June 2011June 2011
REPORT COMMISSIONED BYTHE PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMISSIONANDTHE PERFORMANCE REVIEW BODY
REPORT COMMISSIONED BYTHE PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMISSIONANDTHE PERFORMANCE REVIEW BODY
ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE)2009 Benchmarking Report
ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE)2009 Benchmarking Report
Prepared by the Performance Review Unit (PRU)with the ACEWorking Group
EUROCONTROL
BACKGROUND
This Report has been commissioned by the Performance Review Commission (PRC) and the Performance Review Body (PRB).
The PRC was established in 1998 by the Commission of EUROCONTROL, in accordance with the ECAC Institutional Strategy (1997).
One objective in this Strategy is "to introduce strong, transparent and independent performance review and target setting to facilitate moreeffective management of the European ATM system, encourage mutual accountability for system performance and provide a better basis forinvestment analyses and, with reference to existing practice, provide guidelines to States on economic regulation to assist them in carrying outtheir responsibilities."
The PRC’s website address is http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc
In September 2010, EUROCONTROL accepted the designation by the European Commission as the SES Performance Review Body(PRB) acting through its Performance Review Commission supported by the Performance Review Unit.
NOTICE
The Performance Review Unit (PRU) has made every effort to ensure that the information and analysis contained in this documentare as accurate and complete as possible. Should you find any errors or inconsistencies we would be grateful if you could please bringthem to the PRU’s attention.
The PRU’s e-mail address is [email protected]
Report commissioned by the Performance Review Commission
ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) 2009 Benchmarking Report
Prepared by the Performance Review Unit (PRU) with the ACE 2009 Working Group
Final Report
June 2011
EUROCONTROL
ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
BACKGROUND
This Report has been commissioned by the Performance Review Commission (PRC) and the Performance Review Body (PRB). The PRC was established in 1998 by the Permanent Commission of EUROCONTROL, in accordance with the ECAC Institutional Strategy (1997). One objective in this Strategy is "to introduce strong, transparent and independent performance review and target setting to facilitate more effective management of the European ATM system, encourage mutual accountability for system performance and provide a better basis for investment analyses and, with reference to existing practice, provide guidelines to States on economic regulation to assist them in carrying out their responsibilities." In September 2010, EUROCONTROL accepted the designation by the European Commission as the SES Performance Review Body acting through its Performance Review Commission supported by the Performance Review Unit. The PRC’s website address is http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc
NOTICE The Performance Review Unit (PRU) has made every effort to ensure that the information and analysis contained in this document are as accurate and complete as possible. Should you find any errors or inconsistencies we would be grateful if you could please bring them to the PRU’s attention. The PRU’s e-mail address is [email protected]
COPYRIGHT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
© European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) EUROCONTROL, 96, rue de la Fusée, B-1130 Brussels, Belgium
http://www.eurocontrol.int
EUROCONTROL
This document is published in the interest of the exchange of information and may be copied in whole or in part providing that the copyright notice and disclaimer are included. The information contained in this document may not be modified without prior written permission from the Performance Review Unit. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of EUROCONTROL, which makes no warranty, either implied or express, for the information contained in this document, neither does it assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information.
ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION SHEET
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Document Title
ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) 2009 Benchmarking Report
DOCUMENT REFERENCE EDITION: EDITION DATE:
ACE 2009 Final Report June 2011 ABSTRACT
This report is the ninth in a series of annual reports based on mandatory information disclosure provided by 37 Air Navigation Services Providers (ANSPs) to the EUROCONTROL Performance Review Commission (PRC). This report comprises factual data and analysis on cost-effectiveness and productivity for 37 ANSPs for the year 2009, including high level trend analysis for the years 2005-2009. The scope of the report is both en-route and terminal navigation services (i.e. gate-to-gate). The main focus is on the ATM/CNS provision costs as these costs are under the direct control and responsibility of the ANSP. Costs borne by airspace users for less than optimal quality of service are also considered. The report describes a performance framework for the analysis of cost-effectiveness. The framework highlights 3 key performance drivers contributing to cost-effectiveness (productivity, employment costs and support costs). The report also presents detailed productivity comparisons for 65 Area Control Centres (ACCs) grouped in 3 clusters of different traffic complexity characteristics. Finally, the report analyses forward-looking information for the years 2010-2014, inferring on future financial cost-effectiveness performance at both system and ANSP levels, and displaying future capital expenditures and future capacity plans.
Keywords EUROCONTROL Performance Review Commission - Economic information disclosure – Benchmarking – Target setting – Exogenous factors – Complexity metrics - ATM/CNS cost-effectiveness comparisons - European Air Navigation Services Providers (ANSPs) - Gate-to-gate - En-route and Terminal ANS - Inputs and outputs metrics – Aeronautical MET costs – Regulatory costs - Performance framework - Quality of service - 2009 data – Traffic downturn - Factual analysis – Historic trend analysis - Costs drivers - Productivity – Employment costs - Support costs – Area Control Centres (ACCs) productivity comparisons – Current and future capital expenditures – ATM systems - Forward-looking trend analysis.
CONTACT: Performance Review Unit, EUROCONTROL, 96 Rue de la Fusée, B-1130 Brussels, Belgium.
Tel: +32 2 729 3956, e-mail: [email protected] - http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc
DOCUMENT INFORMATION TYPE STATUS DISTRIBUTION
Performance Review Report Draft General Public
Report commissioned by the PRC and PRB
Proposed Issue EUROCONTROL Organisation
PRU Technical Note Released Issue Restricted
Errata Corrige Note that this electronic version of the ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report slightly differs from the original version released in June 2011. The text provided on p.108 and 148 of the report has been amended as detailed below:
Page 108: the sentence “Construction of a new HQ building (i.e. €4.9M, between 2011 and 2013)” is replaced by:
“Re-construction of the training centre (i.e. €4.9M, between 2011 and 2013)”.
