ANS Productivity, cost-effectivenessANS Productivity, cost ... · Geneva London AC Zurich Padova...

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e R

ev

iew

Co

mm

iss

ion

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e R

ev

iew

Co

mm

iss

ion

ANS Productivity, cost-effectivenessANS Productivity, cost-effectiveness

NAS Performance Workshop

5 September 2007

Xavier FRON

Performance Review Unit

EUROCONTROL

2

Performance Review Commissionwww.eurocontrol.int/prc

A cost-effective system?

13.8 M km²851 km/flight

10.8 M km²826 km/flight

US-Europe comparisons

US$ ~ 1000US$ 486Costs per IFR flight

9M18.3MIFR flights

€7 100MUS$ 8 900MGate-to-gate ANS costs (without MET)

European Area (2005)US ATO (FY2005)

3


ANSP benchmarking

• Analytic benchmarking

– What are the respective performance indicators?

– Facts, no judgement

– Detailed analytic benchmarking of European ANSPsin ACE reports

– Outcome benchmarking (black box + information disclosure: ACE)

– Insider benchmarking (white box, ANSPs, CANSO)

• Normative benchmarking

– What are the actual and expected performance given specific circumstances(Cost of living, complexity, traffic variability, etc)

– Econometric techniques tried, not conclusive so far NERA report available

4


Framework for cost-effectiveness analysis

Flight-hours controlled

ATCO-hours on operational duty

ATCOs in operations

Employment costs of operational ATCOs

Total operating costs(staff and non-staff)

Cost-effectiveness

Productivity and factor cost

• ATCO-hour productivity

• Working hours per ATCO

• Employment cost per ATCO

• Support cost ratio

• Operating costs per flight-hour controlled

• Employment cost per ATCO-hour

Ratios higher than 1: better performance in US Ratios are multiplicative: 1.62=1.29 x 0.94 x 1.34

1.29

1.32

0.71

1.34

0.94 1.62

In the US:• Higher hourly productivity (1.29)• Higher employment costscompensated by more hours (0.94)

• Lower support costs (1.34)

2001 Data

5


Productivity

Raising average productivity

to 3rd best: +62%

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

MU

AC

EA

NS

Skyguid

e

AN

S C

R

NA

TS

Austr

o C

ontr

ol

DC

AC

Cypru

s

Hungaro

Contr

ol

NA

V P

ort

ugal (F

IR L

isboa)

LV

NL

NA

VIA

IR

DF

S

IAA

DH

MI

DS

NA

PA

TA

AN

S S

weden

LG

S

Fin

avia

Belg

ocontr

ol

EN

AV

Avin

or

Aena

NA

TA

Alb

ania

Cro

atia C

ontr

ol

LP

S

Slo

venia

Contr

ol

MA

TS

AT

SA

Bulg

aria

Oro

Navig

acija

RO

MA

TS

A

FY

RO

M C

AA

UkS

AT

SE

Mold

AT

SA

HC

AA

Co

mp

osite

flig

ht-

ho

ur

pe

r A

TC

O-h

ou

r o

n d

uty

ATCO-hour productivity 2005 ATCO-hour productivity 2002

Staff costs for Staff costs for

ATCOsATCOs in OPSin OPS

Composite Composite flightflight--hourshours

ATCO hours ATCO hours

on dutyon duty


ATM/CNS ATM/CNS

provision costsprovision costs

Average hours Average hours on dutyon duty

Employment costs Employment costs per ATCOper ATCO

Support cost ratioSupport cost ratio

ATCOATCO--hour hour productivityproductivity

Employment costs Employment costs per ATCOper ATCO--hourhour

FinancialFinancialcostcost--effectiveness effectiveness

indicatorindicator





on dutyon duty


ATM/CNS ATM/CNS








indicatorindicator

29% of unit costs

6


ATCO-hour productivity

• Equivalent densities measured in the sample of ACCs

Complexity is not a differentiating factor

• Traffic variability

– Seasonal

– Weekly

– Daily

• Match of resources and traffic appears to be a key driver of ATCO productivity

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52

w eek

Palma

Athinai

Barcelona

Reims

Stockholm

Maastricht

source : EUROCONTROL

variation from average w eek

Traffic and staffing

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

8 000

9 000

10 000

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Flig

ht

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

AT

CO

s

Flight On_Duty

0

1

2

3

Bar

celo

na

Kar

lsru

he

Londo

n

Maa

stric

ht

Rei

ms

Rom

aA

lbuq

uerq

ue

Cle

vela

nd

Indi

anap

olis

flight-km/

(sq km××××FL)

