NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT 2017 - Eurocontrol...Document Title Document Subtitle Edition Number...

NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT 2017

EUROCONTROL

Network Managernominated by the European Commission

MAIN REPORT

Edition Number: 125/04/2018

Main Report


Edition Validity Date: 25/04/2018 Edition: 1 Status: Released Issue ii

DOCUMENT CHARACTERISTICS

Document Title Document Subtitle Edition Number Edition Validity Date

NETWORK

OPERATIONS

REPORT 2017 Main Report 1 25/04/2018

Note

This document represents the final version of the Network Operations Report 2017. This release comes after a period of consultations with stakeholders.

STATUS AND ACCESSIBILITY

Status Accessible via

Working Draft Intranet

Draft Extranet

Proposed Issue Internet (www.eurocontrol.int)

Released Issue

TLP STATUS

Intended for Detail

Red Highly sensitive, non-disclosable information

Amber Sensitive information with limited disclosure

Green Normal business information

White Public information

© 2018 The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL). This document is published by EUROCONTROL for information purposes. It may be copied in whole or in part, provided that EUROCONTROL is mentioned as the source and the extent justified by the non-commercial use (not for sale). The information in this document may not be modified without prior written permission from EUROCONTROL.

Main Report


Edition Validity Date: 25/04/2018 Edition: 1 Status: Released Issue iii

Table of Contents

DOCUMENT CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................................................................... II

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................. III

LIST OF FIGURES IN MAIN DOCUMENT .......................................................................................................... IV NOTICE ............................................................................................................................................................... VI 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 7 2 INTRODUCTION & SCOPE............................................................................................................................... 9 3 NETWORK OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 10

3.1 2017 BY MONTH ........................................................................................................................................ 10

3.2 TRAFFIC 2017 ........................................................................................................................................... 12

3.3 DELAYS… ................................................................................................................................................. 13

ALL AIR TRANSPORT DELAYS (AIRLINE VIEW) ............................................................................ 13 3.3.1

ATFM DELAYS .................................................................................................................................... 15 3.3.2

3.3.2.1 EN-ROUTE ATFM DELAYS ............................................................................................................. 17

3.3.2.2 AIRPORT/TMA ATFM DELAYS ....................................................................................................... 18

3.4 CAPACITY .................................................................................................................................................. 19

3.5 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY .................................................................................................................................... 20

4 TRAFFIC IN DETAIL ....................................................................................................................................... 22

4.1 NETWORK CONTRIBUTORS ......................................................................................................................... 23

4.2 ROUTING ASPECTS .................................................................................................................................... 24

4.3 EXTRA-NM AREA PARTNERS ...................................................................................................................... 25

4.4 AIRPORT TRAFFIC EVOLUTION .................................................................................................................... 26

4.5 AIRLINE INDUSTRY ..................................................................................................................................... 27

4.6 FLIGHT REDUCTIONS .................................................................................................................................. 30

5 EN-ROUTE PERFORMANCE ......................................................................................................................... 31

5.1 HOT SPOTS ............................................................................................................................................... 32

5.2 PLANNED EVENTS AND DISRUPTIONS .......................................................................................................... 34

EN-ROUTE PLANNED EVENTS ......................................................................................................... 34 5.2.1

EN-ROUTE DISRUPTIONS ................................................................................................................. 35 5.2.2

5.3 CAPACITY EVOLUTION ................................................................................................................................ 37

5.4 ACC ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................... 39

DEMAND AND CAPACITY MONITORING – SUMMER ..................................................................... 42 5.4.1

5.4.1.1 MARSEILLE ...................................................................................................................................... 42

5.4.1.2 NICOSIA............................................................................................................................................ 43

5.4.1.3 KARLSRUHE UAC ........................................................................................................................... 44

5.4.1.4 BREST .............................................................................................................................................. 45

5.4.1.5 BORDEAUX ...................................................................................................................................... 46

5.4.1.6 MAASTRICHT UAC .......................................................................................................................... 47

6 AIRPORTS....................................................................................................................................................... 48

Main Report


Edition Validity Date: 25/04/2018 Edition: 1 Status: Released Issue iv

6.1 HOT SPOTS ............................................................................................................................................... 50

6.2 AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS .............................................................................................................................. 54

6.3 NETWORK OPERATIONS SUPPORT .............................................................................................................. 56

GREEK ISLANDS – SUMMER ............................................................................................................ 56 6.3.1

6.4 AIRPORT CDM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADVANCED ATC TOWER IMPLEMENTATION ......................................... 57

6.5 INFORMATION EXCHANGE BETWEEN AIRPORTS AND NM – AIRPORT CORNER PROCESS ............................... 58

7 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY ...................................................................................................................................... 60

7.1 AIRSPACE DESIGN ..................................................................................................................................... 62

7.2 AIRSPACE CHANGES VS. FLIGHT PLANNING ................................................................................................. 63

7.3 ACTUAL TRAJECTORY ................................................................................................................................. 65

7.4 CONDITIONAL ROUTES (CDR) .................................................................................................................... 66

7.5 FREE ROUTE OPERATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 70

7.6 ROUTE AVAILABILITY DOCUMENT (RAD) ..................................................................................................... 72

8 NETWORK MANAGER ................................................................................................................................... 74

8.1 CAPACITY (DELAY REDUCTIONS) ................................................................................................................ 75

8.2 ENVIRONMENT (FLIGHT EFFICIENCY) .......................................................................................................... 76

9 ATFM COMPLIANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 78

9.1 ATFM DEPARTURE SLOTS ......................................................................................................................... 78

9.2 ADHERENCE TO FLIGHT PLAN SUSPENSIONS ............................................................................................... 79

9.3 ATFM EXEMPTIONS ................................................................................................................................... 80

9.4 MISSING FLIGHT PLANS .............................................................................................................................. 81

9.5 MULTIPLE FLIGHTS ..................................................................................................................................... 82

10 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 83

List of Figures in Main Document

Figure 1: Average daily traffic in 2017 .................................................................................. 10

Figure 2 Monthly ATFM delay in 2017 .................................................................................. 11

Figure 3: Average daily traffic per year ................................................................................. 12

Figure 4 Average Departure Delay per flight 2013-2017 ...................................................... 13

Figure 5 Breakdown average delay per flight 2017 .............................................................. 13

Figure 6: Average departure delay per flight 2017 ................................................................ 14

Figure 7: Percentage of delayed flights: ATFM & All Causes ............................................... 14

Figure 8 : Average daily ATFM delay (2016 vs. 2017) .......................................................... 15

Figure 9 Average daily traffic and ATFM delay per flight (En-route and Airport) 2008-2017 . 15

Figure 10: Proportion of ATFM delays in 2017 ..................................................................... 16

Figure 11: 2017 average daily en-route ATFM delays .......................................................... 17

Figure 12: 2017 average en-route ATFM delay per flight ..................................................... 17

Main Report


Edition Validity Date: 25/04/2018 Edition: 1 Status: Released Issue v

Figure 13: 2017 average daily airport/TMA delays ............................................................... 18

Figure 14: Traffic, Delay and Effective capacity.................................................................... 19

Figure 15: Average route extension due to airspace design (RTE – DES) ........................... 20

Figure 16: Yearly evolution of flight-planning indicator (KEP) ............................................... 20

Figure 17: Yearly evolution of the actual trajectory indicator (KEA) ...................................... 21

Figure 18 : IFR Flights per day in NM Area .......................................................................... 22

Figure 19: Main changes to local traffic on the European network........................................ 23

Figure 20: Biggest changes in traffic patterns in 2017 .......................................................... 24

Figure 21: Daily Flight Change and Growth in 2017 (ECAC area) ........................................ 25

Figure 22: Traffic Development per Market Segment ........................................................... 27

Figure 23: Crude Oil and Fuel Prices Evolution .................................................................... 28

Figure 24: Deflated ticket prices in Europe ........................................................................... 29

Figure 25 Monthly Rate of Operational Cancellations 2016-2017 ........................................ 30

Figure 26 Network En-route delays vs Scenarios applied .................................................... 31

Figure 27: Top 20 en-route ATFM delay locations during 2017 ............................................ 32

Figure 28: Top 20 en-route ATFM delay per flight locations during 2017.............................. 33

Figure 29 Annual Traffic, delay and capacity evolution ......................................................... 37

Figure 30: ECAC 'Effective Capacity' Evolution per Month (2006-2017) ............................... 38

Figure 31 - Summer sector scheme (average) - Marseille ACC Saturdays (vs. 2016) .......... 42

Figure 32 – Weekly En-route delay per flight - Marseille ACC Summer ................................ 42

Figure 33 - Summer sector scheme (average) - Nicosia ACC Sundays (vs. NOP plan) ....... 43

Figure 34 – Weekly En-route delay per flight - Nicosia ACC Summer .................................. 43

Figure 35 - Summer sector scheme (average) - Karlsruhe UAC Saturdays (vs. NOP plan).. 44

Figure 36 – Weekly En-route delay per flight – Karlsruhe UAC Summer .............................. 44

Figure 37 - Summer sector scheme (average) – Brest ACC Saturdays (vs. 2016) ............... 45

Figure 38 – Weekly En-route delay per flight – Brest ACC Summer ..................................... 45

Figure 39 - Summer sector scheme (average) – Bordeaux ACC Fridays (vs. 2016) ............ 46

Figure 40 – Weekly En-route delay per flight – Bordeaux ACC Summer .............................. 46

Figure 41 - Summer sector scheme (average) – Maastricht UAC Saturdays (vs. NOP plan) 47

Figure 42 – Weekly En-route delay per flight – Maastricht UAC Summer ............................. 47

Figure 43: Top 20 airport delay locations during 2017 .......................................................... 50

Figure 44: Top 20 airport delay per flight locations during 2017 ........................................... 52

Figure 45: Route efficiency KPI per AIRAC cycle ................................................................. 61

Figure 46: yearly evolution of airspace design indicator ....................................................... 62

Figure 47: Potential yearly savings/ losses in nautical miles (NM) due to airspace design ... 62

Figure 48: Yearly evolution of flight-planning indicator (KEP) ............................................... 63

Figure 49: Yearly savings/ losses in nautical miles (NM) due to improved flight planning efficiency ....................................................................................................................... 63

Figure 50: Yearly evolution of the actual trajectory indicator (KEA) ...................................... 65

Figure 51 - Yearly savings/ losses in nautical miles (NM) due to improved actual trajectory efficiency ....................................................................................................................... 65

Figure 52: Evolution of CDR availability ............................................................................... 66

Main Report


Edition Validity Date: 25/04/2018 Edition: 1 Status: Released Issue vi

Figure 53: Rate of CDR availability (RoCA) in 2017 ............................................................. 66

Figure 54: RAI (%) 2017 per AIRAC cycle. ........................................................................... 66

Figure 55: RAU (%) 2017 per AIRAC cycle .......................................................................... 66

Figure 56: Five year RAI evolution ....................................................................................... 67

Figure 57: Five year RAU evolution ...................................................................................... 67

Figure 58: CDR availability vs. usage in 2017 ...................................................................... 68

Figure 59: PFE: 2017 Monthly Distance savings (nautical miles per flight) .......................... 68

Figure 60: PFE: 2017 Monthly time savings (minutes per flight) .......................................... 68

Figure 61: PFE 2017 vs. 2016 for planned traffic ................................................................. 69

Figure 62: PFE 2017 vs. 2016 for actual traffic..................................................................... 69

Figure 63: PFE: 2017 Fuel economy and CO2 emissions .................................................... 69

Figure 64: Map – Free Route Airspace Deployment by end 2017 ........................................ 71

Figure 65 NMOC Delay Savings 2017 ................................................................................ 75

Figure 66: ATFM Departure Slot Monitoring for 2016 and 2017 ........................................... 78

Figure 67: Top 20 ADEPs - Flight Plans Suspensions for 2016 and 2017 ............................ 79

Figure 68: ATFM Exemptions for State Aircraft Monitoring for 2016 and 2017 ..................... 80

Figure 69: Missing Flight Plans for 2016 and 2017 ............................................................... 81

Figure 70: Multiple Flight Plans for 2016 and 2017 .............................................................. 82

Notice

Traffic and Delay Comparisons: All traffic and delay comparisons are between the

reporting year (2017) and the previous year, unless otherwise stated.

NM Area: All figures presented in this report are for the geographical area that is within

Network Manager’s responsibility unless otherwise stated.

Summer season: Figures referring to the summer season in this report are for the period

May to October (incl.), unless otherwise stated.

Reporting Assumptions and Descriptions: For further information on the NM Area and

the regulation reason groupings, go to the Reporting Assumptions and Descriptions

documenti available on the EUROCONTROL website.

Abbreviations: Abbreviations and acronyms used in this document are available in the

EUROCONTROL Air Navigation Inter-site Acronym List (AIRIAL)ii.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report


Edition Validity Date: 25/04/2018 Edition: 1 Status: Released Issue 7

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

There were 10.6 million flights in the Network Manager (NM) area in 2017, representing an

increase of 4.4%1 compared to 2016. The months of July, August and September had the

highest monthly traffic ever recorded, each totalling more than one million flights. The

network had its busiest day 30 June with 35,937 flights. All the main market segments

contributed to the strong traffic growth. The high growth in the network was mainly due to the

traffic originating in Western Europe (especially the South-west axis flows) together with a

recovery of traffic in the Russian Federation.

Airline reported delay (all causes) was 12.31 minutes per flight, an increase of 9% in

comparison to 2016. Reactionary delay was responsible for 44% of the airline delay, heavily

influenced by the impact of first-rotation delays.

Despite the high demand, the en-route ATFM delay was just slightly higher than the previous

year, at 0.88 minutes per flight (0.86 min/flt in 2016). This represents a 4% increase in

capacity. A great number of en-route weather events combined with capacity and staffing

issues in some ACCs accounted for much of the delay in 2017. En-route weather delay

increased by 30% compared to 2016 and was the double of 2015 weather delay. On the

other hand, delays due to industrial action and ATM system changes/implementations

decreased significantly compared to 2016. Weekends continued to be the most constrained

period in the network. A great part of the en-route delay was generated on weekends, with a

peak on Saturday.

High traffic was forecasted in several capacity constrained areas for the summer and ANSPs

introduced RAD restrictions and scenarios to better manage the demand and available

capacity. There were over 11,600 scenarios applied in 2017, 61% of which were flight level

restrictions. There were 50% more scenarios than in 2016 and the double of those of 2015.

Nevertheless, ATFM regulation usage increased with over 1 million regulated flights, a 30%

increase on the same period for 2016. Around 80% of the regulated flights had an ATFM

delay of less than 15 minutes (75% in 2016). However, some airlines were able to absorb

part of the ATFM delay leading to on-time arrival at stand.

A number of ACCs which had been identified in the Network Operations Plan (NOP) as

having capacity short-comings for the summer season implemented measures and

performed better than expected. These include Athens, Makedonia, Lisbon, Skopje and

Zagreb ACCs – all with traffic growth above 9%.

Among the ACCs with capacity issues, Nicosia and Marseille failed to deliver their NOP

commitments, opening fewer sectors than the previous year. Karlsruhe did not comply with

the capacity plans agreed in the NOP but the UAC duly fore-warned NM on its staffing

issues for the summer. Brest and Bordeaux have performed better than 2016 with increased

number of sectors opened (including first-rotation) but still have periods with insufficient

capacity in the face of high demand (e.g. Saturdays). Maastricht, despite the flexible sector

1 The growth is calculated based on average daily number of flights to remove the effect of the leap year in 2016.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



schemes, was operating at full capacity in 2017 and at times was not able to cope with the

high geographically imbalanced demand.

Airport ATFM delay decreased by 3.6% in 2017. Airport capacity and weather contributed to

83.9% of the total airport delays. Amsterdam/Schiphol was the main generator of airport

ATFM delays, with adverse weather events heavily impacting the operations at this airport.

Despite the decrease in traffic, Istanbul/Sabiha Gökcen and Istanbul/Ataturk remained the

main contributors to airport capacity delays.

Industrial action contributed to 8.5% of total en-route delay in 2017. There were roughly

800,000 minutes of delay attributed to strikes, representing a 33% decrease when compared

to 2016. An estimated 4,600 flights were cancelled during the strike days. The French

industrial actions in March, September, October and November contributed to most of the

industrial action delays in 2017.

The new ATM system implementation at Bordeaux ACC (ERATO), which started in 2016,

was concluded in May. The good network cooperation with the ACC ensured a smooth

transition, with less than 100,000 minutes of ATFM delay generated. The new VCS

implementation at Maastricht UAC generated 110,000 minutes of ATFM delay throughout

the year. Overall, there were fewer delays due to system upgrades and other planned

events. These accounted for 0.03 minutes per flight of ATFM delay, the result of a well-

coordinated Transition Plan for Major Projects.

NM delivered absolute en-route ATFM delay savings of 14% through individual flight

improvements, above its commitment in the Network Performance Plan (NPP). Summer

months were very busy for the NMOC with daily capacity issues to mitigate and a high

number of weather events. This was reflected in the high number of NM helpdesk requests

received (33,825 in July).

Flight efficiency performance improved during 2017. The actual trajectory indicator (KEA)

improved and is now under the 2.78% target (NM and SES). The route extension indicator

based on the last filed flight plan (KEP) was still off-target (0.18pp for NM). Nevertheless,

this represents the best KEP since 2014.

Conclusions

Although en-route capacity increased by 4%, for summer 2018 more is needed and in particular there needs to be network solutions to address the current and future issues. Network partners agree that:

ANSPs need to resolve continuing local capacity issues and be capable of best-in-class performance. This will involve:

adopting modern working practice and rostering processes;

improving airspace and systems implementation practice;

providing more capacity at the right time, i.e. weekend.

In addition, the network needs to do things differently

Short/medium term: find novel ways to cope with high traffic growth through regional ACC cooperation;

Medium/long term: change the European way of delivering capacity through new network concepts, including cross border arrangements.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



2 INTRODUCTION & SCOPE

The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the European ATM network

performance in 2017 in the areas of traffic evolution, capacity offered by the Air Navigation

Service Providers and Airports, delays and flight efficiency. Airspace users’ opinion on the

network performance is also included.