Page 108: the sentence “It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan, nor what the quantified contribution to performance improvements is expected (e.g. improve ATCO productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years)” is replaced by:
“It is not clear what is the expected quantified contribution of these investments to performance improvements (e.g. improve ATCO productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years)”.
Page 148: the sentence: “Although DNSA investment plans were revised downwards in 2010 (-4%) and 2011 (-5), compared to ACE 2007 projections, the cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 remain high has planned some €174M per annum (around €868M which corresponds to 67% of 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues). […] Furthermore, Aena capex is planned to consistently exceed depreciation costs during the whole period, indicating a growing asset base” is replaced by:
“Although DSNA investment plans were revised downwards in 2010 (-4%) and 2011 (-5%) compared to ACE 2007 projections, the cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 remain high. DSNA has planned some €174M per annum (around €868M, which corresponds to 67% of 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues). […] Furthermore, DSNA capex is planned to consistently exceed depreciation costs during the whole period, indicating a growing asset base”.
ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
READER’S GUIDE............................................................................................................................ I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................. III 1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Organisation of the report ....................................................................................................1 1.2 Overview of participating ANSPs.........................................................................................3 1.3 Data submission ..................................................................................................................4 1.4 Data validation, processing and reporting ...........................................................................5 1.5 ANSPs’ Annual Reports.......................................................................................................6 1.6 A new EU regulatory environment for ANS performance....................................................8 PART I: EUROPEAN ANS DATA AND INTRODUCTION TO ANSP BENCHMARKING.............9 2 EUROPEAN ANS SYSTEM DATA.......................................................................................11 2.1 Coverage of the ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report............................................................11 2.2 European ANS system data for the years 2008 and 2009................................................11 2.3 System outputs ..................................................................................................................12 2.4 ANS revenues....................................................................................................................13 2.5 ANS costs ..........................................................................................................................14 2.6 Assets, liabilities and capital expenditures ........................................................................15 2.7 Staff....................................................................................................................................18 3 FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE ..........................................................................21 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................21 3.2 Framework for factors affecting performance....................................................................21
3.2.1 Exogenous factors .....................................................................................................22 3.2.2 Endogenous factors...................................................................................................24
3.3 Quantification of some exogenous factors ........................................................................26 3.4 How should these factors be accounted for in cost-efficiency benchmarking analysis.....30 PART II: FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS ..........................................................................37 4 FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS (2009) ......................................................................39 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................39 4.2 Overall financial cost-effectiveness ...................................................................................41 4.3 Framework for gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness and productivity analysis.........................44 4.4 Breakdown of gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness for individual ANSPs ................................46
4.4.1 ATCO-hour productivity (2009)..................................................................................46 4.4.2 ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (2009)......................................................49 4.4.3 ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour (2009) ......................................50 4.4.4 Support costs per composite flight-hour (2009).........................................................52
4.5 Performance ratios (2009) .................................................................................................57 5 CHANGES IN FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS (2005-2009).....................................61 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................61 5.2 Medium term changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009) ..................................62
5.2.1 Changes at European system level (2005-2009) ......................................................62 5.2.2 Changes at ANSP level (2005-2009) ........................................................................62
5.3 Changes in the components of financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009).........................66 5.3.1 Changes at European system level (2005-2009) ......................................................66 5.3.2 Changes in ATCO-hour productivity at ANSP level (2005-2009)..............................67 5.3.3 Changes in ATCO employment costs at ANSP level (2005-2009) ...........................70 5.3.4 Changes in support costs per composite flight-hour (2005-2009).............................72
6 FORWARD-LOOKING FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS (2010-2014).......................77 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................77 6.2 Forward-looking financial cost-effectiveness at European system level ...........................77
6.2.1 Changes in planned unit ATM/CNS provision costs at ANSP level ..........................79 6.3 Changes in fixed assets and capital expenditure (capex) .............................................79 6.3.1 Cumulative capex (2010-2014) to 2009 revenues ratio at ANSP level .....................81 6.4 Changes in ATCOs in OPS and en-route ATC capacity ...............................................82
PART III: ECONOMIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS.........................................................................83 7 ECONOMIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS.................................................................................85 7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................85 7.2 The measures of quality of service....................................................................................85 7.3 The measure of economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness...............................................86 7.4 Comparison of economic cost-effectiveness (2009) .........................................................87
ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