Density

Adjusted density

Average adjusted density for European sample

Average adjusted density for US sample

*

*

7


Sector productivity and staffing

Output(flight-hours controlled)

Sector-hours open

ATCO hours on duty

ATCOs in OPS

Average hours on duty

Ou

tput

pe

r A

TC

O

Sector productivity

Staffing per sector

ATCO-hour productivity



ATCOs in operations



Cost-effectiveness










ATCOs in operations



Cost-effectiveness








8


Sector productivity and staffing

Munchen

Wien

Rhein

Reims

Paris

Maastricht

London ACGeneva

PadovaZurich

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0Staffing per sector

Secto

r pro

ductivity

Cluster 2

Average ATCO-hour

productivity

London TCPalma

BerlinBrussels

MilanoLangen

Bremen

Dublin

Amsterdam

Manchester

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Staffing per sector

Secto

r pro

ductivity

Cluster 1

Average ATCO-hour productivity

BrestPrahaLisboa

Ankara

Zagreb

Scottish

Shannon

Budapest

RomaBordeaux

Malmo

Kobenhavn

Stockholm

Bratislava

Madrid

MarseilleBrindisi Barcelona

Canarias

Sevilla

Istanbul

Oslo

Bucuresti

Kyiv

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Staffing per sector

Se

cto

r p

rodu

ctivity

Cluster 3a (ACCs ≥≥≥≥ 5 sectors)


Tallinn

Nicosia

Riga

Tampere

Stavanger

Rovaniemi

Varna Bodo

TiranaVilnius

Sofia

LjubljanaMalta

L'vivSkopje

SimferopolKharkiv

Odesa ChisinauDnipropetrovs'k

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Staffing per sector

Secto

r p

rod

uctivity

Cluster 3b (ACCs < 5 sectors)


9


Employment costs per ATCO-hour (2005, gate-to-gate)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160A

ena

Sky

gu

ide

MU

AC

*

NA

V P

ort

ug

al (F

IR L

isboa

)

Belg

oco

ntr

ol

Au

stro

Con

trol

DF

S

EN

AV

LV

NL

NA

TS

Fin

avia

IAA

DS

NA

NA

VIA

IR

AN

S S

we

den

Avin

or

AN

S C

R

Slo

venia

Con

trol

DC

AC

Cyp

rus

Hu

nga

roC

ontr

ol

PA

TA

Cro

atia C

on

trol

LP

S

RO

MA

TS

A

EA

NS

AT

SA

Bulg

aria

NA

TA

Alb

ania

MA

TS

FY

RO

M C

AA

LG

S

Oro

Navig

acija

DH

MI

UkS

AT

SE

Mo

ldA

TS

A

HC

AA

€ p

er

AT

CO

-ho

ur

on d

uty

(2

005

price

s)

Employment costs per ATCO-hour 2005 Employment costs per ATCO-hour 2002





on dutyon duty


ATM/CNS ATM/CNS








indicatorindicator





on dutyon duty


ATM/CNS ATM/CNS








indicatorindicator

10


• 71% of unit costs

Support costs

119

153157172175179180187187198

206217230241247251256261267275277295296307311312314

333348350356358

407

514

590

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

LV

NL

Be

lgo

con

tro

l

AT

SA

Bulg

aria

RO

MA

TS

A

FY

RO

M C

AA

EN

AV

NA

TA

Alb

ania

NA

TS

DF

S

Skygu

ide

LP

S

NA

V P

ort

uga

l (F

IR L

isb

oa

)