The report analyses the annual results in light of the main events that took place in the

course of the year.

The document structure is as follows:

Section 1: Executive Summary.

Section 2: Introduction & Scope.

Section 3: Network Overview contains the annual performance of the European ATM network: traffic, capacity, delays and flight efficiency.

Section 4: Traffic in Detail is a detailed analysis of traffic growth in 2017 in the NM area and adjacent regions.

Section 5: En-Route Performance Analysis is an analysis of network en-route performance: events and disruptions; capacity and ACC performance.

Section 6: Airports is an analysis of the performance of airport operations.

Section 7: Flight Efficiency is an analysis of network flight efficiency.

Section 8: Network Manager is NM’s contribution to achieved performance results.

Section 9: ATFM Compliance provides a view on the compliance to the ATFM Implementing Rule.

Section 10: References.

Annex I: Airspace Users’ View outlines their perspective on how the network performed in 2017.

Annex II: ACC contains a traffic and capacity evolution for each ACC in 2017.

Annex III: Airports contains capacity, delay, arrival/departure punctuality status and a NM performance assessment of each of the significant airports in 2017.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



3 NETWORK OVERVIEW

3.1 2017 BY MONTH

The year of 2017 was marked by very high traffic in the network. The growth observed at the

end of 2016 (4.6% in December 2016) was maintained throughout 2017 with especially high

figures (above 5%) during the summer months.

Despite the high traffic levels, the en-route delay per flight had only a slight increase of 2.3%

comparing to 2016. During the first half of the year, the en-route ATFM delay was roughly ¾

of that of the same period in 2016, which had been affected by a great number of industrial

actions and a major ATM system implementation (ERATO in Brest). The second half of 2017

was marked by capacity, staffing and weather delays, causing 24% more ATFM delay than

the same period in 2016. With the exception of the period between July and October, the

network performance in terms of ATFM delay was better than the previous year.

Figure 1: Average daily traffic in 2017

From January to April, capacity and staffing delays were still relatively low. A number of

events created some peaks in ATFM delay, namely: industrial actions in France, ATM

system issues in Lisbon, operational configuration changes and new VCS system

implementation in Maastricht and the implementation of ERATO in Bordeaux. In April,

Nicosia reached a monthly en-route delay of 1.95 min/flt, showing the first signs of capacity

issues that would affect this ACC throughout the year.

At the end of May, a quarter of the year-to-date en-route delays was due to ATC disruptions,

especially industrial actions. The start of the IATA summer schedules brought additional

traffic growth and weather events that were to affect the network during the following

months. En-route weather and en-route capacity were the main causes of en-route delay in

the network in June (28% each). A record network traffic of 35,937 flights was achieved on

30 June.

4.8% 3.0% 4.5% 3.3% 4.6% 5.1% 5.2% 5.0% 4.5% 5.0% 4.2% 1.9%

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Avg d

aily

tra

ffic

2016 2017

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



Traffic in July averaged 33,721 flights per day, the highest figure of the year. This

represented an increase of 5.2%, which was higher than the high-forecast scenario for the

network. En-route ATFM delay reached its yearly peak at 1.98 minutes per flight, increasing

19% comparing to 2016. Weather was the main driver for this increase, affecting Karlsruhe,

Marseille, Brest and Vienna ACCs. High delays attributed to capacity and staffing issues

were recorded in Karlsruhe, Marseille, Brest and Nicosia ACCs. This high traffic and high

delay situation was to remain in August - though slightly better.

Figure 2 Monthly ATFM delay in 2017

In September, four ACCs were still generating en-route delays higher than 1 minute per flight

(Marseille, Brest, Nicosia and Karlsruhe). As the end of summer approached, daily staffing

issues were recurrent in Karlsruhe and Nicosia ACCs. Capacity, staffing and weather issues

resulted in an increase of 85% of the en-route delay in the network comparing to 2016.

French ATC industrial actions occurred in September and continued in October affecting

mainly Marseille, Brest and Bordeaux.

November and December were again months with ATFM delay decrease comparing to the

same months in 2016. Some capacity and staffing issues occurred in Canarias and

Karlsruhe. Traffic growth recorded its lowest figure in December (1.9%) ending a one year

cycle with very high traffic growth.

1.2 1.0 1.7 0.9 1.5 2.7 2.6 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.7 1.4 1.0 0.8 1.1 0.8 1.2 2.0 2.8 2.2 2.1 1.4 0.6 1.1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

JA

N

FE

B

MA

R

AP

R

MA

Y

JU

N

JU

L

AU

G

SE

P

OC

T

NO

V

DE

C

AT

M d

ela

y p

er

flig

ht

(min

/flt

)

2016 2017

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



3.2 TRAFFIC 2017

There were over 29,000 daily flights in the NM area in 2017 (Figure 3), an increase of 4.4%2

compared to the previous year, reaching a total 10.6 million flights. The summer months

(May to October incl.) were the highest ever recorded, with July, August and September

totalling more than one million flights each. All the main market segments contributed to the

strong flight growth.

The high growth in the network was mainly due to the traffic originating in Western Europe

(especially the South-west axis flows). Spain, UK and Germany were the biggest

contributors to the network growth. In addition, there was an intense growth of flights in the

Russian Federation due to a fast economic recovery which started at the beginning of 2017.

The recovery of flights to Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia was partly influenced by this growth.

There was a slight slow-down of traffic growth at the end of the year, due to Ryanair capacity cuts and the ceasing of operations of Monarch Airlines, Air Berlin and Niki. In addition, adverse weather conditions led to a high number of flight cancellations in early December.


26,427 26,215 26,685 27,094 27,844 29,057

22,000

23,000

24,000

25,000

26,000

27,000

28,000

29,000

30,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Avera

ge

Dail

y T

raff

ic (

Fli

gh

ts)

Year

Figure 3: Average daily traffic per year

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



3.3 DELAYS

ALL AIR TRANSPORT DELAYS (AIRLINE VIEW) 3.3.1

This section presents the all air transport delay situation as seen from the airlines by using

the data collected by the Central Office for Delay Analysis (CODA) from airlines. Data

coverage is 68% of the commercial flights in the ECAC region for 2017.

Figure 4 Average Departure Delay per flight 2013-2017

Figure 5 Breakdown average delay per flight 2017

Based on airline data, the

average departure delay

per flight from ‘All-Causes’

was 12.31 minutes per

flight, an increase of 9% in

comparison to 2016 where

the average delay was

11.30 minutes per flight.

Primary delays counted for

56% (or 6.87 min/flt), with

reactionary delays

representing the smaller

remaining share of 44% at

(5.44 min/flt).

9.34 9.70 10.50 11.30

12.31

0

5

10

15

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Avera

ge d

ep

art

ure

dela

y (

min

) p

er

flig

ht Average Departure Delay per Flight 2013-2017

Average reactionary delay per flight (CODA)

Average delay per flight Other Primary delay All Causes (CODA)

Average ATFM en-route delay per flight (CODA)

Average ATFM en-route delay per flight (NM reported)

0 0

6.87

0.88 0.92

12.31

0

5

10

15

Average En-RouteDelay/Flight

Average En-RouteDelay/Flight

Average primarydelay

Passengerexperience

Avera

ge d

ep

art

ure

dela

y p

er

flig

ht

in m

inute

s Breakdown Average Delay per Flight 2017

Reactionary delay Primary Delay (excl En-Route)

Airline Reported En-Route ATFM Delay NM reported En-Route ATFM delay

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



3 ATFM delays reported by airlines could be different than the NM calculated ATFM delays due to difference in methods: ATFM

delays of NM are the (flight) planned “delays”; the airlines report the “actual” experienced ATFM delay on departure.

Figure 6: Average departure delay per flight 2017

Figure 7: Percentage of delayed flights: ATFM & All

Causes

Further analysis of the past 12 months

shows that the average ‘All-Causes’ en-

route ATFM delay reported by airlines was

0.92 minutes per flight. This is higher3 when

compared to the NM reported average en-

route ATFM delay of 0.88 minutes per flight

in 2017.

The percentage of flights delayed

from ‘All-Causes’ increased with

those exceeding 15 minutes

increasing by 1.6 percentage

points to 21.8%. Those exceeding

30 minutes also increased with

10.8% of flights being delayed in

2017.

0

5

10

15

20

201701

201702

201703

201704

201705

201706

201707

201708

201709

201710

201711

201712

Avg

dep

art

ure

dela

y/f

light

(min

)

Average Departure Delay per Flight 2017

Average reactionary delay per flight (CODA)

Average delay per flight Other Primary delay All Causes (CODA)

Average ATFM en-route delay per flight (CODA)

Average ATFM en-route delay per flight (NM reported)

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

flig

hts

de

laye

d o

n

de

pa

rtu

re: A

ll C

au

se

s

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f flig

hts

de

laye

d o

n d

ep

art

ure

AT

FM

NM

Percentage of delayed flights: ATFM & All Causes

> 15min by ATFM Restrictions (NM) > 30min by ATFM Restrictions (NM)

> 15min:All Causes (CODA) > 30min:All Causes (CODA)

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



ATFM DELAYS 3.3.2

Figure 8 : Average daily ATFM delay (2016

vs. 2017)

Average daily ATFM delay increased by

2.3% in 2017 compared to 2016. The

average daily en-route ATFM delay

increased by 6.9% but the average daily

airport ATFM delay decreased by 3.6%.

Figure 9 Average daily traffic and ATFM delay per flight (En-route and Airport) 2008-2017

The average ATFM delay per flight was 1.50 minutes, a 2% decrease compared to 2016

(Figure 9). En-route ATFM delay was 0.88 minutes per flight (2% increase), above the 0.5

minutes per flight SES capacity target. Despite the high traffic increase relative to 2016

(4.4%) the en-route delay remained at similar figures. When comparing to 2008, there was

significantly less en-route delay in 2017 (-45.7%). Airport ATFM delay per flight was 0.62

minutes, a decrease of 7.5% compared to 2016.

18695 18014

23871 25519

42566 43533

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

2016 2017

AT

FM

De

lays

(m

in)

EN-ROUTEAIRPORT

(43.9%)

(56.1%)

(41.4%)

(58.6%)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

EN-ROUTE 1.59 0.96 2.02 1.14 0.63 0.53 0.61 0.73 0.86 0.88

AIRPORT 0.75 0.64 0.86 0.67 0.48 0.39 0.42 0.69 0.67 0.62

TRAFFIC 27818 26103 26329 27146 26427 26215 26685 27094 27844 29057

24500

25000

25500

26000

26500

27000

27500

28000

28500

29000

29500

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Av

era

ge

Tra

ffic

Av

era

ge

de

lay p

er

flig

ht

(min

s)

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



Figure 10: Proportion of ATFM delays in 2017

En-route ATC capacity (25.5%), en-

route weather (13.5%), airport weather

(19.2%) and airport capacity (15.5%)

were the main reasons for ATFM delay

in 2017.

Karlsruhe ACC was the main generator of ATFM delay in 2017 contributing to 18.6% of the

average daily en-route ATFM delay, mainly due to en-route ATC capacity, en-route ATC

staffing issues and en-route weather.

In addition to Karlsruhe, en-route ATC capacity affected also Marseille, Brest, Maastricht and

Barcelona. As for en-route ATC staffing, Nicosia and Langen ACCs were also affected.

Amsterdam/Schiphol was the main generator of airport ATFM delay (5.6% of the total),

representing an increase of 66% compared to 2016. The main reasons for this delay were

airport weather and airport capacity.

En-route weather delays affected mostly Karlsruhe, Maastricht, Marseille, Wien and

Barcelona ACCs. Amsterdam/Schiphol, London/Heathrow, London/Gatwick, Istanbul/Ataturk

and Frankfurt Main were the most affected airports by weather events.

ATC industrial actions in France in March and in the autumn months affected mainly the

French ACCs of Marseille, Brest and Bordeaux. See Planned Events and Disruptions for

more information on disruptions and other events that affected the network throughout 2017.

11086

8367

6745

5890

4179

2520

1442

779

596

593

473

373

326

164

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

ENROUTE CAPACITY (ATC)

AIRPORT WEATHER

AIRPORT CAPACITY

ENROUTE WEATHER

ENROUTE STAFFING (ATC)

ENROUTE DISRUPTIONS (ATC)

AIRPORT CAPACITY (ATC)

ENROUTE EVENTS

AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS (ATC)

ENROUTE CAPACITY

ENROUTE DISRUPTIONS

AIRPORT EVENTS

AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS

AIRPORT STAFFING (ATC)

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



3.3.2.1 EN-ROUTE ATFM DELAYS

Figure 11: 2017 average daily en-route ATFM

delays

Figure 12: 2017 average en-route ATFM delay

per flight

The 6.9% increase in the average daily en-route ATFM delay is due to an increase of en-

route weather delays (35.5%) and en-route capacity and staffing delays (16.9%). Delays due

to en-route disruptions and events decreased by 37% compared to 2016. This represents

2,200 fewer minutes of daily delay – approximately the same amount of additional delay

generated by capacity and staffing issues compared to 2016.

An overview and information on individual ACCs can be found in En-Route Performance and

in Annex II - ACC.

11086

4179

2520

593

473

779

5890

9675

3464

2913

423

900

2148

4347

0 5000 10000 15000




ENROUTE CAPACITY

ENROUTE DISRUPTIONS

ENROUTE EVENTS

ENROUTE WEATHER

Av. Daily Delay (min)

0.38

0.14

0.09

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.20

0.35

0.12

0.10

0.02

0.03

0.08

0.16

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40




ENROUTE CAPACITY

ENROUTE DISRUPTIONS

ENROUTE EVENTS

ENROUTE WEATHER

Av. Daily Delay (min)

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



3.3.2.2 AIRPORT/TMA ATFM DELAYS

Airport ATFM delay decreased by 3.6% in 2017 compared to 2016. Airport capacity and

weather contributed 83.9% of the total airport delays in 2017. Airport weather was the main

reason of delay. Even though the airport capacity delays decreased by 20.2% compared to

the 2016, Istanbul/Sabiha Gökcen and Istanbul/Ataturk remained the main contributors to

airport capacity delays. The average daily airport ATFM delay due to airport weather

increased by 4.3% in 2017 - Amsterdam/Schiphol alone generated 1,337 minutes of weather

delay per day. Adverse weather conditions particularly impacted airport operations in

January, September and December.

Figure 13: 2017 average daily airport/TMA delays

ATFM delays due to airport staffing

(ATC) and airport capacity (-0.2%)

decreased.

There were increased ATFM

delays due to airport weather

(+4.3%), as well as airport capacity

(ATC), airport disruptions (ATC),

airport disruptions and airport

events.

During 2017 NM continuously provided support and recommendations to major airports

facing local capacity challenges and/or high delay levels. NM gave special attention to some

regions and airports. NM focussed especially on continuous implementation of the Greek

Action Plan and implemented the airport function within the NMOC which provided tactical

support on hot-spot airports (see Greek islands – Summer).

An overview and information on individual airports can be found in 6 Airports and in Annex III

- Airports.

1442

164

596

6745

326

373

8367

1019

343

483

8448

238

142

8022

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

AIRPORT CAPACITY (ATC)

AIRPORT STAFFING (ATC)

AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS (ATC)

AIRPORT CAPACITY

AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS

AIRPORT EVENTS

AIRPORT WEATHER

Av. Daily Delay (minutes)

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



3.4 CAPACITY

Figure 14: Traffic, Delay and Effective capacity

In 2017 the effective capacity indicator increased by 4% over the whole European ATM

network (an increase of 3% for the summer season), when compared to the corresponding

periods of 2016.

The capacity at European level is quantified using the “effective capacity”4 indicator of the

Performance Review Commission (PRC).

4 The "effective capacity” indicator corresponds to the volume of traffic that could be accommodated with an average of 1 min

en-route delay/flt, taking into account all causes. It is described in PRR 5, Annex 6.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



3.5 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY

Figure 15: Average route extension due to airspace

design (RTE – DES)

The average route extension due

to airspace design decreased

from 2.47% in 2016 to 2.36% in

2017, exceeding already the

target set for 2019. The indicator

reached a historically low level in

December 2017 with 2.31% and

allowed potential average savings

of nearly 7,000 nautical miles per

day.

Figure 16: Yearly evolution of flight-planning indicator

(KEP)

The flight planning indicator

(KEP) measures the average

route extension based on the

latest filed flight plan. It

decreased from 4.82% in 2016

to 4.62% in 2017 (for the NM

area). The targets of 4.44% for

SES area, 4.17% for NM area

were not met (Figure 16).

The indicator decrease shows

potential gains of

approximately 5.1 million

fewer nautical miles planned.

3,04% 2,96%2,80%

2,63%2,55% 2,47%

2,36%

0,00%

0,50%

1,00%

1,50%

2,00%

2,50%

3,00%

3,50%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

RTE-DES

4.91% 4.87% 4.86% 4.70% 4.74% 4.82%

4.62%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

4.00%

4.50%

5.00%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



Figure 17: Yearly evolution of the actual trajectory indicator

(KEA)

The actual trajectory indicator

(KEA) decreased to 2.77%

(Figure 17) for the NM area,

thus meeting the target

(2.78%).

The indicator decrease shows

actual gains of approximately

3.7 million fewer nautical miles

flown.

3.31% 3.20%

3.14%

2.72% 2.77%

2.93%

2.77%

2.00%

2.20%

2.40%

2.60%

2.80%

3.00%

3.20%

3.40%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



4 TRAFFIC IN DETAIL

Figure 18 : IFR Flights per day in NM Area

There were 10.6 million flights controlled in the NM area. The summer months (May to

October incl.) were the highest ever recorded, with July, August and September each

totalling more than one million flights. All market segments contributed to the strong flight

growth, with the exception of the military flights.

In 2017 as a whole, average daily flights remained 4.4%5 above the 2016 traffic levels. The

busiest ever traffic levels in Europe occurred during the summer months (4.8% growth on

average) with the months June to October (incl.) growing faster than STATFOR’s February

forecastiii. Although the low-cost segment remained the main driver of growth throughout the

year (except in December), the charter and all-cargo segments recorded the fastest growth

reaching double digit increases during the summer. There was an intense growth of flights in

Western Europe and in the Russian Federation (the latter owing to a faster economic

recovery than initially anticipated). Also to be noted was the recovery of flights to North-

African States (mostly Egypt).

