Economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness5, 2016

More details on the changes in ATFM delays6 for individual ANSPs will be provided in the ACE 2016 Benchmarking Report.

5 ENAIRE 2016 ATM/CNS provision costs comprise costs relating to ATM/CNS infrastructure shared with the military authority

(€16.6M), which are charged to civil airspace users. It should be noted that these costs, which are borne by the Spanish Air Force (Ministry of Defence), as well as the corresponding revenues, are not passing through ENAIRE Accounts from 2014 onwards.

6 The ATFM delays analysed in this ACE Benchmarking Report do not comprise changes due to the Post Operations

Performance Adjustment Process. This process allows operational stakeholders to notify national and European authorities of issues that relate to ATFM delay measurement, classification and assignment. The minutes of ATFM delays resulting from this process would lead to different unit economic costs figures for some ANSPs. For instance, if the Post-Ops changes would be taken into account, ENAIRE 2016 unit economic costs would amount to €498 instead of €504. Detailed information on this process is available on the Network Manager website at the following link: http://www.eurocontrol.int/publications/post-operations-performance-adjustment-process.

924

825802

602 588 580 574553 540

523 511 504474 457 453 435 421 419 414 393 392 390 387 379 375 369 358 357 341 335 329 321

297 292 284233 218 209

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 000

Bel

goco

ntr

ol

LVN

L

Skyg

uid

e

DSN

A

DFS

Au

stro

Co

ntr

ol

LPS

Slo

ven

ia C

on

tro

l

AR

MA

TS

NA

TS (

Co

nti

nen

tal)

ENA

V

ENA

IRE

Alb

con

tro

l

Mo

ldA

TSA

RO

MA

TSA

UkS

ATS

E

AN

S C

R

DH

MI

M-N

AV

Hu

nga

roC

on

tro

l

Saka

ero

nav

igat

sia

Fin

avia

MU

AC

Oro

Nav

igac

ija

Cro

atia

Co

ntr

ol

PA

NSA

NA

VIA

IR

DC

AC

Cyp

rus

LFV

HC

AA

Avi

no

r (C

on

tin

enta

l)

BU

LATS

A

IAA

NA

V P

ort

uga

l (C

on

tin

enta

l)

SMA

TSA

LGS

EAN

S

MA

TS

€p

er c

om

po

site

flig

ht-

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: €488

European system average for financial cost-effectiveness: €409602 588 523 511 504

0

200

400

600

800

DSN

A

DFS

NA

TS(C

on

tin

enta

l)

ENA

V

ENA

IRE

Preliminary

data

10

4 FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS

This section provides a preliminary analysis of financial cost-effectiveness at Pan-European and ANSP level.

EUROPEAN SYSTEM LEVEL

In 2016, composite flight-hours increased (+2.5%) while ATM/CNS provision costs remained fairly constant (-0.1%) and as a result unit ATM/CNS provision costs reduced by -2.6%.

Figure 4-1: Changes in unit ATM/CNS provision costs, 2011-2016 (real terms)

Figure 4-2 shows the analytical framework which is used in the ACE analysis to break down the financial cost-effectiveness indicator into basic economic drivers. These key drivers include:

a) ATCO-hour productivity (0.84 composite flight-hours per ATCO-hour);

b) ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (€112); and,

c) support costs per unit output (€276).

Figure 4-2: ACE performance framework, 2016 (real terms)

1.8% -1.9% -1.8% -1.2%-2.6%

90

95

100

105

110

115

0

100

200

300

400

500

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Ind

ex o

f co

sts

and

tra

ffic

€p

er c

om

po

site

flig

ht-

ho

ur

(20

16

pri

ces)

ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour ATM/CNS provision costs index Composite flight-hours index