DS

NA

Oro

Navig

acija

Mo

ldA

TS

A

UkS

AT

SE

DH

MI

Au

str

o C

on

tro

l

AN

S C

R

DC

AC

Cyp

rus

MA

TS

Aen

a

Cro

atia C

on

tro

l

NA

VIA

IR

Slo

ven

ia C

on

tro

l

IAA

Avin

or

PP

L/P

AT

A

Fin

avia

Hun

ga

roC

on

tro

l

LG

S

HC

AA

AN

S S

we

de

n

MU

AC

*

EA

NS

€ p

er

com

po

site

flig

ht-

ho

ur

Capital-related costs per composite flight-hour

Non-staff operating costs per composite flight-hour

Non-ATCO in OPS staff costs per composite flight-hour

European system average (€281)

Non-ATCO in

OPS s taff

cos ts

44.5%

Direct (non-

s taff)

operating

cos ts

26.9%

Capital

related cos ts

28.5%





on dutyon duty


ATM/CNS ATM/CNS








indicatorindicator





on dutyon duty


ATM/CNS ATM/CNS








indicatorindicator

11


Cost-effectiveness target

• Cost-effectiveness: A major European ATM performance issue

• Clear break in the en-route unit cost trend since 2003

• PRC recommends the formal adoption of a cost-effectiveness target at European system level to reduce average real unit costs by 3% p.a. until 2010.

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006P

2007P

2008P

2009P

2010P

Euro

2005/ km

100

130

160

190

220

250

Cost Per Km Total Costs (1997= index 100) Traffic (1997=index 100)

All States in CRCO system source : EUROCONTROL

Average 1997-2003

PRC

proposed target

~€4 970M ~€1 550M

~€330M ~€60M

~€60M ~€2M

~€490M

EUROCONTROL

ATM/CNS

MET

Payment to

regulatory &

governmental

authorities

ATM/CNS

MET

Payment to

regulatory &

governmental

authorities

2005

Gate-to-gate ANS costs (European level)

~€7 460M

En-route ANS costs

(European level)

~€5 850M

Terminal ANS costs

(European level)

~€1 610M

ANSP Benchmarking analysis (Section 8.6)

En-route ANS costs analysis (Sections

8.2 - 8.5)

12


Cost-effectiveness improvements from future developments

20202015

20102005

2003

1995

1990

0

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

0 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000

Traffic (Million Km)

To

tal e

n-r

ou

te

AN

S c

os

ts (

Millio

n €

20

05

)

SESAR

long-term

target

FABs

SESAR

€0.8/km

€0.4/km

€0.6/km

Massive value can be generatedwith improved cost-effectiveness

Net Present value (Discount rate: 5%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

5 10 15 20 Years

Billio

n E

uro

1% 2% 3% 4% Efficiency

Improving economic performance� New generation ATM

� Rationalisation of service provision!

13


Improvements through rationalisation of service provision

• Rationalising support staff (35% of costs)– Opportunity for pooling resources (maintenance teams, etc)

– Costs should not grow in line with traffic

• Improving ATCO Productivity (25% of costs)– e.g. better use of resources in low traffic, at night

• Pooling investments (20% of costs)– Major opportunity for scale effects in ATM infrastructure (currently 60% of investment)

– Approximately 80% of new systems costs is non-recurring cost (software, certification)

– Joint development (SESAR)

– Joint procurement (in FABs, ANSP groupings)

– Opportunity for scale effects in CNS infrastructure

– SATNAV, joint procurement/outsourcing of CNS infrastructure

• Rationalising non-staff operating costs (18% of costs)– Number of facilities, etc

ATM/CNS provision costs (€ M) Total %

Staff costs 3 960 60.7%

Direct (non-staff) operating costs 1 194 18.3%

Depreciation costs 923 14.2%

Costs of capital 392 6.0%

Exceptional Items 52 0.8%

Total 6 520 100.0%

Exceptional

Items

0.8%

Costs of capital

6.0%

Staff costs

60.7%Direct (non-

staff) operating

costs

18.3%Depreciation

costs

14.2% 2005 data

14


Scale effects?