Traffic growth started to slow down with the start of the winter schedules, initially due to Ryanair capacity cuts and then the ceasing of operations of Monarch Airlines, Air Berlin and Niki. In addition, in early December, adverse weather conditions led to high number of flight cancellations.


EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



4.1 NETWORK CONTRIBUTORS

Figure 19 shows the main contributors to the local traffic growth for 2017 (referring to local traffic only, ie. excluding overflights). The vast majority of States contributed to the strong growth of traffic in Europe adding each more than 50 daily flights to the network in 2017 compared with 2016.

Figure 19: Main changes to local traffic on the European network

In 2017 the top three contributors to the network’s local6 traffic growth were Spain (+212 daily flights), the United Kingdom (+176 daily flights), and Germany (+137 daily flights) boosted by strong growth on flows within Western Europe. Since September, the German and UK contributions slowed down (internal for Germany, arrivals-departures for the UK) due to the failures of Air Berlin and Monarch Airlines, respectively. Italy added 108 daily flights, and Portugal (excluding Azores) added 98 daily flights and kept their contribution constant throughout the end of the year. Ukraine’s local traffic was up 20% thanks to the state’s flows to Egypt and to Turkey along with its Eastern European flow that remained strong. Flows to and from Turkey have increased their contribution for 2017 with 86 extra daily flights to the European network mainly due to the recovery on the flow from the Russian Federation. Although not shown on the graph, only two states reported fewer flights in 2017: Norway which saw 22 fewer daily flights due to a weak domestic flow and Denmark with 18 fewer daily flights due to weak international flows to North-Western Europe (Germany, UK, Sweden and Norway).

6 IFR movements: internals, international arrivals and departures, excluding overflights.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



4.2 ROUTING ASPECTS

Figure 20: Biggest changes7 in traffic patterns in 2017

The most noticeable change was the recovery of traffic between the Russian Federation and Turkey which increased by 243% (+101flights/day) in 2017 as a whole (vs. 2016) owing mostly to the resumption of charter flights (+743% on 2016) as the travel ban8 was no longer in force, and flight counts returned to pre-crisis levels. Overall, there was a 23% increase on flows between Europe and the Russian Federation. This growth had an impact on overflights over Romania and Bulgaria (+150%) as well as over Ukraine (+118%). Additional traffic leading to strong growth on the West axis continued. The five busiest flows added a combined 236 flights per day and grew by 7.5% in 2017 (vs. 2016) with flows between UK and Spain (+45 flights/day), internal Spain (+29 flights/day) and between Germany and Spain (+20 flights/day) contributing most to the growth. On the downside, flights between Germany and Turkey decreased by 8.1% and saw 21 fewer flights per day in 2017 compared with 2016. In general flows between Turkey and Western Europe remained in deficit during most of the year, but started to show signs of recovery from November onwards. Traffic flows between Europe and Egypt recovered as adverse travel advice was alleviated, this led to a 41% growth although flight levels remained 34% lower than in 2010. Leisure traffic was the main contributor to the overall growth as it climbed 89%. The flow between Germany and Egypt was the most dynamic and went up 56% (+18 flights/day).

7 Width of the arrow in Figure 20 shows the relative size of the flow. Value on the arrow is the growth rate (2017 vs. 2016).

8 Russia lifted ban on charter flights to Turkey at the end of August 2016

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



4.3 EXTRA-NM AREA PARTNERS

Figure 21: Daily Flight Change and Growth in 2017 (ECAC area)

As shown in Figure 21, the United States remained the number one destination outside

Europe in 2017, closely followed by the Russian Federation, in particular during the summer

months. The United States recorded 490 daily departures on average (+24 flights/day), an

increase of 5% compared with 2016 partly due to long-haul low-cost flights growing by 38%

on the North Atlantic flows in 2017 (vs. 2016). The Russian Federation recorded 423

departures per day, an increase of 22.6% on 2016 mainly due to the return of charter flights

to Turkey. The recovery of traffic started at the beginning of 2017.

Flows between Europe and the United States and between Europe and the Russian

Federation accounted for 32% of all departures from ECAC to countries outside Europe.

The United Arab Emirates was the third extra-European partner with 164 daily departures on

average, an increase of 1.2% on 2016. Other states in the Middle-East such as Oman, Iran,

Qatar and Kuwait altogether recorded a 16% increase on their flows from/to Europe (they

are not shown on Figure 21 as these are small flows).

Although not shown on the graph, flows between Europe and Egypt recorded the best

progression with an increase of 40.2% in 2017 (vs. 2016) owing to a robust recovery of

leisure traffic from Germany and Ukraine mainly. The recovery of traffic started at the

beginning of 2017.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



4.4 AIRPORT TRAFFIC EVOLUTION

Departures from the airports in the network increased by 3.8% in 2017.

Nº ICAO ID AIRPORT NAME TFC % Nº ICAO ID AIRPORT NAME TFC %

1 EHAM AMSTERDAM/SCHIPHOL 696 3.9% 26 LSGG GENEVA 252 0.8%

2 LFPG PARIS CH DE GAULLE 661 0.9% 27 LIMC MILANO MALPENSA 245 7.5%

3 EGLL LONDON/HEATHROW 652 0.5% 28 EFHK HELSINKI-VANTAA 242 5.2%

4 EDDF FRANKFURT MAIN 651 3.0% 29 EPWA CHOPINA W WARSZAWIE 235 11.9%

5 LTBA ISTANBUL-ATATURK 618 -0.6% 30 EDDT BERLIN-TEGEL 235 -6.4%

6 EDDM MUENCHEN 551 3.0% 31 EDDH HAMBURG 211 1.4%

7 LEMD ADOLFO SUAREZ MADRID-BARAJAS 531 2.7% 32 LTAI ANTALYA 211 25.6%

8 LEBL BARCELONA/EL PRAT 443 5.2% 33 LKPR PRAHA RUZYNE 197 9.4%

9 LIRF ROMA/FIUMICINO 407 -5.1% 34 LFMN NICE-COTE D'AZUR 195 2.1%

10 EGKK LONDON/GATWICK 392 2.4% 35 EDDK KOELN-BONN 190 3.8%

11 LSZH ZURICH 361 0.6% 36 LLBG TEL AVIV/BEN GURION 189 17.4%

12 EKCH KOBENHAVN/KASTRUP 355 -2.2% 37 LEMG MALAGA/COSTA DEL SOL 185 10.8%

13 ENGM OSLO/GARDERMOEN 344 2.7% 38 EGGW LONDON/LUTON 185 3.4%

14 ESSA STOCKHOLM-ARLANDA 341 6.6% 39 EGPH EDINBURGH 174 4,8%

15 LOWW WIEN SCHWECHAT 329 -0.3% 40 EGBB BIRMINGHAM 163 8.0%

16 EBBR BRUSSELS NATIONAL 319 7.1% 41 EDDS STUTTGART 162 -0.6%

17 LFPO PARIS ORLY 318 -2.2% 42 LIML MILANO LINATE 159 -0.6%

18 EIDW DUBLIN 305 4.5% 43 GCLP GRAN CANARIA 159 6.0%

19 EDDL DUESSELDORF 303 2.4% 44 LROP BUCURESTI/HENRI COANDA 159 8.2%

20 LTFJ ISTANBUL/SABIHA GOKCEN 293 -4.9% 45 LTAC ANKARA-ESENBOGA 154 12.4%

21 LEPA PALMA DE MALLORCA 286 5.9% 46 LFLL LYON SAINT-EXUPERY 154 2.0%

22 EGCC MANCHESTER 279 6.5% 47 LHBP BUDAPEST LISZT FERENC INT. 140 6.9%

23 LPPT LISBOA 278 11.7% 48 EDDB SCHOENEFELD-BERLIN 137 6.2%

24 LGAV ATHINAI/ELEFTHERIOS VENIZELOS 260 4.4% 49 LFBO TOULOUSE BLAGNAC 136 8.8%

25 EGSS LONDON/STANSTED 258 5.3% 50 LFML MARSEILLE PROVENCE 134 1.5%

Table 1: Top 50 airports per average daily departure traffic in 2017

Amsterdam/Schiphol remained the busiest airport in terms of average daily departures in

2017 with 696 average daily departures. Traffic at Amsterdam/Schiphol airport showed

continuous growth since 2010. Paris Charles de Gaulle also remained the second busiest

with 661 average daily departures.

Six of the top ten airports (Amsterdam/Schiphol, Frankfurt/Main, Munich, Madrid/Barajas,

Barcelona/El Prat and London/Gatwick) had an increase in average daily flights in 2017.

Paris/Charles De Gaulle, London/Heathrow and Istanbul/Ataturk, all capacity constrained,

remained at similar levels as 2016.

Overall, the largest increase was at Antalya airport by 25.6% recovering from the reduction

of flights in 2016, but the traffic levels were still lower than in 2015. Tel Aviv/Ben Gurion

(17.4%), Ankara (12.4%), Warsaw (11.9%), Lisbon (11.7%), Malaga (10.8%) and Prague

(9.4%) airports recorded significant traffic increase in 2017.

A significant decrease of traffic was recorded at the airports of Berlin/Tegel (-6.4%),

Rome/Fiumicino (-5.1%) and Istanbul/Sabiha Gökcen (-4.9%). These reductions were mainly

caused by flight cancellations (Alitalia) and suspension of operations (Air Berlin and Borajet)

of airlines operating in those airports.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



4.5 AIRLINE INDUSTRY

The traffic share of each market segment is changing year-on-year. Traditional schedule

accounted for the highest number of flights in 2017 (52.1%) while five years ago its share

was at 55%. On the other hand, the low-cost segment has increased its market share from

25% in 2012 to over 30.6% in 2017.

With the exception of the military segment, all the other market segments contributed to the

strong flight growth in 2017 (Figure 22).

Figure 22: Traffic Development per Market Segment

Although the low-cost segment remained the main driver of flight growth in 2017 (+485 flights per day on average), it lost its dominant position in terms of percentage growth in favour of the commercial non-scheduled (charter) and all-cargo segments which grew by 9.1% and 8% respectively when low-cost increased by 5.7% in 2017 (vs. 2016). The low-cost segment has grown consistently between 5% and 10% until October 2017. It then decelerated during the last quarter (0.6% in November and -0.6% in December). This was impacted by the collapse of Monarch Airlines and Air Berlin, and by the cuts in capacity of Ryanairiv in the winter by flying 25 fewer aircraft from November onwards in an attempt to avoid roster-related cancellations. The charter segment had the fastest growth and recovered from April 2017 owing to the recovery of Russian traffic growth, together with the growth of Eastern European states, and the recovery of Egypt and Turkey as touristic destinations. The all-cargo segment boosted by a strong intra-Europe cargo market (+9% on 2016) jumped to an overall growth rate of 8% in 2017 vs. 2016, but with widening seasonal variation: 14% growth in summer growth, while November and December fell below 4%. The business aviation segment reported its first year of traffic growth since 2011 and recorded growth with an annual growth rate of 6.2%.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



Traditional scheduled was the weakest segment as it grew at an annual rate of 3% in 2017 (vs. 2016) although it reached its strongest growth rate for the last 10 years and grew even faster than low-cost in November and in December 2017. Military IFR was the only segment to decline in 2017 as it went down by 3.9% compared with 2016. Low-cost carriers were indeed the ones adding the most flights to the European network (three of the top five airlines). Ryanair added 162 flights per day and remained by far the main contributor although in 2016 it recorded 200 additional flights per day (+23% on 2017). easyJet UK added 85 flights per day and Wizz Air added 65 flights per day. Two traditional scheduled carriers completed the list and they were LOT Polish Airlines (+62 flights/day) and Lufthansa (+46 flights/day).

Figure 23: Crude Oil and Fuel Prices Evolution

As Figure 23 shows, oil prices averaged out at €49 per barrel in 2017 and were higher than in 2016 (€41 per barrel) but remained below the peaks of 2011-2014. Oil prices fluctuated from €51 per barrel during the first quarter of 2017 down to €47 per barrel during the second quarter and reached their lowest during the summer months (Jun-Aug) at €43 per barrel and their highest in November and December, at €54 per barrel. Some temporary shortages in refining capacity meant that the margin of fuel over oil price increased: the end result was fuel prices increasing more than oil over the year.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



Figure 24: Deflated ticket prices in Europe

As Figure 24 shows, airline ticket prices started to increase with the start of the summer (May-August) +3.5% on average and in December (+4%). Compared with 2016, airline ticket prices in Europe were on average 3% more expensive in 2017 (-3.6% in March to +14.3% in April due to the Easter shift).

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



4.6 FLIGHT REDUCTIONS

In 2017, the operational cancellation rate was 1.5%, a decrease of 0.1p.p. comparing to 2016. On 23 January, there were disruptions at Amsterdam Schiphol, London Heathrow and London Gatwick due of fog. Further weather related disruptions also occurred at Istanbul Ataturk on the 10 January.

Figure 25 Monthly Rate of Operational Cancellations

2016-2017

Seasonal weather (mainly snow

and high winds) impacted several

airports throughout February,

especially Amsterdam Schiphol,

Istanbul Ataturk, London Gatwick

and London Heathrow. On 23

February the storm “Doris”

affected the network and airlines

cancelled flights at all major

London airports, as well as

Amsterdam Schiphol and

Frankfurt Main.

French ATC industrial action from 6 March to 10 March generated cancellations in France; NM estimates there were 2250 fewer flights during the action. The Italian ATC industrial action on 20 March generated en-route ATFM delay and airport ATFM delay in Italy. NM estimates there were 420 fewer flights during the action. The industrial action by ground handling on 13 and 14 March at Berlin Tegel and Berlin Schönefeld caused the cancellation of approximately 920 and 500 flights respectively. Weather events impacted airlines during the summer season. Oslo experienced weather issues on 24 April while London Gatwick was affected on 28 May. On 22 June the London airports, Amsterdam/Schiphol and Frankfurt’s airports operations were also heavily impacted by weather. Later on the summer, Amsterdam Schiphol experienced low visibility issues on the 16 and 30 August. Overall, the summer saw fewer significant disruptions. In September a peak in cancellations occurred following French ATC industrial actions in Marseille, Brest and Reims ACC’s on the 11, 12, 13 September as well as 21 September. Towards the end of the year December saw an increase in the rate of cancellations following a month where winter storm affected north western Europe, notably London Heathrow, London Stansted, London Luton, Manchester, Amsterdam Schiphol and Oslo airports. There was also an Italian strike on the 15 December.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



5 EN-ROUTE PERFORMANCE

High traffic was forecasted in several capacity constrained areas for the summer and ANSPs introduced RAD restrictions and scenarios to better manage the demand and available capacity.

There were over 11,600 ATFM scenarios applied in 2017, 61% of which were flight level restrictions. There were 50% more scenarios than in 2016 and the double of those of 2015 (Figure 26). Reims, Madrid, Maastricht, Brest and Paris have all applied more than 1,000 scenarios each.

Figure 26 Network En-route delays vs Scenarios applied

Despite the increase in ATFM scenarios, ATFM regulation usage increased with over 1 million regulated flights, a 30% increase on the same period for 2016. 80% of the regulated flights had an ATFM delay of less than 15 minutes (75% in 2016).

16,225

19,725

23,871 25,519

5,201

5,846

7,899

11,627

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2014 2015 2016 2017

Nr

of

Sce

nar

ios

En-r

ou

te d

ela

y (m

in)

Avg. En-route delay (min) Nr of Scenarios

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



5.1 HOT SPOTS

Figure 27: Top 20 en-route ATFM delay locations during 2017

Figure 27 shows the top twenty en-route ATFM delay generating locations for 2017 with

respect to total ATFM delays. Figures are in minutes and they represent the average daily

delays for the individual locations.

The top twenty delay locations generated 90.1% of en-route ATFM delay in 2017. The top

six locations (Karlsruhe, Maastricht, Marseille, Brest, Bordeaux and Nicosia) generated 64%

of all en-route ATFM delay.

Of the top six ACCs, Karslruhe, Maastricht, Marseille and Nicosia increased their average

daily en-route delay (175.4%, 25.2%, 156.2%, and 95.7%, respectively) while Brest and

Bordeaux have decreased their en-route delays (-45.9% and -26.1%, respectively). For more

details on the summer performance of these ACCs please see 5.4.1 Demand and Capacity

Monitoring.

Other significant decreases on the top 20 ACCs in terms of en-route ATFM delays occurred

in Paris (-64.6%), Brussels (-67.9%) and Warsaw (-69.9%). Wien ACC recorded the highest

increase, with an ATFM delay 5 times higher than 2017, mainly due to the impact of weather

events during the summer.

4740

3377 3262

2568

1283

1090 1068 779 709 672

488 455

406 396 391 316 255 253 249 240

0500100015002000250030003500400045005000

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

KA

RLS

RU

HE

UA

C

MA

AS

TR

ICH

T U

AC

MA

RS

EIL

LE

AC

C

BR

ES

T U

/AC

C

BO

RD

EA

UX

AL

L A

CC

NIC

OS

IA A

CC

BA

RC

EL

ON

A A

CC

LA

NG

EN

AC

C

RE

IMS

U/A

CC

WIE

N A

CC

LO

ND

ON

AC

C

LO

ND

ON

TM

A T

C

GE

NE

VA

AC

C

MA

DR

ID A

LL

AC

C

PA

RIS

AL

L A

CC

LIS

BO

A A

CC

/UA

C

AT

HIN

AI

CO

NT

RO

L

BR

US

SE

LS

CA

NA

C

ZU

RIC

H A

CC

WA

RS

ZA

WA

AC

C

Avera

ge

en

-ro

ute

AT

FM

de

lay (

min

)

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f to

tal

en

-ro

ute

dela

y

ENROUTE CAPACITY (ATC) ENROUTE STAFFING (ATC) ENROUTE DISRUPTIONS (ATC)ENROUTE CAPACITY ENROUTE DISRUPTIONS ENROUTE EVENTSENROUTE WEATHER PREV YEAR

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



Nicosia and Marseille had the greatest en-route delay per flight - both with more than 1

minute per flight (Figure 28). Brest, the main generator of en-route delay in 2016, recorded

50% less delay in 2017. Paris, Brussels, Warsaw, Scottish and Olso ACCs have also

decreased considerably their en-route delay per flight.