7.5 Trends in economic cost-effectiveness (2005-2009).........................................................91 PART IV: PERFORMANCE FOCUS AT ANSP LEVEL................................................................95 8 PERFORMANCE FOCUS AT ANSP LEVEL .......................................................................97 8.1 Objective of this chapter ....................................................................................................97 8.2 Page 1: Historical development of cost-effectiveness performance, 2005-2009 ..............97 8.3 Page 2: The development of productivity and quality of service performance, 2005-2009 and 2010-2014...............................................................................................................................98 8.4 Page 3: Asset structure and main capital investment projects..........................................98 8.5 Page 4: The planned and projected development of cost-effectiveness performance, 2010-2014......................................................................................................................................99 8.6 Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level.....................................................100 ANNEX 1 – STATUS ON ANSPS YEAR 2009 ANNUAL REPORTS .........................................251 ANNEX 2 - PERFORMANCE INDICATORS USED FOR THE COMPARISON OF ANSPS ......253 ANNEX 3 – TRAFFIC COMPLEXITY INDICATORS AT ANSP LEVEL.....................................255 ANNEX 4 – COST OF CAPITAL REPORTED BY ANSPS .........................................................257 ANNEX 5 – EXCHANGE RATES, INFLATION RATES AND PURCHASING POWER PARITIES (PPPS) 2009 DATA ......................................................................................................................259 ANNEX 6 - KEY DATA ................................................................................................................261 ANNEX 7 - ANSP FACT SHEETS...............................................................................................267 GLOSSARY..................................................................................................................................307
ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
TABLES
Table 0.1: Key system data for 2008 and 2009................................................................................... v Table 1.1: States and ANSPs participating in ACE 2009....................................................................3 Table 1.2: IFRS reporting status..........................................................................................................7 Table 2.1: High level data for the European ANS system for 2008 and 2009 (real terms) ...............12 Table 3.1: Main results from econometric analysis ...........................................................................34 Table 4.1: The components of gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness, 2009 ..............................................58 Table 5.1: Changes in ATCO-hours on duty and traffic volumes (2008-2009) .................................69 Table 5.2: Breakdown of changes in support costs, 2008-2009 (real terms)....................................75 Table 7.1: Economic cost-effectiveness KPI, 2009 ...........................................................................87 Annex 1 - Table 0.1: Status on ANSP’s 2009 Annual Reports .......................................................251 Annex 3 - Table 0.1: Traffic complexity indicators at ANSP level, 2009 .........................................255 Annex 3 - Table 0.2: Traffic complexity indicators at ACC level, 2009 ...........................................256 Annex 4 - Table 0.1: Comments on cost of capital reported by ANSPs, 2009................................258 Annex 5 - Table 0.1: 2009 Exchange rates, inflation rates and PPPs data ....................................259 Annex 6 - Table 0.1: Breakdown of total ANS revenues (en-route, terminal and gate-to-gate), 2009
.................................................................................................................................................261 Annex 6 - Table 0.2: Breakdown of total ANS costs (en-route, terminal and gate-to-gate), 2009..262 Annex 6 - Table 0.3: Breakdown of ATM/CNS provision costs (en-route, terminal and gate-to-gate),
2009.........................................................................................................................................263 Annex 6 - Table 0.4: Balance Sheet data at ANSP level, 2009 ......................................................264 Annex 6 - Table 0.5: Total staff and ATCOs in OPS data, 2009.....................................................265 Annex 6 - Table 0.6: Operational data (ANSP and State level), 2009 ............................................266
ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
FIGURES
Figure 0.1: Geographic coverage of ACE 2009 ..................................................................................iii Figure 0.2: Change in composite flight-hours between 2008 and 2009............................................. iv Figure 0.3: Conceptual framework for analysis of ATM/CNS cost-effectiveness............................... iv Figure 0.4: Distribution of ATM/CNS provision costs in 2009 ............................................................ vi Figure 0.5: Changes in gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness KPI (2005-2009, real terms) .......................vii Figure 0.6: Economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness KPI, 2009 ......................................................vii Figure 0.7: Share of ATFM delays in unit economic costs, 2009......................................................viii Figure 0.8: ANSPs cumulative capex (2005-2009) ............................................................................ ix Figure 0.9: Changes in financial cost-effectiveness KPI (2005-2009, real terms) ............................. ix Figure 0.10 Changes in the financial cost-effectiveness KPI, 2008-2009 (real terms) ....................... x Figure 0.11: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic volumes (2008-2009)........................ x Figure 0.12: Comparison of 2009 actual ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic with ACE 2007 plans
.................................................................................................................................................... xi Figure 0.13: Summary of main cost-containment measures announced by States/ANSPs in 2009 . xi Figure 0.14: Changes in ATCO-hours on duty and traffic volumes (2008-2009)...............................xii Figure 0.15: Changes in ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (2005-2009) .............................xii Figure 0.16: Changes in the components of support costs (2008-2009) ..........................................xiii Figure 0.17: Forward-looking cost-effectiveness at European system level (2009-2014, real terms)
...................................................................................................................................................xiv Figure 1.1: Progress with submission of 2009 data ............................................................................4 Figure 1.2: Data validation, processing and reporting.........................................................................5 Figure 1.3: Status of 2009 Annual Reports .........................................................................................7 Figure 1.4: SES II pillars......................................................................................................................8 Figure 1.5: EU-wide targets adopted on 3rd December 2010 for RP1 (2012-2014)............................8 Figure 2.1: Geographic coverage of the ACE 2009 data analysis ....................................................11 Figure 2.2: Breakdown of gate-to-gate ANS revenues in 2009.........................................................13 Figure 2.3: Breakdown of total ANS costs at system level in 2009...................................................14 Figure 2.4: Breakdown of European ATM/CNS provision costs in 2009...........................................15 Figure 2.5: ANSP assets and liabilities structure, 2009 ....................................................................16 Figure 2.6: ANSP capex structure, 2009...........................................................................................17 Figure 2.7: Surveillance and navigation aids physical assets, 2009 .................................................18 Figure 2.8: Breakdown of European ANS system staff in 2009 ........................................................18 Figure 3.1: Factors affecting cost-effectiveness performance ..........................................................22 Figure 3.2: Legal & socio-economic conditions.................................................................................23 Figure 3.3: Operational conditions.....................................................................................................23 Figure 3.4: Institutional & governance arrangements........................................................................24 Figure 3.5: Organisational factors .....................................................................................................25 Figure 3.6: Managerial & financial aspects .......................................................................................25 Figure 3.7: Operational & technical setup .........................................................................................26 Figure 3.8: Index of PPP cost of living, 2009 ....................................................................................27 Figure 3.9: Traffic complexity metrics for ANSPs, 2009....................................................................28 Figure 3.10: Overall complexity scores at ANSP level, 2009............................................................29 Figure 3.11: Seasonal traffic variations, 2009 ...................................................................................30 Figure 4.1: Conceptual framework for the analysis of financial cost-effectiveness...........................39 Figure 4.2: Distribution of ATM/CNS provision costs in 2009 ...........................................................40 Figure 4.3: Comparison of the financial cost-effectiveness KPI, 2009..............................................41 Figure 4.4: Adjustment of the financial cost-effectiveness KPI for ANSPs operating in the Four