ATCOs

Maintenance

Development

ManagementBuildingsEquipment

0

1

2

3

4

5

10 15 20 25 30

Sectors

Annual

centre

cost

per

sector

(€m)

Annualised capital costs

Operating costs

Fixed costs to build, equip,

and operate ACCs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 45-50 50+

Number of sectors

Nu

mb

er

of A

CC

s

European ACCs (2003 data)

US ACCs (2000 data)

47 European ACCs operating 10

sectors or fewer at maximum

configuration

��Generic study on fragmentation

�Some evidence of scale effects

�But some small ANSPs are efficient

�Other sources of inefficiencies and factors influencing economic performance

15


ATM infrastructure: How big is it? (2003 data)

Barcelona

Marseille-Aix

Prestwick

Zagreb

BucharestSofia

Prague

Shannon

CEATS

Malmö

Langen

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Maximum sectors

€m

792 Sectors68ACCsATM

140MSSR only43Approach primary only92Approach primary plus MSSR5En-route Primary plus MSSR

63En-route primary plus Mode SSUR617VOR349NDB601DMENAV386ACC links (intra-State)160ACC links (inter-State)

2246Ground-ground voice links

1123VHF ground stations

COM

Number

Capital costs of new ACCs : Fixed costs

ATM systems

€4,340m€3,480m€9,690mTotal

€1,200m€1,100€1,000mAssociated support

€2,500m€2,100m€4,900mACCs & ATM systems

€500m€210m€3,000mSUR (en-route)

€30m€10m€230mNAV (en-route)

€110m€60m€560mCOM (outside ACC)

Total

annual

costs

Annual

operating

costs

Capital

replacement

costs

Replacement of the current system worth ~ €10B

Total annual en-route service provision costs ~ €4.4B

16


Some factors affecting performance

Lower Airspace

Cost of living

<= 200

<= 300

<= 400

<= 500

> 500 Lower Airspace

Traffic complexity score

<= 0.04

<= 0.08

<= 0.12

<= 0.16

> 0.16 Lower Airspace

Traffic variability

<= 1.15

<= 1.25

<= 1.35

<= 1.45

> 1.45

Cost of living Traffic complexity Traffic variability

Fragmentation of service provision, infrastructure,airspace, regulation, decision makingFragmentation report (2006)

Cost of living, Traffic complexity, variabilityBenchmarking report ACE 2005 (2007)

17


Complexity indicatorsS

tructu

ral effect

Density e

ffect

–

Provides a measure of the potential interactions between aircraft of different performances

Potential Speed interactions (SDIF)

Traffic mix

Provides a measure of the potential interactions based on the aircraft headings

Potential horizontal interactions (HDIF)

Flow structure

Captures the potential interactions between climbing, cruising and descending aircraft

Potential vertical interactions (VDIF)

Traffic in evolution

A measure of the potential number of interactions between aircraft in a given volume of airspace

Adjusted density Traffic density

DescriptionIndicatorComplexity Dimension

18


How are they computed?

• Interaction : simultaneous presence of 2 aircraft in a same cell of

20NMx20NMx3000ft

– Vertical interaction: aircraft in different flight phase (cruise- climb – descent)

– Horizontal interaction: aircraft with different heading (difference > 20°)

– Speed Interaction: aircraft with different speed (differences > 35 knots)

• Metrics computed at ACC and ANSP level (all airspace 85#FL#405)

– Results at ANSP level is a consolidation from results at ACC & APP level

– Oceanic airspace excluded

2 interactions2 interactions

6 interactions6 interactions

19


Breakdown of traffic complexity indicator at ANSP level (2004 data)

0 .00 0 .05 0 .10 0 .15 0 .20

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

A d jus ted dens ity

Str

uctu

ral In

de

x

Belgocontrol

NATS

Skyguide

DFS

LVNL

MUAC

ENAV

Austro Control

DSNA

ANS CR

NAVIAIR

Aena

Slovenia Control

LPSFYROM CAA

HungaroControl

ANS SwedenFINLAND CAA

Croatia Control

ROMATSA

HCAA

DCAC Cyprus

NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)

DHMI

ATSA Bulgaria

AVINOR

IAA

NATA Albania

LGS

EANS

Oro Navigacija

UkSATSE

MATS

MoldATSA

20


Any influence of complexity on cost-effectiveness? (1/3)

Adjusted density

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2

Ec

on

om

ic c

os

t-e

ffe

cti

ve

ne

ss

Structural Complexity indicator

0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5

Aggregated complexity indicator

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Adjusted density

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2

AT

CO

-ho

ur

pro

du

cti

vit

y


0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5


0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Cost-effectiveness vs Complexity