Figure 28: Top 20 en-route ATFM delay per flight locations during 2017

Of the top twenty delay locations, the largest increases in en-route delay (more than 100%)

were in Marseille, Karlsruhe, Wien, Geneva, Makedonia and Zagreb ACCs.

En-route ATC capacity and staffing (61%) were the main reasons of en-route ATFM delay

per flight for the top six ACCs followed by en-route weather (20%) and en-route disruptions

and events (8%).

En-route ATC capacity delays were higher than the network ATC capacity delay per flight

(0.38 min/flt) in Marseille, (0.60 min/flt), Brest (0.54 min/flt) and Nicosia (0.52 min/flt).

Barcelona (0.31min/flt) and Maastricht (0.28min/flt) complete the top five ACCs in terms of

ATC capacity delays in 2017.

En-route staffing issues affected mainly Karlsruhe (0.39 min/flt) and Nicosia (0.50 min/flt)

ACCs.

En-route delays due to weather affected mostly Karlsruhe (0.26min/flt), Maastricht (0.21

min/flt), Wien (0.21 min/flt) and Marseille (0.18 min/flt) ACCs.

En-route ATC disruptions and En-route events affected mostly the French ACCs of Brest

(0.25 min/flt), Marseille (0.24 min/flt) and Bordeaux (0.24 min/flt).

1.11 1.08

0.93 0.88

0.67

0.49 0.45 0.29 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.13

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

NIC

OS

IA A

CC

MA

RS

EIL

LE

AC

C

KA

RL

SR

UH

E U

AC

BR

ES

T U

/AC

C

MA

AS

TR

ICH

T U

AC

BO

RD

EA

UX

AL

L A

CC

BA

RC

EL

ON

A A

CC

WIE

N A

CC

CA

NA

RIA

S A

CC

/FIC

RE

IMS

U/A

CC

PA

LM

A A

CC

LA

NG

EN

AC

C

GE

NE

VA

AC

C

LIS

BO

A A

CC

/UA

C

AT

HIN

AI C

ON

TR

OL

BR

US

SE

LS

CA

NA

C

MA

KE

DO

NIA

CO

NT

RO

L

MA

DR

ID A

LL A

CC

AM

ST

ER

DA

M A

CC

(245

-)

ZA

GR

EB

AC

C

En

-ro

ute

de

lay p

er

flig

ht

(min

)

ENROUTE CAPACITY (ATC) ENROUTE STAFFING (ATC) ENROUTE DISRUPTIONS (ATC) ENROUTE CAPACITY ENROUTE DISRUPTIONS

ENROUTE EVENTS ENROUTE WEATHER PREV YEAR

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



5.2 PLANNED EVENTS AND DISRUPTIONS

En-route ATFM delays due to planned events (system upgrades/transition projects) and

disruptions decreased by 37% in 2017 (see 3.3.2.1 En-Route ATFM Delays). In the following

paragraphs there is an overview of the main events and disruptions in 2017.

EN-ROUTE PLANNED EVENTS 5.2.1

The new ATM system implementation at Bordeaux ACC (ERATO) continued in 2017 and

went through its final transition stage in May. The good network cooperation with Bordeaux

ACC ensured a smooth transition, with less than 100,000 minutes of ATFM delay generated

during the whole duration of the upgrade (30,000 minutes in 2017). The PSS system

implementation at Langen ACC generated 42,800 minutes of delay. Maastricht UAC

introduced operational configuration changes (3rd layer in the East of the Brussels sector

group) and implemented a new VCS system, which generated 18,000 and 110,000 minutes

of ATFM delay, respectively. Table 2 shows the system upgrade/transition projects that

imposed capacity reductions in several ACCs and that were included in the NOP Transition

Plansv.

Table 2 System Upgrade / Transition Projects

9 Does not include postponed projects and should not be considered as exhaustive

Major Projects / Special Events9 January - March April - June July -September October - December

Albania – Tirana ACC

ATM system upgrade

France - Bordeaux ACC

Implementation of ERATO system

Germany - Langen ACC

Implementation of PSS system EBG10

Germany – Karlsruhe ACC

Implementation of iCAS KAR

Ireland – Shannon ACC

Low level FRA

Maastricht – MUAC

Third layer (Brussel sector group)

Switzerland – Geneva ACC

Virtual center

Switzerland – Zurich ACC

Harmonisation release

Virtual center

UK – London TC

Implementation of ExCDS North sect.

UK – Scottish ACC

PLAS Deployment 2

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



EN-ROUTE DISRUPTIONS 5.2.2

Industrial action contributed to 8.5% of total en-route delay in 2017 (including indirect delays

in the neighbouring ACCs due to on-loading traffic). There were roughly 800,000 minutes of

delay attributed to strikes, representing a 33% decrease when compared to 2016. An

estimated 4,600 flights were cancelled during the strike days. The French industrial actions

in March, September, October and November contributed to most of the industrial action

delays in 2017.

Table 3 shows unplanned events or disruptions10 that imposed capacity reductions in

certain ACCs in 2017.

Date Location Event Traffic Impact (Cancellations)

ATFM Delay Impact

06 January Brest ACC Radar and frequency failure None 1,169 minutes

13 January Reims ACC Frequency failure None 1,489 minutes

14 January Padova ACC Radar failure None 4,948 minutes

26/27 January

Nicosia ACC Radar maintenance None 3,977 minutes

14 February Malmö ACC Non-availability of ATM back-up

system due to weather phenomena

None 5,616 minutes

19-24 February

Brest ACC Frequency failure None

1,775 minutes

23 February Karlsruhe ACC Frequency failure None 1,082 minutes

06/07/08/09/10 March

France ATC industrial action 2.250 flights French ACCs – 300,198 minutes

Neighboring ACCs – 23,849 minutes

11 March Geneva ACC Radar failure None 5,257 minutes

11/12/14 March

Lisbon ACC ATM system failure None Lisbon ACC - 32.655 minutes

Canarias ACC – 5,722 minutes Sevilla ACC – 2,882 minutes

20 March Italy ATC industrial action 420 flights Italian ACCs – 6,582 minutes

06 April Brest ACC ATM system failure None 1,307 minutes

10/11 April Brest ACC Communication system failure None 6,309 minutes

17 April Bordeaux ACC Frequency failure None 1,067 minutes

27 April Bordeaux ACC Surveillance issue None 1,315 minutes

27 April Marseille ACC Surveillance issue None 1,164 minutes

10 May Lisbon ACC Flight data processing system

instability None 2,418 minutes

12 May Romania ATC industrial action 210 overflights rerouted Bucharest ACC - 2,413 minutes Beograd ACC – 1,183 minutes

13 May Marseille ACC Frequency failure None 1,371 minutes

17 May Greece ATC industrial action None Greeks ACCs - 8,067 minutes

23 May Lisbon ACC Communication failure between Lisbon ACC and Santa Maria ACC

None 2,398 minutes

30 May Romania ATC industrial action 400 overflights rerouted Bucharest ACC – 5,236 minutes Beograd ACC – 2,396 minutes

01-30 May Geneva ACC Radar instability None 7,346 minutes

01-30 May Zurich ACC Radar instability None 2,272 minutes

06 June Brussels ACC ATC equipment failure None 3,039 minutes

13 June Bordeaux ACC FDPS failure None 8,975 minutes

19 June Paris ACC Frequency failure None 1,723 minutes

10

The main source for the event description is the remark field on the NM ATFM Regulation (ANM)

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



Date Location Event Traffic Impact (Cancellations)

ATFM Delay Impact

21 June Shanwick Oceanic Instability of telecommunication

system in Gander Oceanic None 3,488 minutes

22 June Brest ACC Frequency failure None 2,900 minutes

25 June Marseille ACC Frequency failure None 4,048 minutes

09 July Marseille ACC Frequency failure None 1,077 minutes

10 July Beograd ACC Radar failure None 2,165 minutes

15 July Shanwick Oceanic Communication failure in

Ottawa Communication Center None 8,435 minutes

21 July Bordeaux ACC Frequency failure None 1,101 minutes

06 August Maastricht ACC ATC equipment failure None 20,698 minutes

20 August Lisbon ACC FDPS failure None 1,985 minutes

11/12/13 September

France ATC industrial action 300 flights French ACCs – 106,891 minutes


21 September

France ATC industrial action None French ACCs – 15,902 minutes

01 October Karlsruhe ACC FDPS failure None 15,478 minutes

02 October Lisbon ACC Surveillance system failure None 3,131 minutes

09/10/11 October

France ATC industrial action 1.200 flights French ACCs – 243,066 minutes


27 October Munich ACC Communication system failure None 1,144 minutes

15 November

Langen ACC Communication system failure None 6,464 minutes

16 November

Brest ACC Frequency failure None 1,087 minutes

15/16/17 November

France ATC industrial action 150 flights French ACCs – 36,274 minutes


15 December

Italy ATC industrial action 285 flights 6,265 minutes

19-30 December

Lisbon ACC Frequency failure None 7,542 minutes

09/10/11 December

Brest ACC SSR code allocation issue

between Madrid and Brest ACCs None 3,949 minutes

Table 3: Unplanned Events/Disruptions

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



5.3 CAPACITY EVOLUTION

The capacity at European level is quantified using the "effective capacity" 4 indicator of the

Performance Review Commission (PRC) that takes into account traffic and delay evolution.

Between 1999 and 2017, traffic increased by 32%, the “effective capacity” of the network

increased by 66% and the average en-route ATFM delay per flight decreased by 81%.

In 2017 the effective capacity indicator increased by 4% over the whole European ATM

network when compared to 2016.

Figure 29 Annual Traffic, delay and capacity evolution

The "effective capacity” indicator takes into account en-route ATFM delays, for all reasons,

including weather, disruptions and significant events: system failures, industrial action,

implementation of new ATM systems. Figure 30 shows the monthly evolution of the

“effective capacity” of the European ATM for the last 10 years. The highest value ever of this

indicator was in September 2016 (Figure 30), while July-August 2017 saw the highest daily

traffic values of the last 20 years.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

En-r

oute

dela

y per

flig

ht

(min

)

Movem

ents

per

day

Traffic Effective Capacity

Av ER delay EU delay target

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



The year of 2017 was had the highest overall traffic and average daily traffic since the

statistics have been gathered in Eurocontrol (last 20 years). 2013 was the year with lowest

average delay per flight.

Figure 30: ECAC 'Effective Capacity' Evolution per Month (2006-2017)

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



5.4 ACC ANALYSIS

In the European Network Operations Plan (NOP) 2017 – 2019/21vi there are two delay

values for each ACC:

The required en-route delay/flight performance to achieve annual network delay

target in 2017 (0.5 min/flight). This is also known as the “delay breakdown”.

The forecast delay based on 2017 NOP capacity planning, excluding disruptions

such as industrial action and technical failures.

An overview of the ACC performances in 2017 is in Table 4 and shows the traffic growth,

capacity and delay for each ACC. Those ACCs that exceeded their reference value are

highlighted in “amber”. The actual delay in 2017 was higher than the breakdown value

reported in the NOP 2017-19/21 for only 15 out of 65 ACCs.

COUNTRY ACC ACC Code

EN-ROUTE DELAY TRAFFIC CAPACITY

Breakdown11 Forecast12 Actual Forecast

(Low/High)13 Summer14

Actual Annual15

Actual NOP Plan

Actual

NETWORK NETWORK ALL_DNM 0.50 0.73 0.88 2.9% 4.9% 4.4% n/a n/a

ALBANIA TIRANA ACC LAAAACC 0.09 0.03 0.00 +0.6% / +3.2% 3.1% 4.2% 5% 0%

ARMENIA YEREVAN ACC UDDDACC 0.01 0.01 0.00 +6.0% / +9.5% 45.6% 41.0% sufficient 0%

AUSTRIA WIEN ACC LOVVACC 0.20 0.20 0.29 1.0% / +4.5% 10.2% 9.7% 3% 1%

AZERBAIJAN BAKU ACC UBBAACC 0.01 0.01 0.00 2.5% 4.6% 5.3% sufficient 0%

BELGIUM BRUSSELS ACC EBBUACC 0.06 0.13 0.15 +1.7% / +4.3% 5.9% 6.4% 6% 13%

BOSNIA SARAJEVO ACC LQSBACC 0.01 0.01 0.00 2.9% 13.1% 13.6% sufficient 8%

BULGARIA SOFIA ACC LBSRACC 0.05 0.01 0.00 +2.1% / +4.5% 3.5% 3.3% 4% 2%

CROATIA ZAGREB ACC LDZOACC 0.25 0.24 0.13 -0.2% / +3.2% 9.0% 9.3% 3% 7%

CYPRUS NICOSIA ACC LCCCACC 0.25 1.40 1.11 +5.7% / +10.3% 11.6% 11.9% 5% 3%

CZECH REPUBLIC PRAGUE ACC LKAAACC 0.09 0.09 0.05 +2.3% / +5.6% 1.5% 2.0% 0% 3%

DENMARK COPENHAGEN

ACC EKDKACC 0.07 0.01 0.00 +1.5% / +3.5% 2.0% 1.7% 2% 0%

ESTONIA TALLINN ACC EETTACC 0.03 0.02 0.02 +2.5% / +5.7% 10.0% 7.7% sufficient 2%

EUROCONTROL MAASTRICHT UAC EDYYUAC 0.17 0.56 0.67 +2.8% / +5.1% 4.1% 4.1% 3% 2%

11

The required en-route delay/flight performance to achieve annual network delay target in 2017 (0.5 min/flight), also known as “delay breakdown” - NOP 2017- 2019/21 12

Forecast delay based on 2017 capacity planning including disruptions such as industrial action and technical failures at a statistical level of 0.1 min/flt - NOP 2016-19/20 (June 17 edition) 13

Low/High traffic forecast STATFOR Feb 2017 used for NOP capacity planning, variation in % compared to 2016. When not available, Base forecast is provided. 14

May to October (inc.) 15

Growth calculated based on the average daily traffic for 2017 and 2016

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report







Actual Annual15

Actual NOP Plan

Actual

FINLAND TAMPERE ACC EFESACC 0.09 0.01 0.00 +2.2% / +4.3% 8.1% 7.2% sufficient 0%

FRANCE BORDEAUX ACC LFBBALL 0.13 0.07 0.49 +3.0% / +6.1% 5.5% 6.1% 14% 3%

FRANCE REIMS ACC LFEEACC 0.19 0.18 0.26 +1.4% / +4.2% 2.5% 3.2% 12% 8%

FRANCE PARIS ACC LFFFALL 0.14 0.06 0.12 +1.0% / +3.6% 0.6% 1.4% 12% 1%

FRANCE MARSEILLE ACC LFMMACC 0.15 0.07 1.08 +2.0% / +5.0% 4.7% 5.2% 12% -4%

FRANCE BREST ACC LFRRACC 0.10 0.42 0.88 +3.8% / +6.6% 7.6% 8.0% 13% 10%

FYROM SKOPJE ACC LWSSACC 0.20 0.16 0.03 -0.5% / +3.4% 16.9% 18.3% 5% 3%

GEORGIA TBILISI ACC UGGGACC 0.01 0.01 0.00 2.6% 14.9% 13.5% sufficient 0%

GERMANY LANGEN ACC EDGGALL 0.23 0.27 0.22 -0.2% / +2.7% 3.6% 3.3% 2% 5%

GERMANY MUNCHEN ACC EDMMACC 0.20 0.04 0.04 +1.1% / +3.9% 4.0% 3.5% 1% 2%

GERMANY KARLSRUHE UAC EDUUUAC 0.25 0.54 0.93 +2.0% / +4.7% 3.6% 3.9% 2% -2%

GERMANY BREMEN ACC EDWWACC 0.07 0.04 0.12 +2.7% / +4.7% 2.4% 0.0% -1% 0%

GREECE ATHINAI ACC LGGGACC 0.19 0.36 0.17 +1.2% / +3.9% 9.0% 9.1% 10% 8%

GREECE MAKEDONIA ACC LGMDACC 0.15 0.15 0.15 +0.3% / +3.0% 7.4% 8.3% 3% 5%

HUNGARY BUDAPEST ACC LHCCACC 0.05 0.03 0.01 +1.4% / +4.5% 6.5% 5.9% 2.5% 8%

IRELAND DUBLIN ACC EIDWACC 0.04 0.02 0.00 +3.6% / +1.2% 4.2% 4.6% 3% 0%

IRELAND SHANNON ACC EISNACC 0.05 0.01 0.00 +2.6% / +4.4% 0.5% 1.8% 2% 0%

ISRAEL16 TEL AVIV ACC LLLLACC n/a n/a 0.00 n/a 20% 19% n/a n/a

ITALY BRINDISI ACC LIBBACC 0.01 0.01 0.00 +0.4% / +2.8% 10.3% 9.5% 8% 10%

ITALY MILAN ACC LIMMACC 0.08 0.02 0.00 +0.9% / +4.3% 2.8% 2.2% 3% 0%

ITALY PADOVA ACC LIPPACC 0.09 0.02 0.01 +1.3% / +4.3% 2.1% 2.5% 2% 3%

ITALY ROME ACC LIRRACC 0.05 0.01 0.00 -0.3% / +2.6% 5.3% 4.3% 2% 0%

LATVIA RIGA ACC EVRRACC 0.04 0.01 0.00 +2.6% / +6.2% 10.3% 9.1% sufficient 0%

LITHUANIA VILNIUS ACC EYVCACC 0.03 0.01 0.00 +2.2% / +6.0% 6.4% 5.6% sufficient 0%

MALTA MALTA ACC LMMMACC 0.02 0.01 0.00 +1.6% / +3.7% 4.5% 5.2% sufficient 0%

MOLDOVA CHISINAU ACC LUUUACC 0.01 0.01 0.00 +6.4% / +10.3% 21.9% 20.3% sufficient 0%