States airspace (2009)...............................................................................................................42 Figure 4.5: Breakdown of financial cost-effectiveness into en-route and terminal, 2009,, ................43 Figure 4.6: Performance framework for gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness analysis ............................45 Figure 4.7: ATCO-hour productivity (gate-to-gate), 2009..................................................................46 Figure 4.8: Summary of productivity results at ACC level .................................................................47 Figure 4.9: ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (gate-to-gate), 2009......................................49 Figure 4.10: Employment costs per ATCO-hour with and without PPPs, 2009 ................................50 Figure 4.11: ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour, 2009 ...........................................50 Figure 4.12: Components of ATCO employment costs per unit output, 2009...................................51 Figure 4.13: Framework for support costs analysis...........................................................................52 Figure 4.14: Support costs per composite flight-hour, 2009 .............................................................53 Figure 4.15: Non-ATCO in OPS employment costs with and without adjustment for PPPs, 2009...54 Figure 4.16: Breakdown of non-ATCO in OPS employment costs ...................................................54
ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Figure 4.17: Unit employment costs for support staff and support staff per unit of output, 2009......55 Figure 4.18: Breakdown of capital-related costs ...............................................................................56 Figure 4.19: Asset bases and average rates used to compute the cost of capital, 2009..................57 Figure 5.1: Annual change in composite flight-hours between 2008 and 2009 ................................61 Figure 5.2: Changes in financial cost-effectiveness KPI (2005-2009, real terms) ............................62 Figure 5.3: Annual changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour,
2005-2009 (real terms) ..............................................................................................................63 Figure 5.4: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic volumes (2008-2009)........................63 Figure 5.5: Comparison of 2009 actual ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic with ACE 2007 plans64 Figure 5.6: Summary of main cost-containment measures announced by States/ANSPs in 2009 ..65 Figure 5.7: Breakdown of changes in financial cost-effectiveness, 2005-2009 (real terms).............66 Figure 5.8: Breakdown of changes in financial cost-effectiveness, 2008-2009 (real terms).............67 Figure 5.9: Changes in ATCO-hour productivity (2005-2009)...........................................................67 Figure 5.10: Annual changes in ATCO-hour productivity at ANSP level (2005-2009 and 2008-2009)
...................................................................................................................................................68 Figure 5.11: Changes in ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (2005-2009) ............................70 Figure 5.12: Annual changes in ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour, 2005-2009 and 2008-
2009 (real terms) .......................................................................................................................71 Figure 5.13: Changes in ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (2005-2009) ............................72 Figure 5.14: Changes in the components of support costs per composite flight-hour, 2008-2009
(real terms) ................................................................................................................................72 Figure 5.15: Changes in the components of support costs (2008-2009) ..........................................72 Figure 5.16: Annual Change in support cost per composite flight-hour at ANSP level, 2005-2009
and 2008-2009 (real terms) .......................................................................................................73 Figure 5.17: Changes in ATCOs in OPS and “support” staff for the five largest ANSPs ..................76 Figure 6.1: Status of ANSPs planned costs and traffic data submission ..........................................77 Figure 6.2: Forward-looking cost-effectiveness at European system level (2009-2014, real terms) 78 Figure 6.3: Changes in planned costs and traffic at European system level (2009-2012, real terms)
...................................................................................................................................................78 Figure 6.4: ANSPs planned changes in gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs (2009-2014, real
terms).........................................................................................................................................79 Figure 6.5: Asset structure at European system level (2005-2009) ..................................................80 Figure 6.6: Forward-looking capex and depreciation costs at European system level (2005-2014,
real terms)..................................................................................................................................80 Figure 6.7: Changes in planned capex at European system level (2009-2012, real terms) .............80 Figure 6.8: ANSPs cumulative capex (2010-2014) on 2009 revenues ratio .....................................81 Figure 6.9: Planned number of ATCOs in OPS at European system level (2005-2014) ..................82 Figure 6.10: Planned number of en-route sectors and sector-hours at European system level (2005-
2014)..........................................................................................................................................82 Figure 7.1: Trade-off between cost-effectiveness and quality of service ..........................................85 Figure 7.2: Conceptual framework for the analysis of economic cost-effectiveness ........................86 Figure 7.3: Economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness KPI, 2009 .....................................................88 Figure 7.4: Share of ATFM delays in unit economic costs, 2009......................................................89 Figure 7.5: Breakdown of ATFM delays, 2009 ..................................................................................90 Figure 7.6: Causes of en-route and airport ATFM delays, 2009 .......................................................90 Figure 7.7: ANSPs cumulative capex (2005-2009) ...........................................................................91 Figure 7.8: Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness KPI (2005-2009, real terms)...........91 Figure 7.9: Changes in economic cost-effectiveness for the 15 most “complex” and the 22 less
“complex” ANSPs (2005-2009)..................................................................................................94
Reader’s guide i ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
READER’S GUIDE
This table indicates which chapters of the report are likely to be of most interest to particular readers and stakeholders. Executive summary All stakeholders with an interest in ATM who want to
know what this report is about, or want an overview of the main findings.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Those wanting a short overview of the structure of the report, the list of participating ANSPs, and the process to analyse the data comprised in this report.
Part I: - European ANS data and introduction to ANSP benchmarking Chapter 2: European ANS system data
Brief summary of the main economic, financial and operational metrics for the whole European ANS system in 2009.
Chapter 3: Factors affecting performance
All those who are interested in the main (measurable) factors which affect the observed performance of an ANSP such as size, cost of living, traffic complexity and traffic variability. This chapter is particularly relevant to scholars and economic regulators who are interested in developing econometric methodology to benchmark ANSPs with a view to produce a normative assessment of performance.