Employment costs for

ATCOs in OPS

€2 594 M2015: €2 530 M

Composite flight-hours

19.5 M2015: 19.0 M

ATCO in OPS hours on duty

23.1 M2015: 23.0 M

ATM/CNS

provision costs€7 978 M

2015: €7 989 M

Support cost ratio3.1

2015: 3.2

ATCO-hour Productivity

0.842015: 0.83

ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour

€1122015: €110

Financialcost-effectiveness

indicator€409

2015: €420

EUROCONTROL/PRU

Support costs€5 384 M

2015: €5 459 M

Support costs per unit of output

€2762015: €287

ATCOs employment costs per

unit of output€133

2015: €133

Preliminary

data

11

Figure 4-3 below shows that in 2016, ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (+2.0%) rose at the same pace as ATCO-hour productivity (+2.0%), and as a result ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour remained mostly unchanged (-0.01%). In the meantime, unit support costs fell by -3.8% since support costs decreased (-1.4%) while the number of composite flight-hours increased (+2.5%). As a result, in 2016 unit ATM/CNS provision costs reduced by -2.6% at Pan-European system level.

Figure 4-3: Breakdown of changes in unit ATM/CNS provision costs, 2015-2016 (real terms)

It should be noted that the observed reduction in support costs (-1.4%) is affected by the fact that an exceptional negative amount was reported by DFS in 2016 (-62.0 M€ while a figure of -€1.3M was recorded in 2015). This substantial amount is made of two main components: a) IFRS transition costs (€50.5M), and (b) a negative amount (-€112.5M) reflecting a contribution of the German State in DFS equity for the year 2016. If the contribution from the German State would not be taken into account then the Pan-European system support costs would be in the same order of magnitude (-0.2%) as in 2015 instead of -1.4% lower. Further details on the impact of the State intervention on DFS cost-effectiveness performance will be provided in the ACE 2016 Benchmarking Report.

The two following pages provide information on the level of ATCO-hour productivity, ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour and unit support costs for each individual ANSP.

+2.0% +2.0%

-0.01%

-2.6%

-3.8%

-1.4%

+2.5%

"Traffic effect"

ATCO-hour productivity

Decrease inunit ATM/CNS provision costs

2015-2016

"Support costs effect"

Employment costs per

ATCO-hour

ATCO employment costs per composite

flight-hour

Support costs per composite flight-hour

Weight 68%

Weight 32%

Preliminary

data

12

ANSP LEVEL

Figure 4-4: Financial gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness, 2016

Figure 4-5: ATCO-hour productivity, 2016

721689

632

560 547 540 533506 504

474457 451 449

434 428 428 418 410392 379 377 371 366 357

324 320305 298 295 292 282

244 242 233 229 227212 209

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Bel

goco

ntr

ol

Skyg

uid

e

LVN

L

LPS

Slo

ven

ia C

on

tro

l

AR

MA

TS

Au

stro

Co

ntr

ol

DFS

ENA

V

Alb

con

tro

l

Mo

ldA

TSA

DSN

A

RO

MA

TSA

UkS

ATS

E

ENA

IRE

NA

TS (

Co

nti

nen

tal)

AN

S C

R

M-N

AV

Saka

ero

nav

igat

sia

Oro

Nav

igac

ija

Fin

avia

Hu

nga

roC

on

tro

l

Cro

atia

Co

ntr

ol

NA

VIA

IR

LFV

BU

LATS

A

PA

NSA

Avi

no

r (C

on

tin

enta

l)

DH

MI

IAA

SMA

TSA

HC

AA

NA

V P

ort

uga

l (C

on

tin

enta

l)

LGS

MU

AC

DC

AC

Cyp

rus

EAN

S

MA

TS

€p

er c

om

po

site

flig

ht-

ho

ur

Gate-to-gate ATM/CNSEuropean system average: €409

DFS

ENA

V

DSN

A

ENA

IRE

NA

TS

(Co

nti

ne

nta

l)

506 504451 428 428

0

200

400

600

2.03

1.21 1.181.09 1.07

1.02 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.940.92 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83

0.79 0.77 0.76 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.68

0.620.51

0.47 0.46 0.45

0.33

0.15 0.14 0.14

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

MU

AC

NA

V P

ort

uga

l (C

on

tin

enta

l)

IAA

DFS

NA

TS (

Co

nti

nen

tal)