MOROCCO12 CASABLANCA ACC GMMMACC n/a n/a 0.01 n/a 6.9% 7.6% n/a n/a

NETHERLANDS AMSTERDAM ACC EHAAACC 0.14 0.08 0.13 +2.9% / +3.5% 2.3% 3.1% 0.5% 1%

NORWAY BODO ACC ENBDACC 0.10 0.01 0.01 -2.9% / +0.7% 0.2% 0.3% sufficient 0%

NORWAY OSLO ACC ENOSACC 0.14 0.04 0.03 -1.3% / +1.7% 1.4% 0.9% sufficient 0%

NORWAY STAVANGER ACC ENSVACC 0.12 0.04 0.00 -0.1% / +1.2% -1.0% -2.3% sufficient 0%

POLAND WARSAW ACC EPWWACC 0.23 0.31 0.12 +2.4% / +6.5% 4.9% 5.0% 7% 17%

PORTUGAL LISBON ACC LPPCACC 0.11 0.56 0.20 +6.2% / +9.1% 8.9% 9.6% 2% 13%

16

Only actual data (not planned) is reported for Israel and Morocco. Both states are now part of IFPS but they are still on a transition phase towards full ATFCM integration. Therefore, their operational plans were not part of the NOP 2017– 2019/21 - their inclusion is envisaged for 2019.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report







Actual Annual15

Actual NOP Plan

Actual

ROMANIA BUCHAREST ACC LRBBACC 0.01 0.01 0.01 +4.8% / +7.5% 11.0% 8.8% 0% 0%

SERBIA- MONTENEGRO

BELGRADE ACC LYBAACC 0.10 0.01 0.04 +0.3% / +3.3% 4.3% 5.4% 1% 0%

SLOVAKIA BRATISLAVA ACC LZBBACC 0.10 0.04 0.03 +1.8% / +4.6% 3.9% 3.6% 2% 2%

SLOVENIA LJUBLJANA ACC LJLAACC 0.22 0.03 0.00 -0.2% / +4.4% 12.6% 12.9% 3% 9%

SPAIN CANARIAS ACC GCCCACC 0.27 0.28 0.26 +4.3% / +6.6% 6.1% 7.5% 1% 4%

SPAIN BARCELONA ACC LECBACC 0.23 0.31 0.45 +3.6% / +7.0% 5.1% 5.8% 10% 5%

SPAIN MADRID ACC LECMALL 0.15 0.11 0.13 +4.0% / +6.8% 7.7% 7.7% 1% 7%

SPAIN PALMA ACC LECPACC 0.19 0.20 0.26 +1.4% / +4.9% 4.5% 5.6% 3% 3%

SPAIN SEVILLA ACC LECSACC 0.12 0.13 0.07 +3.9% / +6.5% 8.4% 8.8% 3% 5%

SWEDEN MALMO ACC ESMMACC 0.07 0.10 0.01 +1.6% / +3.5% 6.4% 5.5% 1% 5%

SWEDEN STOCKHOLM ACC ESOSACC 0.07 0.03 0.03 +0.5% / +2.5% 7.5% 6.5% 1% 0%

SWITZERLAND GENEVA ACC LSAGACC 0.19 0.19 0.22 +1.5% / +4.7% 6.4% 6.0% 1% 2%

SWITZERLAND ZURICH ACC LSAZACC 0.18 0.21 0.12 +1.4% / +4.2% 5.0% 4.5% 1% 4%

TURKEY ANKARA ACC LTAAACC 0.15 0.01 0.00 +1.4% / +4.2% 7.4% 5.5% 10% 6%

UKRAINE KYIV ACC UKBVACC 0.02 0.00 0.00 13.8% / +19.4% 25.6% 23.5% sufficient 0%

UKRAINE DNIPROPETROVSK

ACC UKDVACC 0.01 0.01 0.00 +11.1% / +14.7% 9.5% 8.1% sufficient 0%

UKRAINE L’VIV ACC UKLVACC 0.01 0.01 0.00 +4.3% / +9.9% 14.7% 16.0% sufficient 0%

UKRAINE ODESA ACC UKOVACC 0.01 0.01 0.00 +13.7% / +19.1% 28.0% 25.8% sufficient 0%

UNITED KINGDOM

PRESTWICK ACC EGPXALL 0.13 0.14 0.07 +2.0% / +3.9% 7.3% 7.0% 11% 17%

UNITED KINGDOM

LONDON ACC EGTTACC 0.18 0.18 0.09 +2.6% / +4.8% 4.3% 4.2% 1% 6%

UNITED KINGDOM

LONDON TC EGTTTC 0.11 0.04 0.12 +1.4% / +3.4% 3.0% 3.1% 2% 6%

Table 4: Overview of the ACC performances in 2017

Compared to the delay forecast, the performance of the following ACCs was better than

foreseen17 in the NOP 2017-2019/21: Lisbon, Nicosia, Warsaw, Athens, Skopje, Zagreb,

London, Zurich, Malmo, Prestwick, Sevilla, Langen.

The performance of the following ACCs was worse than foreseen18 in the NOP 2017-

2019/21: Marseille, Brest, Bordeaux, Karlsruhe, Barcelona, Maastricht, Vienna, Bremen,

Reims, London TC, Paris, Palma, Amsterdam.

Nicosia and Marseille ACCs had delays of more than 1 minute per flight, and three ACCs

(Karlsruhe, Brest, Maastricht) recorded delays between 0.5 and 1 minute per flight.

17

This means the actual delay was lower than forecast delay by at least 0,05 18

This means the actual delay was higher than forecast delay by at least 0,05

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



DEMAND AND CAPACITY MONITORING – SUMMER 5.4.1

ATC capacity and staffing issues in six ACCs were the main cause of the en-route ATFM

delays in the network (in addition to weather), particularly over the summer, and over the

weekends

Nevertheless, a number of ACCs which had been identified in the Network Operations Plan

(NOP) as having capacity short-comings for the summer season have confirmed the

proposed NOP measures and performed better than expected. These include Athens,

Lisbon, Skopje and Zagreb ACCs – all with traffic growth above 9%.

The next paragraphs describe a more detailed view on the performance19 of the most

affected ACCs by capacity and staffing issues. These ACCs have provided feedback on the

analysis to the Network Director of Operations Forum (NDOP)20 and their views are

published in Annex II – ACC.

5.4.1.1 MARSEILLE

Marseille ACC had 1.61 minutes of en-route delay per flight in the summer, more than 3

times the figure of 2016; and well above the planned NOP delay forecast (0.11 min/flt).

Traffic increased by 4.7% with Sunday the busiest day of the week. Capacity delays

happened mainly over the weekend, concentrated in the mornings and evenings, with

regulations applied mostly in Marseille-East sectors.

Figure 31 - Summer sector scheme (average) -

Marseille ACC Saturdays (vs. 2016)

Figure 32 – Weekly En-route delay per

flight - Marseille ACC Summer

19

Traffic, delay and capacity figures refer to the months of May to October (incl.). Sector schemes are compared against the NOP ACC plans, when available. Average hourly delay figures include capacity and staffing delays only. 20

NDOP 18/19/12 20.03.18 Item 6.2 Action Paper: Analysis of the Network Delay Causes 2017

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0

5

10

15

20

25

H00

00

H02

00

H04

00

H06

00

H08

00

H10

00

H12

00

H14

00

H16

00

H18

00

H20

00

H22

00

Min

ute

s o

f D

elay

Nu

mb

er o

f Se

cto

rs

2017 2016 C+S Delay

0.70

2.11

0.72

1.36 0.90

3.09

2.37

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN

Avera

ge e

n-r

ou

te d

ela

y p

er

flig

ht

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



NM observed sector counts below 2016 levels during most of the days, but especially on

Saturdays in the period 1500-1800. The traffic growth for Saturdays (2%) was below the

growth for the other days - particularly concentrated at 0500 and in the period 1500-1600.

The high capacity/staffing delay in Marseille occurred in periods when there were fewer

sectors than last year. NM observed that delays occur each year in the summer, suggesting

a regular capacity provision issue during the peak summer months.

5.4.1.2 NICOSIA

Nicosia had 1.46 minutes of en-route delay per flight in the summer, the double of 2016.

(NOP summer forecast was 1.9 min/flt). Traffic increased by 12% over the summer. Sunday

and Thursday were the busiest days and also those with highest delays.


Nicosia ACC Sundays (vs. NOP plan)

Figure 34 – Weekly En-route delay per flight -

Nicosia ACC Summer

Overall, there were fewer sectors opened than what was agreed in the NOP. This was

particularly noted on the 10h-18h period on Sundays, when most of the delays occurred.

According to the NOP, 5 sectors were expected to be delivered during this period, but this

only happened occasionally. Demand was very high on Sundays (11%) with traffic peaks

that did not exist the previous year appearing at 1500 and 1900.

0

100

200

300

400

500

0

1

2

3

4

5

H0

000

H0

200

H0

400

H0

600

H0

800

H1

000

H1

200

H1

400

H1

600

H1

800

H2

000

H2

200

Min

ute

s o

f d

elay

Nu

mb

er o

f Se

cto

rs

2017 Planned C+S Delay

1.47

0.39

1.21

2.42

1.23

0.32

2.81

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50


Avera

ge e

n-r

ou

te d

ela

y p

er

flig

ht

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



5.4.1.3 KARLSRUHE UAC

Karlsruhe UAC had 1.48 minuntes of en-route delay per flight in the summer, an increase of

155% comparing to 2016; and above the planned NOP summer delay forecast (0.77 min/flt).

Summer traffic increased by 3.6% with the busiest day on Friday. Capacity and staffing

delay was high and spread throughout the week but Saturday afternoon (12h-17h) was the

most constrained period. The traffic growth on this day (5%) was spread across the period

0600-2000.


Karlsruhe UAC Saturdays (vs. NOP plan)

Figure 36 – Weekly En-route delay per flight

– Karlsruhe UAC Summer

Sector counts were generally in line with the June NOP capacity revision (which was 4 to 5

sectors below the levels in the first edition of the NOP). Nevertheless, the number of sectors

open in busy periods deteriorated over the summer, especially on week days. It was also

noted that the regulated rates decreased. Karlsruhe reported continuous staffing issues

since the beginning of the year. This was particularly noted on the low share of regulations

applied on elementary sectors (vs. collapsed sectors): 30% compared to almost 60% in

2016.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

H0

000

H0

200

H0

400

H0

600

H0

800

H1

000

H1

200

H1

400

H1

600

H1

800

H2

000

H2

200

Min

ute

s o

f D

elay

Nu

mb

er o

f Se

cto

rs

2017 NOP (June) C+S Delay

1.18

1.31 1.17 1.53 1.69

2.08

1.45

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50


Avera

ge e

n-r

oute

dela

y p

er

flig

ht

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



5.4.1.4 BREST

Brest had 34% less delay in the summer of 2017 than the same period in 2016 . However,

the 1.05 minutes per flight of en-route delay for the summer was still above the planned NOP

delay for the ACC (0.55 min/flt for the summer). Summer traffic increased by 7.6% with

Saturdays being the busiest day of the week (9%). The change in demand was particularly

high in the first-rotation peak in the weekend. Nevertheless, for those flights going through

Brest during weekends, there was a significant drop of reactionary delays compared to 2016

(-20% on Saturdays and -12% on Sundays).

Figure 37 - Summer sector scheme (average) – Brest

ACC Saturdays (vs. 2016)


– Brest ACC Summer

NM observes that regulated rates for sectors increased by approximately 10% to 20%

compared to those applied in 2016. The number of opened sectors increased, including in

the first-rotations. NM believes Brest addressed many capacity issues during summer 2017.

The share of regulations applied on elementary sectors (vs. collapsed sectors) increased

from 59% to 72%, indicating a more efficient management of the airspace.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0

5

10

15

20

H0

000

H0

200

H0

400

H0

600

H0

800

H1

000

H1

200

H1

400

H1

600

H1

800

H2

000

H2

200

Min

ute

s o

f d

elay

Nu

mb

er o

f Se

cto

rs

2017 2016 Delay

0.74

1.65

0.54

0.91 0.88

1.47

1.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUNAvera

ge e

n-r

oute

dela

y p

er

flig

ht

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



5.4.1.5 BORDEAUX

Summer en-route delay in Bordeaux decreased by 20% compared to 2016. Despite the

improvement, the en-route delay (0.63 min/flt) was still high when monitored against the

NOP (0.11 min/flt for the summer). Summer traffic increased by 5.5%, with Saturday being

the busiest day. Friday was also the day with most capacity delay, which remained high over

the whole weekend. The morning period (0800-1200) and the evening (1600-2000) were the

most delayed period on Fridays and Sundays while Saturdays had mostly morning issues.

Figure 39 - Summer sector scheme (average) –

Bordeaux ACC Fridays (vs. 2016)


– Bordeaux ACC Summer

Despite an increase in sector numbers in the morning and first-rotation compared to 2016,

the ACC faced difficulties in coping with high demand in those periods. As for the evening

issues on Fridays (also Sundays), there was a significant drop of sector numbers compared

to 2016 (two sectors fewer on the 1600-1700 period), indicating a shift of sectors to earlier

hours.

Traffic increase was spread throughout the day on Fridays with a new peak at 1600 which,

together with the drop-off in sectors, also contributed to the generation of delay. Mondays

had similar traffic levels to those of Saturdays but significantly less delay. The number of

sectors delivered was higher for that day, suggesting that the ACC was able to provide more

sectors during the week than during weekends.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

4

8

12

16

20

H00

00

H02

00

H04

00

H06

00

H08

00

H10

00

H12

00

H14

00

H16

00

H18

00

H20

00

H22

00

Min

ute

s o

f d

elay

Nu

mb

er o

f Se

cto

rs

2017 2016 C+S Delay

0.51

1.38

0.30 0.27

0.63

0.80

0.54

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40


Avera

ge e

n-r

ou

te d

ela

y p

er

flig

ht

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



5.4.1.6 MAASTRICHT UAC

Maastricht UAC had 1.04 minutes per flight of en-route delay in the summer, an increase of

21% compared to 2016 and very similar to the NOP forecast (0.94 min/flt for the summer).

Summer traffic increased by 4.1%. The busiest day was Friday, while Saturday was the day

with the lowest traffic (6%). The capacity/staffing delays were spread evenly throughout most

of the week with Saturday recording the highest capacity delay.

Figure 41 - Summer sector scheme (average) –

Maastricht UAC Saturdays (vs. NOP plan)

Figure 42 – Weekly En-route delay per flight –

Maastricht UAC Summer

Sector configurations suggest that there was a slight reduction in sector counts in the

weekend compared to week-days in line with the lower traffic levels. Although providing high

capacity, MUAC’s main issue is the geographical imbalance in demand causing at times

extremely high increases in demand in some sectors. Traffic growth was concentrated in

certain periods of the day and new demand peaks were observed (e.g. 1000 and 1500 on

Saturdays).

0

100

200

300

400

500

0

4

8

12

16

20

H0

00

0

H0

20

0

H0

40

0

H0

60

0

H0

80

0

H1

00

0

H1

20

0

H1

40

0

H1

60

0

H1

80

0

H2

00

0

H2

20

0

Min

ute

s o

f d

elay

Nu

mb

er o

f Se

cto

rs

2017 Planned Min. Planned Max. Delay

0.71

0.89

1.19

1.55

1.06 0.84 1.07

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00


Ave

rag

e e

n-r

ou

te d

ela

y p

er

flig

ht

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



6 AIRPORTS

Departures from the airports in the network increased by 3.8% in 2017 (see Airport Traffic

Evolution), while airport ATFM delays decreased by 3.6%. Airport capacity and weather

contributed to 83.9% of the total airport delays.

The integration of airports into the network progressed significantly in 2017. There was

progress towards the wider A-CDM implementation in Europe: 4 additional airports fully

implemented, giving a total of 26 A-CDM airports, covering 34% of the departures in the NM

area (see Airport CDM and ATC Tower Implementation). In 2017, 3 airports connected to

NM as Advanced ATC Tower airports, making 19 airports in total, covering 9% of departures

in the NM area (see Advanced ATC Tower Implementation). NM now receives Departure

Planning Information (DPI) messages for more than 42% of departures in the NM area.

Greek airports had an average daily traffic growth of 5.3% in 2017 compared to 2016 for the

period between April and October. The summer 2017 was once again challenging due to the

long-standing problems at the Greek island airports, i.e. airport layout, passenger terminal

capacity and limited numbers of aircraft parking positions. These problems are unlikely to be

resolved in 2018 but ongoing developments following the privatisation of the airports may

provide sufficient airport infrastructure and technological modernisation in the coming years.

To overcome these difficulties, NM implemented the airport function within the NMOC, which

provided tactical support on hot-spot airports (See Greek islands – Summer).

There was very good collaboration from airports on the provision of strategic information to

NM via the Airport Corner. The focus this year was to enhance the quality of strategic

airports information, instead of expanding the number of contributing airports (see Airport

Strategic Information Provision).

The Enhanced Information Exchange process in which airports share data with NMOC

continued throughout the year. In this process, airports report foreseen capacity impacts

caused by weather related or other events during the ATFM pre-tactical phase of operations.

As of 2017, airports as well as airlines can subscribe to receive information on events

impacting operations (see Pre-Tactical and Tactical Airports Information Exchange).

The Airport Unit has started a runway throughput study for Athens Airport and Brussels

Airport in 2017. The study for Athens Airport involves the HCAA, Athens International Airport

and AEGEAN. The study for Brussels Airport mainly involves Belgocontrol. Both studies will

be finalised in 2018.

In general, the partnership with airports has further improved. Airports started expressing

interest in the implementation of SESAR concepts (e.g. AOP-NOP/APOC, TBS, RECAT-EU)

establishing the foundation to achieve future SESAR targets. RECAT-EU Minima Separation

are applied at Leipzig-Halle Airport / Munich APP since July 2017 for specific category of

aircraft (A300/B757/B767 types). London Heathrow and Vienna airports are planning

RECAT-EU deployment for the coming year.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



A first AOP-NOP Integration project was started with Paris Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt and

London Heathrow airports to implement extended data exchange via NM B2B services. The

NM is leading a second AOP-NOP project under the CEF 2016 call including the following

airports: Madrid Barajas, Barcelona, Palma de Mallorca, Amsterdam Schiphol, Brussels and

Stockholm/Arlanda. In addition, a third AOP-NOP project proposal for the CEF 2017 has

been launched with 7 more airports as partners.