Part II: - Financial cost-effectiveness Chapter 4: Financial cost-effectiveness (2009)
All those who are interested in understanding how ATM/CNS provision cost-effectiveness in 2009 is measured and benchmarked for each ANSP, including its three main economic drivers (productivity, employment costs and support costs). This chapter is particularly relevant to ANSPs’ management, regulators and NSAs in order to identify best practices and areas for improvement.
Chapter 5: Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
All those who are interested in trends and dynamic analysis of ATM/CNS cost-effectiveness performance between 2005 and 2009. This chapter is particularly relevant to ANSPs’ management, regulators and NSAs in order to identify how cost-effectiveness performance has evolved and which have been the sources of improvement (productivity, employment costs and support costs).
Chapter 6: Forward looking financial cost-effectiveness (2010-2014)
All those who are interested in forward-looking expectations of ATM/CNS cost-effectiveness performance for the 2010-2014 period, including capital investment and staff projections. This chapter is particularly relevant for those interested in cost-effectiveness planning, regulators and NSAs, and for airspace users during their consultation processes.
Part III: - Economic cost-effectiveness Chapter 7: Economic cost-effectiveness
All those who are interested in understanding how the quality of service (currently only ATFM delays) is factually measured, valued in monetary terms and benchmarked for each ANSP. This chapter is particularly relevant to ANSPs’ management, regulators and NSAs in order to identify areas for improvement, and understand trade-offs between quality of service and financial cost-effectiveness.
Reader’s guide ii ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Part IV: - Performance focus at ANSP level Chapter 8: Performance focus at ANSP level
All those who are interested in obtaining an assessment of individual ANSP historic performance (2005-2009) in terms of cost-effectiveness and quality of service, and an analysis of forward-looking projections (2010-2014). This chapter is particularly relevant to ANSPs’ management, airspace users, regulators and NSAs in order to identify how cost-effectiveness and quality of service performance has evolved and which have been the sources of improvement, as well as what are the prospects for further improvements based on forward-looking expectations of ATM/CNS cost-effectiveness performance, including capital investment and staff projections. This chapter should provide useful insights and information to NSAs for the drawing up of national/FAB performance plans during the first half of 2011. In particular, it includes benchmarking analysis with a set of comparators for each ANSP/State and an explicit link with the en-route determined costs.
Annexes: Tables with data used in the report.
Executive Summary iii ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The ACE Report presents an independent benchmarking of the cost-effectiveness of 37 European ANSPs This ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) 2009 Benchmarking Report, the ninth in the series, presents a review and comparison of ATM cost-effectiveness for 37 Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) in Europe. ACE 2009 presents information on performance indicators relating to cost-effectiveness and productivity for the year 2009, and how they changed over time (2005-2009). It examines both individual ANSPs and the European ATM/CNS system as a whole. In addition, ACE 2009 examines forward-looking information covering 2010-2014 which was provided by ANSPs on November 2010.
The geographical coverage of the ACE benchmarking analysis is shown in Figure 0.1. This year, the data used includes for the first time data for ARMATS, the Armenian ANSP, which also joined the Multilateral Route Charges System in January 2009.
The ACE benchmarking work is carried out by the Performance Review Commission (PRC) and the Performance Review Body (PRB) in the context of Articles 3.3(i), 3.6(b)(c), and 3.8 of EC regulation N°691/2010.
Lower Airspace
Figure 0.1: Geographic coverage of ACE 2009
The benchmarking analysis is based on information provided by ANSPs in compliance with Decision No. 88 of the Permanent Commission of EUROCONTROL on economic information disclosure and in the context of Annex IV 2.1(a) of EC regulation N°691/2010.
Since 2001, there has been a gradual and general improvement in the quality, quantity and timing of ACE data submission. The timeliness of submissions continues to improve; 26 were delivered on time for the ACE 2009 exercise. There are, however, recurrent problems with the completeness and quality of HCAA submissions (both for economic and operational data). The data processing, analysis and reporting were conducted with the assistance of the ACE Working Group, which comprises representatives from participating ANSPs, airspace users, regulatory authorities and the PRU. This enabled participants to share experiences and gain an improved common understanding of underlying assumptions and limitations of the data. On 3rd December 2010, the European Commission adopted a decision setting EU-wide performance targets for the provision of air navigation services for the years 2012 to 2014. The ACE factual and independent benchmarking has been one of the main inputs considered for determining the EU-wide cost-efficiency target and it will also have a major role in the assessment of national/FAB performance plans that will be carried out by the PRB during the summer 2011.
Executive Summary iv ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ACE 2009 reviews ANS performance at a time of global economic recession The economic downturn has affected the aviation community with an unprecedented -7% traffic decrease at European system level, basically cancelling 3 years of traffic growth. In April 2009, CANSO indicated that several European ANSPs would implement short-term and medium term cost-containment measures in order to reduce the impact of the economic downturn on airspace users. A major theme of this ACE report is to understand whether and where cost-containment measures were implemented and what was the magnitude of their impact on the European ANS system.
Lower Airspace
Annual change in composite flight-hours (2008-2009)
ANSPs not included in trend analysis
< -12%
< -8%
< -4%
< 0%
>= 0%
> 4%
> 8%
Figure 0.2: Change in composite flight-hours between 2008 and 2009
How is ANSPs’ cost-effectiveness performance measured? ACE 2009 first considers the total costs at State level for providing ANS (left-hand side of Figure 0.3). Since some elements of the costs of ANS provision are outside the control of individual ANSPs (such as the contribution to EUROCONTROL), it then focuses on the specific costs of providing ATM/CNS. These represent 88% of total ANS costs, as shown in Table 0.1 (see page v).