DH

MI

AN

S C

R

Skyg

uid

e

NA

VIA

IR

Hu

nga

roC

on

tro

l

MA

TS

PA

NSA

EAN

S

Au

stro

Co

ntr

ol

LVN

L

LGS

DC

AC

Cyp

rus

Avi

no

r (C

on

tin

enta

l)

ENA

IRE

SMA

TSA

BU

LATS

A

LPS

ENA

V

DSN

A

HC

AA

RO

MA

TSA

Cro

atia

Co

ntr

ol

LFV

Bel

goco

ntr

ol

Fin

avia

Oro

Nav

igac

ija

Alb

con

tro

l

Slo

ven

ia C

on

tro

l

Saka

ero

nav

igat

sia

M-N

AV

UkS

ATS

E

AR

MA

TS

Mo

ldA

TSA

Co

mp

osi

te f

ligh

t-h

ou

rs p

er A

TCO

-ho

ur

European system average: 0.84D

FS NA

TS

(Co

nti

nen

tal)

ENA

IRE

ENA

V

DSN

A

1.09 1.07

0.840.77 0.76

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Preliminary

data

13

Figure 4-6: Employment costs per ATCO-hour, 2016

Figure 4-7: Breakdown of support costs per composite flight-hour, 2016

A more detailed analysis of the changes in cost-effectiveness, ATCO-hour productivity, ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour and unit support costs will be available in the final ACE 2016 Benchmarking Report.

225216

184

164163157157

133120

113106103103101101101 99 98 97 95

87 86 82 77

63 6155 51 48 46 43 42 41

2923

12 11 11

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

DFS

MU

AC

Skyg

uid

e

LVN

L

ENA

IRE

Au

stro

Co

ntr

ol

Bel

goco

ntr

ol

NA

TS (

Co

nti

nen

tal)

ENA

V

NA

V P

ort

uga

l (C

on

tin

enta

l)

LFV

NA

VIA

IR

LPS

DSN

A

Hu

nga

roC

on

tro

l

AN

S C

R

RO

MA

TSA

IAA

PA

NSA

Cro

atia

Co

ntr

ol

Slo

ven

ia C

on

tro

l

Fin

avia

Avi

no

r (C

on

tin

enta

l)

BU

LATS

A

DH

MI

EAN

S

SMA

TSA

HC

AA

DC

AC

Cyp

rus

Oro

Nav

igac

ija

MA

TS

LGS

M-N

AV

Alb

con

tro

l

Saka

ero

nav

igat

sia

AR

MA

TS

Mo

ldA

TSA

UkS

ATS

E

€p

er h

ou

rEuropean system average: €112

DFS

ENA

IRE

NA

TS

(Co

nti

nen

tal)

ENA

V

DSN

A

225

163

133120

101

0

50

100

150

200

250

507491

455 447430

412

377363 361 357 348 342

319 318 311303301

288 287269

253237 234 234 233 226 215 208 202 202 186

175 175 172 165 149 146122

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

Skyg

uid

e

Bel

goco

ntr

ol

AR

MA

TS

LVN

L

LPS

Alb

con

tro

l

Mo

ldA

TSA

UkS

ATS

E

Au

stro

Co

ntr

ol

Slo

ven

ia C

on

tro

l

ENA

V

Saka

ero

nav

igat

sia

AN

S C

R

DSN

A

RO

MA

TSA

NA

TS (

Co

nti

nen

tal)

DFS

Oro

Nav

igac

ija

M-N

AV

Hu

nga

roC

on

tro

l

NA

VIA

IR

Fin

avia

DH

MI

ENA

IRE

Cro

atia

Co

ntr

ol

BU

LATS

A

SMA

TSA

IAA

PA

NSA

Avi

no

r (C

on

tin

enta

l)

LGS

LFV

HC

AA

DC

AC

Cyp

rus

MA

TS

NA

V P

ort

uga

l (C

on

tin

enta

l)

EAN

S

MU

AC

€p

er c

om

po

site

flig

ht-

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

348 318 303 301

234

-50

50

150

250

350

450

ENA

V

DSN

A

NA

TS(C

on

tin

en

tal)

DFS

ENA

IRE

European system average: €276

Preliminary

data