The First Rotation Optimisation Trial (FROT) at Zurich contributed to a positive network

impact with fewer ATFM arrival delays (aerodrome capacity) and improved airport arrival slot

compliance. Swiss Air Lines’ efforts to keep flight plans up-to-date improved the arrival

demand picture at Zurich airport during the trial.

Finally, NM continued the close and effective collaboration with airports through a number of bilateral meetings, visits and exchanges.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



6.1 HOT SPOTS

Amsterdam/Schiphol recorded a traffic increase of 3.9% and ATFM delay increased by 66%.

Airport ATFM delay per flight also increased by 60%. Airport weather was the main

contributor (1,337 min/day, +72%) followed by airport capacity (883 min/day, +34.2%).

Weather particularly impacted airport operations at Amsterdam/Schipol in September and

December and to a lesser extent in February and January.

Traffic decreased by 4.9% in Istanbul/Sabiha Gökcen airport and ATFM delays decreased

by 52.3%. Airport capacity was the main contributor for the decrease in delay (1,436

min/day, - 51%) followed by weather (175 min/day, -59%).

Istanbul/Ataturk airport traffic remained almost at the same level as in 2016, while ATFM

delays decreased by 26%. Airport capacity was the main contributor (1,006 min/day, -34%)

followed by weather (454 min/day, + 8%). Despite the decrease in ATFM delay, both airports

remained the highest contributors to airport capacity related delays in the network.

Figure 43: Top 20 airport delay locations during 201721

London/Heathrow traffic remained almost at the same level as in 2016. The average daily

airport ATFM delay increased by 3% in 2017, of which 95% was due to weather. Adverse

weather particularly affecting airport operations in December and October.

London Gatwick traffic increased by 2.4% compared to 2016. ATFM delay increased by 33%

and delay per flight increased by 30.2% in 2017. Adverse weather and airport capacity were

the main delay causes in 2017. Airport weather delay decreased from a daily average of 660

minutes in 2016 to 596 minutes in 2017, particularly impacting airport operations in

September and January. Airport capacity delay increased from a daily average of 176

21

Only airports with more than 11,000 movements/year are included

2422

1614

1463 1251 1246

771 669 596 461 445 375 357 327 272 260 243 236 233 228 224

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

AM

ST

ER

DA

M/S

CH

IPH

OL

IST

AN

BU

L/S

AB

IHA

GO

KC

EN

IST

AN

BU

L-A

TA

TU

RK

LO

ND

ON

/HE

AT

HR

OW

LO

ND

ON

/GA

TW

ICK

BA

RC

ELO

NA

/EL P

RA

T

FR

AN

KF

UR

T M

AIN

ZU

RIC

H

LIS

BO

A

PA

RIS

OR

LY

PA

LM

A D

E M

ALL

OR

CA

WIE

N S

CH

WE

CH

AT

AD

OL

FO

SU

AR

EZ

MA

DR

ID-

BA

RA

JA

S

IRA

KL

ION

/NIK

OS

KA

ZA

NT

ZA

KIS

BR

US

SE

LS

NA

TIO

NA

L

LO

ND

ON

/ST

AN

ST

ED

OS

LO

/GA

RD

ER

MO

EN

TE

L A

VIV

/BE

N G

UR

ION

PA

RIS

CH

DE

GA

UL

LE

PA

RIS

LE

BO

UR

GE

T

Avg

Air

po

rt d

ela

y

AD CAPACITY (ATC) AD STAFFING (ATC) AD DISRUPTION (ATC) AD CAPACITY

AD DISRUPTIONS AD EVENTS AD WEATHER PREV YEAR

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



minutes in 2016 to 591 minutes in 2017, particularly impacting airport operations in July,

August and September. Airport capacity regulations were applied mainly due to ground

congestion.

Barcelona/El Prat traffic increased by 5.2% and delays increased from a daily average of

683 minutes in 2016 to 771 minutes in 2017. Airport capacity due to environmental

constraints and adverse weather conditions generated most of these delays. Airport weather

delay increased from a daily average of 222 minutes in 2016 to 359 minutes in 2017,

particularly impacting airport operations in September (33% of total ATFM weather delay).

Frankfurt/Main airport traffic increased by 3% and ATFM delay increased by 21.6%. Adverse

weather conditions caused most of the delays impacting airport operations particularly

between May and October.

Zurich airport traffic remained almost at the same level as in 2016, while ATFM delay and

delay per flight both decreased by 26% compared to 2016. Airport capacity, weather and

limited availability of the optimum runway configuration due to environmental constraints

were the main delay causes. Airport capacity delay decreased from a daily average of 432

minutes in 2016 to 252 minutes in 2017.

Lisbon traffic increased by 11.7% while ATFM delay nearly doubled compared to 2016.

Airport capacity and airport weather were the main delay causes in 2017. Airport capacity

delay increased from a daily average of 70 minutes in 2016 to 234 minutes in 2017. Lisbon

airport is a new addition to the top 20 airports delay per flight locations in 2017.

Paris/Orly traffic decreased by 2.2% and delay decreased by 34.5% from a daily average of

679 minutes in 2016 to 445 minutes in 2016. The airport undertook major runway

reconstructions from July to September generating airport capacity delays. In addition to this,

a major tower cab renovation started in November. Taxiway and tower cab works combined

generated 70.2% of airport capacity delay. The airport operations were also impacted by

several industrial actions in 2017.

Palma de Mallorca traffic increased by 5.9% and ATFM delay increased by 15.4%. Airport

weather and airport capacity issues were the main delay causes in 2017 at this airport.

Airport weather delay increased from a daily average of 106 minutes in 2016 to 206 minutes

in 2017, particularly impacting airport operations in September. Airport capacity delays

decreased by 17% compared to 2016.

Vienna traffic remained at the same level of 2016 while ATFM delay delay increased by

13%. Adverse weather conditions were the main delay cause, impacting airport operations

in July and October.

Madrid/Barajas traffic increased 2.7% and ATFM delay increased 24.3%. Adverse weather

conditions and airport capacity issues were the main delay causes. Airport capacity delay

increased from a daily average of 80 minutes in 2016 to 128 minutes in 2017.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



Brussels/Zaventem airport traffic increased by 7.1% and it is back to 2015 levels after

recovering from the drop in 2016 caused by the terrorist attack of which happened in March

of that year. ATFM delay decreased by 6.1% compared to 2016. Adverse weather conditions

were the main delay cause in 2017.

London/Stansted traffic increased 5.3% and ATFM delay increased by 3%. Adverse weather

conditions were the main delay cause, impacting airport operations in December.

Oslo/Gardermoen airport traffic increased by 2.7% compared to 2016, while ATFM delay

decreased by 11%. Adverse weather conditions were the main cause of delay (86.7% of

total ATFM delay).

Tel Aviv/Ben Gurion airport traffic increased by 17.4% compared to 2016, while delay

decreased by 36.2%. Aerodrome capacity (ATC) and airport capacity in combination with

runway maintenance were the main delay causes.

Paris Charles de Gaulle traffic remained at the same level of 2016 while delay decreased by

34%. Adverse weather conditions were the main delay cause. Airport weather delay

increased from a daily average of 198 minutes in 2016 to 215 minutes in 2017, impacting

airport operations in January and August.

Paris Le Bourget is a new addition to the top 20 airport delay locations (both in total delay

and delay per flight). Paris Le Bourget airport traffic increased by 2.8% and ATFM delay

nearly tripled compared to 2016. ILS and DME maintenance and technical issues were the

main delay cause in 2017 (83% of total airport ATFM delay).

Geneva and Munich delay decreased compared to 2016 and airports are no longer in the top

20 airport delay locations.

Figure 44: Top 20 airport delay per flight locations during 20171

4.29

2.89 2.87 2.75 2.03

1.84 1.74 1.59 1.52 1.18 1.17 1.03 0.96 0.88 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.79 0.70

0.66

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

MIK

ON

OS

ZA

KIN

TH

OS

/DIO

NIS

IOS

SO

LO

MO

S

SA

NT

OR

INI

IST

AN

BU

L/S

AB

IHA

GO

KC

EN

CH

AN

IA/I

OA

NN

ISD

AS

KA

LO

GIA

NN

IS

IRA

KL

ION

/NIK

OS

KA

ZA

NT

ZA

KIS

AM

ST

ER

DA

M/S

CH

IPH

OL

LO

ND

ON

/GA

TW

ICK

PA

RIS

LE

BO

UR

GE

T

IST

AN

BU

L-A

TA

TU

RK

RO

DO

S/D

IAG

OR

AS

PA

FO

S/IN

TL

LO

ND

ON

/HE

AT

HR

OW

CA

NN

ES

MA

ND

ELIE

U

BA

RC

ELO

NA

/EL P

RA

T

LIS

BO

A

ZU

RIC

H

LO

ND

ON

/CIT

Y

PA

RIS

OR

LY

PA

LM

A D

E M

ALL

OR

CA

Avg

Air

po

rt A

TF

M d

ela

y p

er

mo

ve

me

nt

AIRPORT CAPACITY (ATC) AIRPORT STAFFING (ATC) AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS (ATC)

AIRPORT CAPACITY AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS AIRPORT EVENTS

AIRPORT WEATHER PREV YEAR

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



Greek airports had a traffic growth of 4.4% during 2017 (5.3% during the summer - April to

October), while ATFM delay remained almost at the same level. Mikonos, Zakynthos and

Chania D. Daskalogiannis delays per flight decreased, while Santorini, Iraklion N.

Kazantzakis and Rodos delays per flight slightly increased compared to 2016. Mikonos and

had the same traffic levels of 2016. Airport capacity was the main delay cause at this

airports. See 6.3.1 for more details on the Greek islands summer performance.

Cannes/Mandelieu airport delay per flight decreased by 14.6% compared to 2016 mainly

due to capacity (ATC) issues. Cannes festival accounted for 11.4% of total airport ATFM

delay.

London/City traffic decreased by 5.2% and delay per flight decreased from 1.01 minutes in

2016 to 0.79 minutes in 2017 mainly due to adverse weather conditions which impacted

airport operations in January, February and March. Airport weather delay per flight

decreased from 0.71 minutes in 2016 to 0.59 minutes in 2017.

Paphos traffic remained almost at the same level while airport delay per flight increased from

0.61 minutes in 2016 to 1.03 minutes in 2017. Airport capacity issues were the main delay

cause.

Biggin Hill, Tel Aviv/Ben Gurion, Beauvais/Tille and Thessaloniki airports are no longer in the

top 20 delay per flight locations.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



6.2 AIRPORT DISRUPTIONS

A number of unplanned events or disruptions22 (Table 5) imposed capacity reductions at

certain airports. Technical issues generated delay at Paris/Le Bourget (ILS and DME

maintenance and technical issues), Amsterdam/Schiphol (radar problems and ATC system

failure), Iraklion/Nikos Kazantzakis (Non-availability of VOR), Catania (radar maintenance)

and Pisa (radar problems) airports. Events that also had an impact at en-route level are

listed in 5.2.2 En-route Disruptions.

Date Location Event Traffic Impact

ATFM Delay Impact

(minutes)

07-Jan London/Heathrow Excessive air holding due to aircraft

blocked on runway None 2,452

01-Feb Amsterdam/Schiphol Radar problems 86 flights 11,406

01-Feb 08-Feb 16-Feb and

23-Feb Berlin/Tegel Ground service industrial action None 5,687

23-Feb Amsterdam/Schiphol Aircraft incident in combination with

strong winds 8 flights 31,321

28-Feb Manchester Vehicle fire in public tunnel beneath

runways producing smoke and security considerations

13 flights 2,056

01-Mar, 02-Mar and 03-Mar

Paris/Le Bourget ILS calibration None 2,217

20-Mar Italy ATC Industrial action 420 flights 4,481

13-Mar and 14-Mar Berlin/Tegel and

Berlin/Schönefeld Ground handling staff industrial action 1420 flights 2,568

16-Mar to 19-Mar Catania Mount Etna volcanic eruption None 1,525

05-Apr 12-Apr and 19-Apr

Catania/Fontanarossa Radar maintenance None 3,517

11-Apr Paris/Charles de Gaulle Radar issues None 1,498

12-Apr Palma de Mallorca and Ibiza Radar issues None LEPA - 6,177

LEIB - 1,253

26-Apr Nantes Bomb alert None 1,001

17-May Greece ATC Industrial action Unknown 3,975

18-May Amsterdam/Schiphol Fuel supply issue None 8,223

24-May 25-May 27-May and 28-May

Lisbon ATC software upgrade None 5,386

26-May London/City Technical issues with baggage system None 5,790

31-May Catania/Fontanarossa Radar maintenance None 1,516

07-Jun 14-Jun 21-Jun and 28-Jun

Catania/Fontanarossa, Catania/Sigonella and

Comiso Radar maintenance None 5,535

22

The main source for the event description is the remark field on the NM ATFM Regulation (ANM). Only events with an impact of more than 1.000minutes of ATFM delay were considered in Table 5.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



Date Location Event Traffic Impact

ATFM Delay Impact

(minutes)

15-Jun Brussels Electrical power supply issues affecting approach lighting, navigation aids and

terminal building supply None 2,106

27-Jun Tenerife/South Disabled aircraft on runway None 1,432

28-Jun Amsterdam/Schiphol Unavailability of ILS on RWY 22 None 1,851

28-Jun Paris/Le Bourget ILS calibration None 2,658

From 01-Jul to 12-Jul

Bordeaux/Merignac ATC Industrial action None 4,827

05-Jul Manchester Terminal 3 evacuation None 1,339

06-Jul Dusseldorf Disable aircraft on runway None 2,734

25-Jul, 01-Aug, 02-Aug and 04-Aug

Rhodes Radar issues None 3,024

04-Aug Bordeaux/Merignac Partial power failure None 1,032

11-Aug and 12Aug Pisa/San Giusto Radar maintenance combined with strong

winds None 5,169

12-Aug Rome/Fiumicino Fire in airport vicinity None 1,316

17-Aug London/Heathrow Unavailability on ILS None 3,346

Sep Paris/Le Bourget ILS and DME maintenance and technical

issues None 44,145

11-Sep to 13-Sep Paris/Orly French ATC industrial action 500 flights 3, 945

12-Sep and 18-Sep Barcelona ILS calibration None 1,096

26-Sep to 31-Oct Iraklion/Nikos Kazantzakis Non-availability of VOR None 11,261

19-Oct Istanbul/Ataturk ILS check in conjunction with morning

capacity None 2,014

23-Oct to 25-Oct Barcelona ILS calibration None 1,165

30-Oct Lisbon ILS calibration None 1,115

Nov - Dec Tunis New radar equipment installation None 15,314

01-Nov Helsinki Unforeseen runway repair works None 1,459

16-Nov Amsterdam/Schiphol Ground radar issues None 1,555

17-Nov Ankara Technical issues with local flight planning system and communications equipment

None 1,715

21-Nov Amsterdam/Schiphol ATC system failure Unknown 8,581

16-Nov Paris/Orly French ATC industrial strike Unknown 4,664

15-Dec Milano/Malpensa and

Bergamo Italian ATC Industrial Action Unknown

LIME 2,302

LIMC 1,911

Table 5 Airport Disruptions 2017

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



6.3 NETWORK OPERATIONS SUPPORT

GREEK ISLANDS – SUMMER 6.3.1

Summer traffic to the Greek islands summer destinations increased by 5.3% in 2017. The majority of the smaller airports were once again operating at the limit of their declared capacity during periods of peak demand. Arrival delays over the period increased by 0.9%, with an increase from 435,617 minutes to 439,520 minutes in 2017. The overall performance has improved since 2012 when the joint NM / Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority (HCAA) Action Plan was put in place. Summer 2017 was extremely challenging. The problems occurred related to airport layout, passenger terminal capacity and the limited number of aircraft parking positions. However, the insufficient ATCOs availability and the lack of radar facilities that, in consequence, required the application of procedural approach at certain destinations, were the main contributing factors for delays, in addition to the lack of airport infrastructure. These long standing problems are unlikely to be resolved in 2018 but ongoing developments following the privatisation of the airports may provide sufficient airport infrastructure and technological modernisation in the coming years. In 2017 the HCAA published a NOTAM requiring GA/BA traffic to request airport slots. This had a positive effect of better control. At the same time the HCAA requested NM/HSCA to monitor GA/BA flights to ensure they had a valid airport slot and/or were operating within the limits stated on the NOTAM. Any flight outside of these rules had a FLS issued. 25 flights had an FLS sent from a total of 5000+ GA/BA flights, which shows the procedure had an effect compared to previous years. The preparation for the summer season was done in February 2017 with close collaboration between NM , airlines, HCAA, Hellenic Slot Coordination Authority (HSCA) and Hellenic Air Navigation Service Provider (HANSP) to highlight the busiest days and busiest airports. NM re-iterated the importance of fair play by adhering to the allocated airport slot. NM provided an ‘Airport Function’ within the NMOC to provide tactical support on hot-spot airports in Greece. This proved very beneficial for all operational stakeholders with tangible results in delay reduction at those airports. Close ‘on the day’ cooperation with HANSP, HSCA and aircraft operators (AOs) allowed for better utilisation of capacity. NMOC requested on a daily basis 20+ flights to try and file their flight-plans with a faster speed to arrive at a given time at destination, this also allowed for better utilisation of capacity. Close cooperation with GA/BA handling companies in Greece allowed ‘extra’ capacity to be filled at those airports where most GA/BA flights are only drop off/pick up and usually on the ground for approximately 15min. Therefore, NM is planning to continue with such a function in the NMOC from 2018 onwards. In the future the airport function will also support new concepts like APOC, disruption and contingency situations and crisis management.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



6.4 AIRPORT CDM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADVANCED ATC TOWER IMPLEMENTATION

During the course of 2017, 4 airports fully implemented A-CDM: Palma de Mallorca on 4

May, Stockholm Arlanda on 8 June, Hamburg on 16 August and Lyon on 14 November. This

brings the total number of fully implemented airports to 26, covering 34% of departures in the

NM area.