ATM/CNS provision costs
Costs of ATFM delays
Economic cost-effectiveness
indicator
EUROCONTROL/ PRU
Composite flight-hours
ATFM delay per unit output
Financial cost-effectiveness
indicator
Inputs
PerformanceIndicators
Outputs
MET costs
EUROCONTROL Agency costs
Payments to governmental or
regulatory authorities
Payments for delegation of ANS
ATM/CNS provision costs
Total ANS Costs (State Level)
Total ATM/CNS Costs (ANSP Level)
IFR airport movements
En-route flight-hours
Figure 0.3: Conceptual framework for analysis of ATM/CNS cost-effectiveness
ANSPs’ controllable costs are then divided by an output metric to obtain a measure of performance – the financial cost-effectiveness KPI (Figure 0.3). The output is a “gate-to-gate” measure which combines en-route flight-hours controlled and IFR airport movements controlled. As the allocation of costs between en-route and terminal ANS is not carried out consistently across all the European ANSPs, performance comparisons carried out separately for en-route and terminal services might be distorted. Therefore, as in previous ACE reports, the focus of the analysis of ANSPs’ cost-effectiveness is “gate-to-gate”. An assessment of the overall performance of an ANSP should take into account all the areas related to the economics of ANS - not only financial cost-effectiveness but also the quality of service provided, such as efficient routings and adequate levels of ATC capacity, while ensuring ANS safety. ACE therefore introduced the concept of economic cost-effectiveness KPI, which adds a monetary value of the cost of ground
Executive Summary v ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ATFM delay to the controllable financial costs. Other elements of quality of service such as flight-efficiency and airborne holdings have not been included in the indicator as they cannot be so readily quantified at ANSP level. This indicator allows the assessment of performance to take into account trade-offs between quality of service and cost. ACE presents a factual benchmarking analysis – many further factors would need to be considered in a normative analysis Many factors contribute to observed differences in unit costs between ANSPs. Some of these factors are measurable; others (such as regulatory constraints) are less obviously quantifiable. Ideally, since the 37 ANSPs operate in very diverse environments across Europe, all of these should be taken into account in making fair performance comparisons, especially since many of these factors are outside the control of an ANSP. As in previous years, the analysis undertaken is a purely factual analysis of the cost-effectiveness indicators – measuring what the indicators are. In 2010, work has progressed in the definition of an econometric approach, taking advantage of the growing ACE database. The results of this work have been used, in association with other material, for proposing a range of EU-wide cost efficiency targets in the context of SES II. However, such analysis inevitably has limitations, and the quantification of inefficiencies (and scope for improvement) still requires a combination of various approaches, including expert judgement based on the best measurement and also factual analysis available. Methods have been developed to measure a subset of exogenous factors. In fact, three of them - cost of living, traffic complexity, and seasonal variability - are quantified with specific metrics and discussed in this report. The European ANS system is a business of €8 627M with some 57 500 staff The European ANS system analysed in this report comprises the system operated by the 37 participating ANSPs, excluding elements related to services provided to military operational air traffic (OAT), oceanic ANS, and landside airport management operations. The European ANS system also includes National Supervisory Authorities (NSAs), national MET providers and the EUROCONTROL Agency. In 2009, total ANS costs were around €8 630M (see Table 0.1 below), of which some €7 580M related directly to the provision of gate-to-gate ATM/CNS.
Key Data for the European ANS system 2008 2009ANSPs 36 37
Area Control Centres (ACCs) 64 65En-route sectors at maximum configuration 684 676Approach Units (APPs) 249 249Towers (TWRs) 440 451AFIS units 87 96
Flight-hours controlled (M) 14.5 13.6IFR flights controlled (M) 10.1 9.5Distance controlled (M km) 10 115 9 491IFR airport movements (M) 15.9 14.8Total Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) staff 57 443 57 500
Air Traffic Controllers in Operational duty (ATCOs in OPS) 16 607 16 837
Gate-to-gate ATFM delays > 15 min. ('000 min.) 18 823 12 147
Gate-to-gate ANS costs (€ M) 8 512 8 627Gate-to-gate ANS revenues (€ M) 7 977 7 712Gate-to-gate NBV of fixed assets (€ M) 6 967 7 316Gate-to-gate capex (€ M) 1 165 1 275
4.9%
6.1%0.9%
0.2%87.9%
EUROCONTROLcosts
Payments togovernmentalauthorities and irrecoverable
VAT
MET costs
ATM/CNS provision costs
Payments for regulatory and
supervisory services
Table 0.1: Key system data for 2008 and 2009
Total ANS revenues in 2009 amounted to some €7 712M. The European ANSPs employed some 57 500 staff, which is slightly larger than the workforce at Airbus worldwide (52 000 employees). Some 16 900 staff (29%) were ATCOs working on operational duty, compared to some 13 000 in the United States (FAA/ATO). On average, in Europe 2.4 additional staff are required for every ATCO.