Productivity vs Complexity

Cost-effectiveness appears to increase with complexity

But productivity increases with complexity

21



Adjusted density

0

40

80

120

160

0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2

Em

plo

ym

en

t c

os

ts p

er

AT

CO

-ho

ur


0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5


0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Adjusted density

0

100

200

300

400

500

0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2

Su

pp

ort

co

sts

pe

r u

nit

ou

tpu

t


0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5


0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Employment costs vs Complexity

Support costs vs Complexity

Employment costs are correlated with density, complexity

Weak link between complexity and support costs

22



• Cost-effectiveness is significantly influenced by cost of living– Cost of living influences employment costs (60% of costs)

– but some high cost of living ANSPs are cost-efficient (Nordic States)

• Link with complexity is apparent: Complexity is correlated with cost of living, and cost of living with cost-effectiveness

• Mixed influence of complexity– Higher density enables better use of human resources, infrastructure

– Higher complexity increases work load, but also productivity…

• Econometrics: failed to determine statistically significant influence of complexity on Costs

• Empirical analysis of influence of Complexity, Cost of living, …

Adjusted density

0

10

20

30

40

0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2

GD

P p

er

ca

pit

a (€

'00

0)


0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5


0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

GDP per capita vs Complexity

23


0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.91997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006P

2007P

2008P

2009P

2010P

Euro

2005/ km

100

130

160

190

220

250

Cost Per Km Total Costs (1997= index 100) Traf f ic (1997=index 100)


Average 1997-2003

PRC

proposed target

ANS/ATM Cost-effectiveness Performance

Performance to date• European ANS costs ~ $10.5 billion

• Clear break in unit cost trend since 2003 (Benchmarking has a role!)

• Similar ANS costs in US, but two times more traffic!

Analysis of performance• Econometrics: unsuccessful so far

• Empirical analysis of influence of Complexity, Cost of living

Targets• Cost-effectiveness target

recommended (reduce average real unit costs by 3% p.a. until 2010) but not adopted yet

• SESAR targets in line with PRC’s, more aggressive beyond 2010 (5%)

Performance improvements• Rationalisation of service provision• New generation: one step further!

OUTLOOK

TODAY

1990

1995

2003

20052010

2020

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

0 2 000 4 000 6 000 8 000 10 000 12 000 14 000

Traffic (Million Km)

To

tal en

-ro

ute

AN

S c

osts

(M

illio

n €

2005)

SESAR

long-term

target

Medium-term

target

€0.8/km

€0.4/km

€0.6/km

24


ANS/ATM economic performance

Economic cost• Total economic cost =

– Direct cost of the service

– + Indirect costs (delays, non-optimum flight profiles, externalities e.g. environmental impact)

• In Europe, user pays both, wants minimum total cost

• In the US, disconnect between ATM costs (federal budget) and what the user pays makes the link more remote

Analysis of performance• Poor quality of service may compromise

benefits from excessive cost savings

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

20

02

20

05

20

02

20

05

20

02

20

05

20

02

20

05

20

02

20

05

20

02

20

05

20

02

20

05

20

02

20

05

20

02

20

05

20

02

20

05

LVNL Belgo

control

Skyguide ENAV DFS NATS Austro

Control

ANS CR DSNA MUAC

€ p

er

co

mp

os

ite f

ligh

t-h

ou

r

ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour Delay costs per composite flight-hour

ANS Provision

4,5b€

Flight ineff.

1b€

Delays0,7b€

~6,2b€

3,3b€

~9.5b€

ANS

Provision

7b€

Flight

inefficiency1,5b€

Delays1b€

Fragmentation (Consolidation)Low productivity

Strategic design of airspaceTactical use of airspace (FUA)

Capacity planning

ANS Provision

4,5b€

Flight ineff.

1b€

Delays0,7b€

~6,2b€

ANS Provision

4,5b€

Flight ineff.