More and more airports are implementing A-CDM bringing benefits not only to themselves

but also to neighbouring ACCs, thanks to increased predictability. An independent study,

conducted on behalf of EUROCONTROL, assessing both the local and network impact of A-

CDM implementation was completed in 2016. The study can be downloaded from the

EUROCONTROL A-CDM websitevii.

Airports that have no plans to implement the A-CDM process but still wish to integrate with

the ATM network may do so as an Advanced ATC Tower airport. A number of airports are

also considering this option as a first step towards full A-CDM implementation. Such airports

provide a reduced set of DPI messages with a reduced set of advantages (compared to A-

CDM airports). An Advanced ATC Tower airport provides Target Take-Off-Time (TTOT)

estimations as well as Variable Taxi-Times (VTTs) and SIDs in use to the NMOC. These are

provided from the moment that the aircraft leaves the blocks.

In 2017, 3 airports connected to the Network as Advanced ATC Tower airports. These

airports are Tenerife South, Malaga and Las Palmas. This brings the total number of

Advanced ATC Tower airports to 19, representing 9% of departures in the NM area.

The 26 A-CDM airports together with the 19 Advanced ATC Tower airports means that NM

now receives Departure Planning Information (DPI) messages for almost 43% of departures

in the NM area.

Information on individual airports which implemented A-CDM and Advanced ATC Tower in

2017 can be found in Annex III.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



6.5 INFORMATION EXCHANGE BETWEEN AIRPORTS AND NM – AIRPORT CORNER PROCESS

As defined under the Network Manager Functions Implementing Regulation (677/2011), NM

has a task to help airports take advantage of the 'network approach' to solve operational

issues and enhance performance.

In order to enable airports’ provision of information in an efficient and harmonized manner,

NM has implemented the Airport Corner 10 years ago. It is an airport focused data repository

supported by a secure web application. The underlying process for data provision facilitates

collaboration between the local ANSP and the Airport Operator resulting in a “coordinated

airport view”.

Currently 102 European airports are participating in this process and another 22 will be

invited to join the process by end 2019.

Since 2015 the Enhanced Information Exchange (EIE) reporting process has been

established via the pre-tactical/tactical section of the Airport Corner which allows airports to

report on events in a consistent manner in the ATFM pre-tactical phase. In 2017, 35 airports

had reported 134 events via the Airport Corner. As of 2017, airports as well as airlines can

subscribe to receive information on events impacting operations.

The process of providing detailed post-ops feedback for airports on the events’, which had

significant Network impact, was enhanced in 2017 by sharing it with 16 airlines.

The process of reporting standard and temporary diversion capabilities via the Airport Corner

was established with 48 airports in 2017.

Table 6 presents a list of airport planned events that were reported via the Airport Corner

and had an ATFM impact.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



ICAO Code

Airport Name Event Name23 Start Date End Date

ATFM Delay in

2017 (minutes)

GCLP Gran Canaria DACT Military exercise affecting Gran Canaria airport

16-01-2017 26-01-2017 1,920

LEBL Barcelona Runway 07L/25R pavement regeneration 20-11-2016 05-02-2017 6,551

LTBA Istanbul/Ataturk Runway 05/23 and taxiways maintenance 08-02-2017 09-02-2017 1,528

LGAV Athens Runway 03R/21L and taxiway D heavy maintenance works

15-02-2017 18-02-2017 1,018

LIRF Rome/Fiumicino Runway 16R/34L maintenance works 20-01-2017 03-03-2017 28,884

EDDL Dusseldorf WWII bomb disposal near airfield 09-03-2017 09-03-2017 2,409

LPPT Lisbon Pope visit 12-05-2017 13-05-2017 1,898

EBBR Brussels NATO Summit and Fly-by 16-05-2017 24-05-2017 1,410

EDDF Frankfurt Necessary refurbishment works at RWY 18 25-05-2017 26-05-2017 2,470

EHAM Amsterdam/Schiphol

Heavy maintenance of runway 06/24, some delays in conjunction with weather

18-03-2017 31-05-2017 26,497

LPPR Porto Military Ceremony 10-06-2017 23-06-2017 1,369

LFPB Paris/Le Bourget Paris Air Show 13-06-2017 25-06-2017 6,094

EDDH Hamburg Yearly closure of RWY 15/33 15-06-2017 28-06-2017 4,632

EDDL Dusseldorf WWII bomb disposal near airfield 11-07-2017 11-07-2017 1,258

LFPO Paris/Orly Bastille day Fly-By 14-07-2017 14-07-2017 5,817

EDDT Berlin/Tegel World War II bomb disposal 29-08-2017 30-08-2017 3,071

LFPO Paris/Orly Second phase of complete renovation of runway 06/24

25-07-2017 31-08-2017 14,769

EDDH Hamburg Yearly closure of RWY 15/34 31-08-2017 13-09-2017 1,305

EGKK London/Gatwick Runway maintenance 13-09-2017 04-10-2017 3,056

GCLP Gran Canaria Regeneration of pavement of runway 03R/21L and taxiways S5 and S6

08-05-2017 15-10-2017 2,389

LROP Bucharest Runway 08R/26L resurface 17-07-2017 22-12-2017 9,251

LGTS Thessaloniki Rehabilitation work of runway 10/28 01-01-2017 31-12-2017 10,329

GCRR Lanzarote Apron works 21-11-2017 31-12-2017 2,413

EGCC Manchester Occasional nightly closures of RWY 05L/23R due to essential maintenance

02-01-2017 05-01-2018 4,052

EDDK Cologne Reconstruction of runway 06/24 and new turning pad at taxiway B

17-10-2016 03-18 3,054

LFPO Paris/Orly Taxiway maintenance in conjunction with tower renovation

12-10-2017 31-07-2018 59,65

Table 6 Airport reported planned events 2017

23

Only events with a minimum of 1.000 minutes of ATFM delay generated are listed

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



7 FLIGHT EFFICIENCY

This chapter provides a summary of the progress made on the implementation of the actions

agreed in the joint IATA/CANSO/EUROCONTROL Flight Efficiency Planviii, drawn up in

2008, and responds to the requirements of the SES performance scheme.

The NM flight efficiency targets and objectives for 2017 included in the Network Performance

Plan (NPP) 2015-2019ix and in the Network Operations Plan (NOP) 2017-2019/21 are listed

below:

Route extension – airspace design (DES)

Target:

achieve an improvement of the DES indicator by 0.57 percentage points between 2012

and 2019

Route extension – last filed flight plan (KEP)

Target:

achieve a KEP target of 4.44% for the SES area and 4.17% for the NM area

Route extension – actual trajectory (KEA)

Target:

achieve a KEA target of 2.78% for both SES and NM areas

Increase the CDR1/2 usage (CDR-RAI and CDR-RAU)

NM Objective:

increase the CDR availability (CDR-RAI) and CDR usage (CDR-RAU) by 5% between

2015 and 2019

Flight efficiency indicators are monitored for pure airspace design and for flight planning.

The downward trend evolution of those indicators since the beginning of 2011 is shown on

Figure 45.

The evolution recorded on the route extension based on the last filed flight plan during 2017

was positively impacted by the implementation of Free Route Airspace. Nevertheless,

negative impacts were still recorded as a result of the industrial actions, social issues that

led to reduced capacities and re-routings to avoid capacity constrained and avoided/closed

areas due to crisis situation. This evolution continues to demonstrate the necessity to

provide sufficient capacity constantly to further improve the flight planning indicator and to

reduce the gap with the airspace design indicator.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



Figure 45: Route efficiency KPI per AIRAC cycle

A number of events in 2017 affected the network and had direct consequences on the flight

efficiency evolution:

Overall crisis situation in Ukraine that lead a significant number of flights to avoid the

entire Ukrainian airspace moving to neighbouring countries (Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania,

Poland, Slovakia, etc.); as a result of the Ukrainian crisis adjacent ACCs/ UACs were on-

loaded by Far Eastern traffic avoiding the Ukraine airspace leading to increased route

extensions.

Closure of Libyan airspace for over flights due to the security situation required

procedures with impact on flight efficiency for traffic between Europe and Africa re-routed

via Egypt and Tunisia.

Avoidance of Syrian and Iraqi airspace due to the security situation with impact on flight

efficiency for traffic between Europe and Middle East and Asia re-routed via Iran and

Turkey with additional impacts on the flows from the Ukrainian crisis situation.

Several French ATC industrial actions in March, September, October and November

required regulations in French ACCs and protective measures in neighbouring ACCs,

with impact on flight planning route extension

Widespread capacity and staffing issues across the network required a high number of

regulations and/or level-cap scenarios at: Karlsruhe UAC, Maastricht UAC, Brest ACC,

Marseille ACC, Reims ACC, Nicosia ACC, Barcelona ACC, Bordeaux ACC.

Temporary capacity reductions due to implementation/upgrade of ATM system or major

airspace changes at: Maastricht UAC, Karlsruhe UAC, Bordeaux ACC required

regulations, with impact on flight planning route extension.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



7.1 AIRSPACE DESIGN

As part of the Flight Efficiency Plan, intensive work was undertaken by States and ANSPs in

close cooperation with NM to develop and implement enhanced airspace design solutions,

with over 200 airspace improvement packages being developed and implemented in the 12

months prior to summer 2017. As a result, the route extension due to airspace design (RTE-

DES) continued its downward trend throughout the year, reaching its lowest level ever in

December 2017 at 2.31%.

Figure 46: yearly evolution of airspace design indicator

The average route

extension due to airspace

design, RTE-DES (Figure

46) decreased from

2.47% in 2016 to 2.36%

in 2017, enabling an

average potential daily

saving of nearly 7000

nautical miles.

Figure 47: Potential yearly savings/ losses in nautical

miles (NM) due to airspace design

Over the reporting year,

this represents a potential

saving of 2.55 million

nautical miles (Figure

47), approximately 16

kilotons of fuel, reduced

emissions of 52 kilotons

of CO2, or 13 million

Euros when compared to

2016.

3000000

4000000

4800000

6900000

1700000

3380000

4856000

3883000

3317371

2555000

3,7E+09

3,8E+09

3,9E+09

4E+09

4,1E+09

4,2E+09

4,3E+09

4,4E+09

4,5E+09

4,6E+09

4,7E+09

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Mile

ag

e f

low

n

Savin

gs

Year

Potential Yearly NM Savings and Mileage FlownAirspace Design

Savings(NM)

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



7.2 AIRSPACE CHANGES VS. FLIGHT PLANNING

The flight planning indicator (KEP) measures the length of the flight planned trajectory

compared to the great circle (route extension). It reflects inefficiencies in the use of the

airspace (due to RAD restrictions, CDR availability, inefficient flight-planning etc.), but also

user preferences for cheaper rather than shorter routes.

Figure 48: Yearly evolution of flight-planning indicator

(KEP)

The average route extension

based on the latest filed flight

plan (KEP) decreased from

4.82% in 2016, to 4.62% in

2017 (Figure 48) for NM area.

This is above the KEP 2017

targets of 4.44% for SES area

and 4.17 % for NM area.

Figure 49 shows the corresponding yearly savings / losses and the relationship with the

mileage flown over the Second Reference Period (RP2) of the SES Performance scheme.

Figure 49: Yearly savings/ losses in nautical miles (NM)

due to improved flight planning efficiency

The average flight-planned

distance decreased when

compared to 2016, resulting in

5.1 million nautical miles less

flown over the whole year. This

means an average daily

decrease of more than 14000

nautical miles. Over the year,

this represents savings of

approximately 32 kilotons of

fuel, reduced emissions of 104

kilotons of CO2, or 26 million

Euros when compared to

2016.

4.91% 4.87% 4.86% 4.70% 4.74% 4.82%

4.62%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

4.00%

4.50%

5.00%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

-2,396,182

-4,418,600

5,141,498

4.1E+09

4.3E+09

4.5E+09

4.7E+09

4.9E+09

5.1E+09

5.3E+09

-8,000,000

-6,000,000

-4,000,000

-2,000,000

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

2015 2016 2017

Mile

age F

low

n (

Nautical M

iles)

Savin

gs (N

autical M

iles)

Savings Mileage Flown

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



The trend also reflects the combined effect of: industrial actions, special events (e.g. Ukraine

crisis situation, Libyan airspace closure, etc.) and technical problems on the network and

adverse weather. Despite all those factors, the trend is positive and the airspace

improvements made helped to contain all the adverse effects.

This situation proves the good work done in improving flight-planning options for the

operators but emphasises again that more efforts must be made to improve the efficiency of

the airspace utilisation and to constantly provide sufficient capacity thus ensuring that the

indicator based on the latest filed flight plan follows a similar trend to the airspace design

indicator.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



7.3 ACTUAL TRAJECTORY

Figure 50: Yearly evolution of the actual trajectory

indicator (KEA)

The actual trajectory indicator

(KEA) decreased to 2.77%,

better than the 2017 target of

2.78% for both SES and NM

areas.

The continuous expansion of

the Free-Route Airspace (FRA)

(including continuous

expansion of cross-border FRA)

is a major factor in the positive

evolution of the environment

indicators (KEP and KEA).

Figure 51 shows the corresponding yearly savings / losses and the relationship with the

mileage flown from the start of the Second Reference Period (RP2) of the SES Performance

scheme.

The average actual distance decreased when compared to 2016, resulting in 3.7 million

nautical miles less flown over the whole year. This means an average daily decrease of

more than 10000 nautical miles. Over the year, this represents savings of approximately 22

kilotons of fuel, reduced emissions of 72 kilotons of CO2, or 18 million Euros when

compared to 2016.

Figure 51 - Yearly savings/ losses in nautical miles (NM) due to improved actual trajectory

efficiency

3.31% 3.20%

3.14%

2.72% 2.77%

2.93%

2.77%

2.00%

2.20%

2.40%

2.60%

2.80%

3.00%

3.20%

3.40%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

-6,378,669

-8,630,438

3,691,680

2.8E+09

3.0E+09

3.2E+09

3.4E+09

3.6E+09

3.8E+09

4.0E+09

4.2E+09

4.4E+09

4.6E+09

-9,000,000

-7,000,000

-5,000,000

-3,000,000

-1,000,000

1,000,000

3,000,000

5,000,000

7,000,000

9,000,000

2015 2016 2017

Mile

age F

low

n

(Nautical M

iles)

Savin

gs (N

autical M

iles)

Savings Mileage Flown

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



7.4 CONDITIONAL ROUTES (CDR)

CDR availability is an important element when considering the ASM in the Network

Operations context. The charts below shows little changes in absolute figures for the

evolution of CDR development as elements of the network in 2017 compared to 2016. This

is due mainly to changes in CDR categories with many CDR1/2 to permit night routes

opened and to the continuous network improvement process (covered by ERNIP).

Figure 52: Evolution of CDR availability

Figure 53: Rate of CDR availability

(RoCA) in 2017

RoCA for CDR1 and CDR1/2 categories has a stable high value (98%) over the entire year

while RoCA for CDR2 is oscillating between 77% and 86% with an average of 79.6%.

Figure 54: RAI (%) 2017 per AIRAC cycle.

Figure 55: RAU (%) 2017 per AIRAC

cycle

The Rate of Aircraft Interested (RAI) that

planned the available CDR is relatively

constant at a value of approx. 74% for the

entire year 2017.

The Rate of Aircraft actually Using (RAU)

CDR is lower (26%). This is the result of

both the ATC intervention for various

reasons (expedite traffic, weather, etc.) as

well as due to the expansion of FRA

implementation in ECAC, making many

CDRs no longer a better solution for flying

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

CDR number of segments 2017CDR2

CDR1/2

CDR1

0

25

50

75

100

1701

1702

1703

1704

1705

1706

1707

1708

1709

1710

1711

1712

1713

perc

en

tag

e (

%)

AIRAC cycle

RoCA: AIRAC values 2017

CDR1

CDR2

CDR_all

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1701

1702

1703

1704

1705

1706

1707

1708

1709

1710

1711

1712

1713

perc

en

tag

e (

%)

RAI (%) 2017 per AIRAC cycle

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1701

1702

1703

1704

1705

1706

1707

1708

1709

1710

1711

1712

1713

perc

en

tag

e (

%)

RAU (%) 2017 per AIRAC cycle

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



Figure 56: Five year RAI evolution

Figure 57: Five year RAU evolution

The charts of RAI and RAU evolution over the past 5 years in Figure 56 and

Figure 57 indicate the tendency to use less and less the CDR, since there are today

better options in FRA or the DCTs. Therefore the NM objectives of increasing the

availability (RAI) and use (RAU) of CDRs by 5% between 2015-2019 became obsolete.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

RAI (%) 2013-2017

RAI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

RAU (%) 2013-2017

RAU

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



Figure 58: CDR availability vs. usage in

2017

Figure 58 shows the number of CDR

available for flight planning (blue line), the

number that were actually flight planned

(green line) and the number that were

actually flown (red line). In Fig. 19 the green

and red lines overlap. Approx. 15% of

available CDR were used in 2017.

The numbers indicating the CDR used and

planned versus the CDR available show in

2017 an almost constant difference with a

huge gap between availability and

utilisation, a similar trend to 2016. The

explanation is that in 2017 the FRA

airspace in ECAC was extended

significantly adding Austria, Slovenia,

FYROM, Montenegro, Serbia, NEFAB to

the already existing FRA regions. As a

result the route network and implicitly the

CDRs in these areas have no more

relevance.

Figure 59: PFE: 2017 Monthly Distance

savings (nautical miles per flight)

Figure 60: PFE: 2017 Monthly time

savings (minutes per flight)

The savings per flight in distance and in time due to CDR are strongly dependent on the

network opportunities offered by the CDR but in reality the actual traffic is not always able to

follow the planned trajectory that would maximize the efficiency due to various causes

outside the flight planning process. With the current advances in airspace configurations

Free Route Airspace and Direct routes implemented in more ECAC regions the CDRs lost

their weight in improving routeing solutions.

Potential Flight Economy (PFE) can be realised when using the available CDRs for planning.