Executive Summary vi ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
The focus of the analysis in this report is the ATM/CNS provision costs (88% of total ANS costs), which exclude elements of costs that are not under the control of individual ANSPs. Other ANS costs include the costs of aeronautical meteorology services (5%), the costs of the EUROCONTROL Agency (6%) and the costs associated to regulatory and supervisory services (1%). The total Net Book Value (NBV) of fixed assets used by the European ANSPs to provide ATM/CNS services is valued at some €7 316M, which means that overall for the ANS industry €0.95 of fixed assets are required to generate €1 of revenue, an indication of relative capital intensity (this ratio is about 2 for airlines and about 3 for main airports operators). Fixed assets mainly relates to ATM/CNS systems and equipments in operation or under construction. SESAR represents the technological pillar of the SES, its objective is to develop the new generation of ATM systems for the next 30 years. It is essential that the SESAR initiative significantly contributes to increase the interoperability between ATM systems. Another imperative feature of new technology is that it should provide major benefits in terms of increased ATCO-hour productivity, while ensuring safety standards. The system is fragmented: around 40% of the business is provided by 32 ANSPs
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
960
1 080
1 200
Aen
a
DS
NA
DF
S
NA
TS
EN
AV
DH
MI
Sky
guid
e
LVN
L
HC
AA
LFV
Aus
tro
Con
trol
Avi
nor
Be
lgoc
ont
rol
RO
MA
TS
A
UkS
AT
SE
MU
AC
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa)
PA
NS
A
NA
VIA
IR
AN
S C
R
IAA
BU
LAT
SA
Hun
gar
oCo
ntro
l
SM
AT
SA
Cro
atia
Con
trol
Fin
avia
LPS
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
LGS
Oro
Na
viga
cija
NA
TA
Alb
ania
MA
TS
M-N
AV
EA
NS
Mol
dAT
SA
AR
MA
TS
M€
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (in M€) Cumulative share ATM/CNS provision costs
60.3% of total European gate-to-gate ATM/CNS
provision costs
32.4% of total European gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
7.3% of total European gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Figure 0.4: Distribution of ATM/CNS provision costs in 2009
Five ANSPs (Aena, DSNA, NATS, DFS and ENAV) bear 60% of the total ATM/CNS provision costs (Figure 0.4). Because of their magnitude in relation to the whole European system, significant changes in costs for these five ANSPs inevitably have an impact on the ATM/CNS provision costs for Europe as a whole.
The share of traffic for the five largest ANSPs is 54% (i.e. lower than their share in total ATM/CNS provision costs). At first sight, this result contrasts with the expectation of some form of increasing returns to scale in the provision of ANS (the performance of larger ANSPs might benefit from their larger size). The impact of size on ANSPs performance is an important policy issue given the infrastructure characteristics of the ANS sector. It should be noted that:
• Under the current full cost recovery regime that applies to most ANSPs, they may have little incentive to exploit scale effects fully, hence the difficulty to observe them;
• Larger ANSPs tend to develop bespoke ATM systems internally which can be more costly than a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solution, and;
• Size is not the only factor that has an impact on ANSPs costs. It is likely that greater scale effects will be observed in the forthcoming decade as a result of a new regulatory regime introduced by the SES II Performance Scheme and in
Executive Summary vii ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
particular of the incentive scheme which is part of the amended Charging Scheme regulation. European economic cost-effectiveness has worsen for the third consecutive year in 2009 The economic cost-effectiveness KPI, which includes both the financial cost per unit output, and a measure of the cost of ground ATFM delay, fell steadily until 2006, and then worsened in 2007, 2008, and 2009 (left-hand side of Figure 0.5). Between 2006 and 2008, the increase in unit economic costs was mainly the result of growing delays, while the rising costs were counterbalanced by traffic growth. In 2009, traffic fell by -7.0%, which helped reducing the unit costs of ATFM delay. However, ATM/CNS provision costs continued to rise in 2009 (+1.5%), resulting in an overall +2.1% increase in unit economic costs.
-2.7% +0.8% +0.8% +2.1%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ p
er c
om
pos
ite fl
ight
-ho
ur (
2009
pri
ces)
Unit costs of airport ATFM delays
Unit costs of en-route ATFM delays
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+1.5%+4.7% +5.7%
+1.8%
-0.3%
+9.2%+7.7%
+5.0%
+1.2% +1.5%
-7.0%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours Unit costs of ATFM delays
-33.0%
Figure 0.5: Changes in gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness KPI (2005-2009, real terms)
There is a wide diversity of cost-effectiveness performance among ANSPs In 2009, the economic cost-effectiveness KPI ranges from €837 (Belgocontrol) to €163 (EANS), a factor greater than five (see Figure 0.6 below).
163
837
747721
619 605598590549
527506 480
476 474452 452441 440439429426 420414406 394385
364357352342 341331316310
278262261
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Bel
goco
ntro
l
Aen
a
LVN
L
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
Aus
tro
Con
trol
Sky
gui
de
DF
S
LPS
HC
AA
EN
AV
RO
MA
TS
A
Slo
ven
ia C
ontr
ol
DS
NA
AN
S C
R
Mol
dAT
SA
NA
TA
Alb
ania
M-N
AV
PA
NS
A
NA
TS
Cro
atia
Con
trol
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa)
BU
LA
TS
A
NA
VIA
IR
UkS
AT
SE
AR
MA
TS
Oro
Nav
igac
ija
Avi
nor
DH
MI
IAA
Hun
garo
Con
trol
Fin
avia
LFV
SM
AT
SA
MA
TS
LGS
MU
AC
EA
NS
€ pe
r co
mp
osite
flig
ht-h
our
Economic cost-effectiveness Unit cost of en-route ATFM delays Unit cost of airport ATFM delays
European system average for economic cost-effectiveness: €492
European system average for financial cost-effectiveness: €435
Figure 0.6: Economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness KPI, 2009
429474506
590
747
0100200300400500600700800
Ae
na
DF
S
EN
AV
DS
NA
NA
TS
Executive Summary viii ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
When the more homogenous five largest ANSPs are considered the factor drops to 1.7 – still an appreciable difference in economic cost-effectiveness performance. Although the five largest ANSPs operate in relatively similar economic and operational environments, there is a substantial variation in unit cost, ranging from Aena (€747) to NATS (€429). NATS has continuously improved its economic cost-effectiveness performance since 2007, although it is important to note that the level of NATS 2009 unit costs expressed in Euro has benefited from the significant depreciation (20%) of the Pound compared to the Euro between 2007 and 2009. In 2009, there was a significant unit economic costs difference (+50%) for services rendered by Aena compared with the average of the four largest ANSPs. In 2010, a specific law (Ley 9/2010) was adopted in Spain in order to address performance issues in Aena. This law requires, among other things, that the Spanish en-route unit rate converges towards the average of the five largest States by 2013. It is expected that an initial convergence trend be already visible in 2010. Following the decrease in traffic, ATFM delays were much lower than in previous years for a majority of ANSPs. On the other hand, Figure 0.7 shows that in 2009, ATFM delays contributed more than 20% to the economic unit costs for six ANSPs (Austro Control, Croatia Control, DCAC Cyprus, DHMI, HCAA and PANSA), although for most of them 2009 ATFM delays were lower than in 2008. It is important to note that some of these ANSPs experienced a significant decrease in traffic in 2009 (Austro Control (-9%), PANSA (-7%) and to a lower extent DCAC Cyprus and HCAA (-2%)). This clearly indicates structural performance issues in terms of quality of service for these ANSPs.