1b€

Delays0,7b€

~6,2b€

3,3b€3,3b€

~9.5b€

ANS

Provision

7b€

Flight

inefficiency1,5b€

Delays1b€

Fragmentation (Consolidation)Low productivity

Strategic design of airspaceTactical use of airspace (FUA)

Capacity planning

Static economic

optimum

Dynamic

economic

optimum

Delay costs

Cost of capacity

Total economic

costs

Capacity/demand ratio

Yearl

y c

osts

25


Framework for analysis of ATM performance

ENVIRONMENT SECURITYECONOMYSAFETYPolitical &

Socio-Economic

perspective

Airspace

users

perspective

Service

providerperspective

Safety

Traffic (volume, complexity)

Network effects & fragmentation

Runwayincursions

Safety culture (reporting, etc.)

Airspace events

Safety management

Weather

To be developed

Technical innovations

Quality of

service

Flexibility

Predictability

Strategic costs (buffer)

Costs due to sub-optimal operations

Efficiency

Airport/TMA capacity

ATFM/ Networkcapacity

Capacity management

En-route capacity

Use of

airspace

Cost-effectiveness

ATCO productivity

Employment costs

Support costs

Cost management

MET costs

Eurocontrolcosts

ATM/CNSProvision cost

Reg. costs

ANS provision costs

Ambient

performance affecting

factors

Gaseous

emissions

Flight

efficiency

Grounddelay

Political/ Environ. Regulations/ restrictions

26


ANS Performance status (2006)

Very slow improvement

EuropeanCo-ordination

Single Europ. SkyFunctional

airspace blocks

√

None

Flight efficiency

√√-Data flow

Performance indicators

Progressive improvement

Strong improvement

Target nearly met

No conclusive information

Achieved performance

Individual plansBenchmarking

Co-operativecapacity

management

Safety Action Plan

Performance management

Cost recoveryBenchmarkingIncentives (UK)

MinimalIncentives in UK only

Well advanced,not fully applied

Regulation

Development agreed

√-Performance

targets

Cost-effectiveness

DelaysSafetyPerformanceProcesses

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

20

05P

20

06P

20

07P

2008

T

2009

P

Eu

ro 2

004/

km

100

130

160

190

220

250

Cost Per Km Total Costs (1997= index 100) Traff ic (1997=index 100)


-14%

PC upper bound

1.31.22.9 4.1 5.5 3.6 3.1 1.8 1.2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

min

ute

s p

er

flig

ht

En-route ATFM delay per flight (summer)

Airport ATFM delay per flight (summer)

En route target

En route

optimum

Target: 1.4min/flight

Actual: 1.3min/flight

Summer (May-October)

source : EUROCONTROL

0,7 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,7 0,9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

rou

te e

xte

ns

ion

(k

m/f

lig

ht)

Direct en route

TMA Interface

Proposed target

- 2 km per f light

27


A quantum jump in ATM performance

Short-term improvements– Safety, flight-efficiency, productivity, etc

A quantum jump in performance in medium term

– Safety: x5 for traffic x2, x10 for traffic x3 => SESAR, NEXGEN– Capacity: x2 (15 years), x3 (30 years)

– Linked with safety for en-route

– Linked with traffic spread for airports

– Cost-effectiveness: >2

At least one solution known: US!

Traffic density and complexity ≥ Europe

Capacity and cost-effectiveness targets met

Equivalent aviation safety levels

Driving ATM performance

Operational and technical improvements– SESAR, NEXGEN

Service provision– Organisation, Managerial, Governance, Human resources

Regulation– Single European Sky, …

Co-operation & co-ordination– EUROCONTROL

– Improved ATM/Airlines/airports interactions

28


Conclusions

• High stakes in ANS performance

• Safety

• Economic impact (billions of € per annum)

• Environmental impact

• Experience with performance-oriented approach in Europe since 1998

• Prerequisites for efficient performance-oriented strategies• Reliable information flow

• Target setting, performance monitoring

• Adequate regulation

• Performance management processes

• Independent performance review (with permanent support)

• Strong governance of monopoly service providers

• Accountability for performance

• ANS “Performance” is the “end product” of a complex interrelated system,

involving a large number of airspace users, airports and ATM units

• Factors driving performance need to be better understood and measured

ANS Productivity, cost-effectivenessANS Productivity, cost ... · Geneva London AC Zurich Padova...

Documents

Transcript of ANS Productivity, cost-effectivenessANS Productivity, cost ... · Geneva London AC Zurich Padova...