This is influenced mainly by the CDR availability rate (RoCA) and the awareness/ability/

0

10

20

30

401701

1702

1703

1704

1705

1706

17071708

1709

1710

1711

1712

1713

PFE: 2017 NM savings per flight (AIRAC)

PFE nm/flt

0

1

2

3

4

51701

1702

1703

1704

1705

1706

17071708

1709

1710

1711

1712

1713

PFE: 2017 Minutes savings per flight (AIRAC)

PFE minutes/flt

0

2000

4000

60001701

1702

1703

1704

1705

1706

17071708

1709

1710

1711

1712

1713

CDR availability vs. usage in 2017CDR available

CDR planned

CDR used

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



willingness of the Aircraft Operators to consider the available CDRs in their FPL solutions.

The indicator shows how far the real planned trajectories are from the optimum ones.

Concerning the actual traffic, the PFE is calculated with the actual flown CDRs from those

available. The values may differ from the planned ones for a number of reasons (ATC

intervention for direct/rerouting, delayed departure miss the CDR uptake and forcing to alter

the initial FPL, weather, etc.). When making the comparison and the values are smaller, it

can also signify that less potential economy is obtained when the initial trajectories are

closer to optimal. The diagrams below depict the aggregated values calculated for all CDR

types (CDR1, CDR1/2, CDR2) averaged by month:

Figure 61: PFE 2017 vs. 2016 for

planned traffic

Figure 62: PFE 2017 vs. 2016 for actual

traffic

Comparing the Potential Flight Economy (PFE) year on year 2017 with 2016 one can see

that the evolution in 2017 has very little variation (22-24 nm/flight) over the year due to low

values of CDR used vs. CDRs available for which potential economy is calculated. The

actual gain in 2017 is following in general the planned trend with similar evolution as the

planned traffic.

Figure 63: PFE: 2017 Fuel economy and CO2

emissions

The environmental indicators of PFE

translated in fuel savings and reduced

CO2 emissions illustrated in the picture

on the left have been calculated using

the ICAO methodology for fuel burned

and CO2 emissions. The curves show

the effect of less CDR usage both for

planning and actual flying for the causes

mentioned above

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

PFE (NM) 2017 vs. 2016 for planned traffic

PFE 2016

PFE 2017

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

AIRAC of the year

PFE (NM) 2017 vs. 2016 for actual traffic

PFE 2016

PFE 2017

Fuel PFE

Fuel actual

CO2 PFE

CO2 actual

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1701

1702

1703

1704

1705

1706

1707

1708

1709

1710

1711

1712

1713

ton

s f

uel /C

O2

PFE: Fuel economy and CO2 emissions AIRAC 2017

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



7.5 FREE ROUTE OPERATIONS

By the end of 2017, 51 ACCs have either fully or partially implemented Free Route Airspace

operations.

Full Free Route Airspace implementation Lisbon ACC

Oslo, Stavanger, Bodo, Tampere, Tallinn, Riga ,Copenhagen , Malmo and Stockholm ACCs as part of NEFRA

Shannon ACC

Vilnius ACC

Budapest ACC

Vienna and Ljubljana ACCs as part of SAXFRA

Rome, Padua, Brindisi and Milan ACCs as part of FRA IT

Malta ACC

Belgrade ACC

Zagreb ACC

Skopje ACC

Tirana ACC

Tibilisi ACC

Chisinau ACC

Full Night Free Route Airspace implementation Sofia and Bucharest ACCs as part of Danube FAB

Maastricht UAC

Yerevan ACC

Kyiv, Lviv , Odesa, Dnipropetrovsk ACCs

DCT based implementation Reims, Brest, Bordeaux, Paris, Marseille ACCs

Madrid ACC

London and Prestwick ACCs

Karlsruhe UAC

Geneva and Zurich ACCs

Athens and Macedonia ACCs

Bratislava ACC

Prague ACC

Warsaw ACC

Nicosia ACC

Table 7 Free Route Airspace Operations Implementations

At present, FRA has been successfully implemented across much of northern Europe,

southeast, central southeast Europe, with Portugal the first country to introduce full FRA in

2009. The North Europe Free Route Airspace (NEFRA) programme completed its cross-

border network that allows airspace users to file preferred trajectories irrespective of borders

over Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Norway, and Sweden in May 2017. Austria and

Slovenia launched their cross-border initiative, called SAXFRA, in 2016, and plan to merge

with the South East Europe (SEAFRA) covering Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, and

Montenegro in the near future. Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary have implemented cross-

border free route airspace and during the next two years many more neighbouring states are

due to join including Czech Republic, Slovakia, Albania, and The former Yugoslav Republic

of Macedonia. Greece, Cyprus, and Turkey also plan to follow early next decade.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



The following map shows the European Free Route Airspace deployment status as of end

2017.

Figure 64: Map – Free Route Airspace Deployment by end 2017

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



7.6 ROUTE AVAILABILITY DOCUMENT (RAD)

The Route Availability Document (RAD) is a tool that addresses how the European network

airspace may be used. According to the Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2010x the

scope of the RAD is to be a common reference document containing the policies,

procedures and description for route and traffic orientation.

The Network Manager Implementing Rule (Commission Regulation (EU) No 677/2011)xi

makes a clear reference that the European Route Network Improvement Plan shall include

route network and free route airspace utilisation rules and availability.

The airspace design and airspace utilisation aspects were brought closer by the established

multi-disciplinary Network Manager RAD Team guided by the Operational Stakeholders RAD

Management Group.

The actions performed by the NM RAD Team have facilitated a pragmatic refinement of the

RAD during 2017, with full cooperation of Operational Stakeholders, aiming to overcome

weaknesses in airspace design and ATM system functionality and to ensure application of

the remaining restrictions only where and when required.

The major RAD evolutions and developments in 2017 focusing particularly at Network level

and covering the entire NM area of responsibility were as follows:

Removal of “Indention” used as RAD Utilization definition;

Adaptation of the time expression and harmonisation in entire RAD;

Adaptations of Pan-Europe Annex and simplification of existence of two or more

restrictions for same RAD “reference”;

Adaptation and simplification of Appendix 3 flow condition/s from Column “FL

Capping” moved into Column “City Pair”;

Adaptation and change of restrictions identification rules in RAD;

Appendix 6 - Alignment with CACD database;

Appendix 7 - FUA Restriction alignment with CACD database;

Appendix 7 - Management of Complex FUA restrictions;

Appendix 7 - FUA restrictions utilization time buffer;

Improvements in “Last minutes” RAD changes and “Daily” use of Increment File;

Improvements in RAD Annex for Special Events;

Improvements in data structure and format, and change management based on

RAD - AURA@n-CONECT grammar;

NM Release development related to Airspace Utilisation Rules and Availability

(AURA) interactive process via the NOP and use of the NOP Portal as a

collaborative platform to build the RAD - AURA[iii]@n-CONECT;

Improvement of Dependent Applicability Function (RAD) in NMOC Systems;

Further developments of the NM DCT / CDR mapping tool;

Publication of B2B PTRs xls file;

Monitoring and continuation of publication of harmonised text in regard to

promulgation of RAD via the State AIPs;

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



Adaptations of RAD Terms - Definitions Document;

Contributions and approval of FRA NMOC Application Guidelines - RAD related

Chapter;

Run of a Network impact assessment of the RAD restrictions implemented in the

States and contributions to production of RAD Network Impact assessment study

Document.

The other RAD evolutions and developments in 2017 included the following aspects (not

exhaustive):

Further development of the RAD DCT Chart;

Continuation of improvements in data structure and format, and change

management based on RAD - AURA@n-CONECT grammar;

Further adaptations in all RAD Harmonization Rules based on RAD - AURA@n-

CONECT developments;

Continuation of harmonisation of terminology and definitions;

Continuation of improvements in RAD availability (publication) to users;

Continuation of rationalisation of restrictions expression;

Continuation of the pdf RAD publication.

Further RAD and supporting improvement measures have been proposed for

implementation in 2018 such as:

Gradual improvement in RAD Utilization definition, adaptation of the expressions

in the RAD and harmonisation in entire RAD;

Further improvement and fine-tuning of a Network impact assessment of the RAD

restrictions implemented in the States.

Further NM Release developments related to Airspace Utilisation Rules and

Availability (AURA) interactive process via the NOP and use of the NOP Portal as

a collaborative platform to build the RAD - AURA@n-CONECT;

Implementation in real operations of RAD via AURA@n-CONECT;

Continuation of publication of EU / EURO restrictions;

Continuation of publication of FRA DCT restrictions;

Continuation of publication of B2B PTRs.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



8 NETWORK MANAGER

In addition to the network targets defined for 2017, the NM Performance Plan defines a set

of internal NM performance objectives/targets, to measure NM’s contribution to the ATM

network performance. In the Capacity performance area NM has the target to reduce the

en-route ATFM delays by 10%.

NM Operations Centre (NMOC) looks for opportunities to reduce the delays by means of

proposing alternative routes (RRPs) to the airlines, manually optimising the calculated time

over (CTO) or take-off times (CTOT) (these are the direct delay reduction actions). The

manual CTOT changes are performed in conjunction with the FMPs/AOs and are therefore

regarded as confirmed delay reductions. Re-route proposals can only deliver delay benefit if

the AO accepts the proposal - this is monitored in post-ops. These techniques reduce delays

at individual flight level and deliver further delay reductions at network level through the

CASA optimisation algorithm (indirect ‘snowball’ effect). While it is currently possible to

measure the direct delay reductions initiated by NMOC, it is not possible to quantify the

indirect delay reduction effect of the direct actions. The amount of delay reduced by NMOC

pre-tactical planning process and the applied scenarios cannot be quantified either.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



8.1 CAPACITY (DELAY REDUCTIONS)

NM’s efforts to reduce delays increased in 2017 in proportion to the overall en-route delay increase. Delay savings were calculated conservatively, only taking into account accepted Re-routings Proposals (RRPs) and NMOC direct action (i.e. Force CTO/CTOT and Override Slot).

In 2017, NMOC saved 2.1 million minutes of ATFM delay, 71% of all savings were on En-

route and 29% on Airport delays.

Figure 65 NMOC Delay Savings 2017

En-route savings exceeded 1.5 million

minutes from direct actions in NMOC (1.3

million min), and RRPs proposed and

followed by airlines (200,000 min), equivalent

to 0.14 minutes per flight – without this, the

delay in 2017 would have been 1.03 minutes

per flight. This equates to 14% of the annual

network delay, meeting the 10% target

defined in the NPP.

0.88

0.14

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

En-route delay savings (min/flight)

Objective 10%, Achieved 14%

NM Delays savings 2017

En-route delay 2017

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



8.2 ENVIRONMENT (FLIGHT EFFICIENCY)

As part of Flight Efficiency Plan, intensive work has been undertaken by States and ANSPs

in close cooperation with NM to develop and implement enhanced airspace design solutions,

with over 200 airspace improvement packages being co-ordinated at network level and

implemented during the 12 months of 2017. These improvement measures reduced

significantly the actual losses recorded as a result of number of events (see 3.5) which had

direct consequences on the flight efficiency evolution. The list below provides an overview of

the major enhancements implemented in 2017.

Albania - FRALB - Free Route Airspace Albania H24 above FL195

Armenia - Night Free Route Airspace above FL285

Bulgaria/ Hungary/ Romania - SEEN FRA, Phase 1a: Cross-border NIGHT Free Route Airspace within

DANUBE FAB area and HUFRA area - SEEN FRA, Phase 1b.

Cyprus - Nicosia Direct Route Airspace - Phase 2A.

Denmark / Estonia / Finland / Latvia / Norway / Sweden - NEFAB and DK/SE FAB Free Route Airspace - NEFRA Phase 2.

France - Grand Ouest - New TSA 6 Brest ACC.

Georgia - Free Route Airspace Georgia - FRAG Phase 1.

Germany - CDO Munich - EDDM airport - Step 1. - IMPROVE2+ Langen FIR - Phase 1. - Free Route Airspace preparation measures.

Greece - PBN SID/STAR and approach procedures implementation Athinai FIR. - Santorini/ LGSR Instrument Procedures.

Ireland - Borealis FRA Shannon CTA - Step 1.

Maastricht UAC - Brussels East High sector 3rd layer. - Night Free Route Airspace

Moldova - H24 Free Route Airspace above FL095

Norway - Bodø Oceanic FIR Free Route Airspace. - Airspace improvement western Norway FIR.

Serbia - Revision of Military areas Beograd FIR.

Spain - PONENT sectors re-organisation Barcelona ACC.

Switzerland - Additional sector layer Zurich / Geneva ACCs. (not in ERNIP P2) - Comprehensive Night DCT Network across Geneva ACC and Zurich ACC

AoR.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



Turkey - Route network changes Istanbul FIR

Turkey / Iran - Airspace re-organisation at the Ankara FIR - Teheran FIR interface. - Airspace re-organisation at the Ankara FIR - Baghdad FIR interface.

UK - Airspace Re-structuring United Kingdom.

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



9 ATFM COMPLIANCE

9.1 ATFM DEPARTURE SLOTS

The overall percentage of traffic departing within their Slot Tolerance Window (STW) was

90.7% in 2017, meeting the target of 80%. However, many airports did not meet the target

(see ATFM Compliance - ATFM Departure Slot Monitoring Reportxii). It is an improvement

over 2016 where the compliance percentage was 89.4%. NM is working with the ANSPs for

improving the level of adherence.

Figure 66: ATFM Departure Slot Monitoring for 2016 and 201724

24

Geographical Zone : NM or Adjacent Member States

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



9.2 ADHERENCE TO FLIGHT PLAN SUSPENSIONS

The percentage of flights suspended by FAM (Flight Activation Monitoring) but which were

activated by airborne data received whilst the flight was temporarily suspended remained at

0.25% of all departures. Figure 67 shows the top airports where such situations occurred,

as well as the percentage of these flights within the total number of flights at that airport. The

introduction of Airport CDM has proven to be the most effective measure in bringing down

the number of such flights.

Figure 67: Top 20 ADEPs - Flight Plans Suspensions for 2016 and 201725

25

Geographical Zone : Eurocontrol or EUR28 Member States

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



9.3 ATFM EXEMPTIONS

The overall European ATFM exempted flights decreased in 2017 to 0.61% of all departures

(0.64% in 2016), which is still above the target of 0.6%. There were 21 EUROCONTROL

Member States in 2017 that granted exemptions in excess of 0.60% of the State’s annual

departures (EU Member States will be formally notified). NM will discuss any network

considerations with the State and service provider concerned.

Figure 68: ATFM Exemptions for State Aircraft Monitoring for 2016 and 201726

26

Geographical Zone : Eurocontrol or EUR28 Member States

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



9.4 MISSING FLIGHT PLANS

Figure 69 presents the evolution of the number of Missing Flight Plans (APL Flights),

identifying those flights that entered the European airspace without a flight plan (i.e. no initial

flight plan was filed successfully in IFPS) and an ATS Unit filed the Flight Plan. The

percentage of such flight plans increased to 0.07% (0.06% in 2016).

Figure 69: Missing Flight Plans for 2016 and 201727

27

Geographical Zone : ADEP or ADES NM Member States

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



9.5 MULTIPLE FLIGHTS

NM is using the data from Flight Activation Monitoring to identify possible multiple flight plans

by measuring the number of flight plans received for which no subsequent activation or

airborne information is received. Figure 70 presents the evolution of numbers and proportion

of these flights within the total traffic. The percentage of these flights decreased to 0.23%

(0.25% in 2016). NM reviews the causes and the network impact of such cases and contacts

the airlines or flight plan originators when necessary.

Figure 70: Multiple Flight Plans for 2016 and 2017

EUROCONTROL NMD

Main Report



10 REFERENCES

i Reporting Assumptions and Descriptions Document

http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/network-operations-monitoring-and-reporting

ii EUROCONTROL Air Navigation Inter-site Acronym List (AIRIAL)

http://www.eurocontrol.int/airial/definitionListInit.do?skipLogon=true&glossaryUid=AIRIAL

iii EUROCONTROL Seven Year IFR Flight Movements and Service Units Forecast 2017 – 2023, STATFOR, February 2017

www.eurocontrol.int/statfor

iv Ryanair Corporate News

https://corporate.ryanair.com/news/ryanair-to-end-rostering-cancellations-by-slowing-growth-this-winter/

v Transition Plan for major Projects in Europe 2016-2017 for more information

https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/network-operations-transition-plan-2016-2017.pdf

vi European Network Operations Plan 2017 – 2019/21

http://www.eurocontrol.int/publications/european-network-operations-plan-2017-2021

vii ACDM website

http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/airport-collaborative-decision-making-cdm

viii Flight Efficiency Plan

https://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/airspace-developments-and-flight-efficiency-plan-fep

ix Network Performance Plan 2015 -2019

http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/npp-report-2015-19.pdf

x Common Rules on Air Traffic Flow Management (255/2010)

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Regulation_255/2010_-_Common_Rules_on_Air_Traffic_Flow_Management

xi Detailed rules for the implementation of ATM network functions

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Regulation_677/2011_laying_down_detailed_rules_for_the_implementation_of_ATM_network_functions

xii Air Traffic Flow Monitoring Compliance reports

https://ost.eurocontrol.int/sites/ATFMR/Pages/ATFM-Compliance-Reports.aspx

http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/network-operations-monitoring-and-reporting

http://www.eurocontrol.int/airial/definitionListInit.do?skipLogon=true&glossaryUid=AIRIAL

http://www.eurocontrol.int/statfor

https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/network-operations-transition-plan-2016-2017.pdf

http://www.eurocontrol.int/publications/european-network-operations-plan-2017-2021

http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/airport-collaborative-decision-making-cdm

https://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/airspace-developments-and-flight-efficiency-plan-fep

http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/npp-report-2015-19.pdf

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Regulation_255/2010_-_Common_Rules_on_Air_Traffic_Flow_Management



EUROCONTROL

© April 2018 – European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)

This document is published by EUROCONTROL for information purposes. It may be copied

in whole or in part, provided that EUROCONTROL is mentioned as the source and it is not used for

commercial purposes (i.e. for financial gain). The information in this document may not be modified

without prior written permission from EUROCONTROL.

www.eurocontrol.int

Network Managernominated by the European Commission

NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT 2017 - Eurocontrol...Document Title Document Subtitle Edition Number...

Documents

Transcript of NETWORK OPERATIONS REPORT 2017 - Eurocontrol...Document Title Document Subtitle Edition Number...