Lower Airspace
Share of ATFM delays in unit economic costs
<= 5 %
> 5 %
> 10 %
> 15 %
> 20 %
Data not provided
Figure 0.7: Share of ATFM delays in unit economic costs, 2009
The level of ATFM delays mainly depends on the extent to which the ATC capacity provided by an ANSP is in line with the temporal and spatial traffic demand. In the medium-term, the level of capacity provided can be gradually increased through a variety of measures including the recruitment of additional ATCOs and capital investment (e.g. ATM systems with higher capabilities, etc.).
Executive Summary ix ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
During the five-years period 2005-2009, ANSPs invested some €5.9 Billion with different investment cycles and magnitudes across ANSPs. Average ANSPs “capex to revenue” ratios – a measure of the magnitude of the investment - for the period 2005-2009 are shown in Figure 0.8. For 18 ANSPs, the “capex to revenue” ratio is higher than 15% indicating substantial investments on the period.
Lower Airspace
Cumulative capex to revenue ratio (2005-2009)
<= 5 %
> 5 %
> 10 %
> 15 %
> 20 %
Data not provided
Figure 0.8: ANSPs cumulative capex (2005-2009)
Following the traffic downturn in 2009 at European system level (-7.0%), the trade-offs between financial cost-effectiveness and quality of service will be less significant than normal in the short term. There is scope for improving quality of service without incurring significant additional capital expenditure since substantial investments were made during the period 2005-2009. There is clearly an opportunity to better match capacity and demand in the forthcoming years while at the same time improving financial cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, in the context of SES II, the body in charge of the Network Management and Design functions should effectively support ANSPs to improve the quality of service provided at system level. Unfortunately, the +9% unit costs increase in 2009 cancels the cost-effectiveness performance improvements achieved since 2004
+9.2%
-0.5%-0.6%-3.0%
0
100
200
300
400
500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
hou
r (2
00
9 p
rice
s)
100
105
110
115
120
125
Inde
x of
co
sts
and
tra
ffic
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour ATM/CNS provision costs index Composite flight-hours index
At European system level, unit ATM/CNS provision costs rose by +4.6% in real terms between 2005 and 2009. After one year of marked reduction in 2006 (-3.0%), unit costs fell only moderately in 2007 (-0.6%) and 2008 (-0.5%), before rising by a staggering +9.2% in 2009.
Figure 0.9: Changes in financial cost-effectiveness KPI (2005-2009, real terms)
Figure 0.10 shows the impact of the traffic downturn on the European system cost-effectiveness performance. A significant lower ATCO-hour productivity (-6.4%) combined with higher ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (+1.5%) and support costs (+1.8%) resulted in 2009 unit ATM/CNS provision costs +9.2% higher than in 2008.
Executive Summary x ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
-6.4%
+1.5%
+8.5% +9.2% +9.4%
+1.8%
-7.0%
"Traffic effect"
Decreased ATCO-hour productivity
Increase inunit ATM/CNS
provision costs
2008-2009
"Support costs effect"
Increased employment
costs per ATCO-hour
Increased ATCO
employment costs per
composite flight-hour
Increased support costs per composite
flight-hour
Figure 0.10 Changes in the financial cost-effectiveness KPI, 2008-2009 (real terms)
The information presented in Figure 0.10 for the European system level masks contrasted trends for individual ANSPs since the impact of the economic downturn on traffic was not of the same magnitude across all ANSPs. ACE data suggests that some cost-containment measures were implemented in 2009 In April 2009, CANSO indicated that several ANSPs would implement short-term and medium-term cost-containment measures in order to reduce the impact of the economic downturn on airspace users. Figure 0.11 shows the changes in ATM/CNS provisions costs and traffic volumes between 2008 and 2009, and indicates that 14 ANSPs could reduce their ATM/CNS provision costs between 2008 and 2009.
MoldATSA
EANS
M-NAV
MATS
NATA Albania
Oro Navigacija
LGS
Slovenia Control
DCAC Cyprus
LPS
Finavia
Croatia Control
HungaroControl
BULATSA
IAAANS CR
NAVIAIR
PANSA
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
MUAC
UkSATSE
ROMATSABelgocontrol
Avinor
Austro Control
LFV LVNL
Skyguide
DHMI
ENAV
NATS
DFS
DSNA
Aena
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
-20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10%
Changes in composite flight-hours (2008-2009)
Cha
nges
in A
TM
/CN
S p
rovi
sion
cos
ts (
2008
-200
9)
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs
Figure 0.11: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic volumes (2008-2009)
Furthermore, Figure 0.12 indicates that for 27 ANSPs actual 2009 costs were lower than planned in ACE 2007 (Nov. 2008). At face value, this indicates a certain degree of reactivity to the traffic shock in 2009 and that cost-containment measures were implemented by most of these ANSPs.
Executive Summary xi ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
UkSATSE
SMATSA
Slovenia Control
SkyguideROMATSA
NAVIAIR
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
NATS
NATA Albania
MUAC
MoldATSAM-NAV
MATS
LVNL
LPS
LGS
LFV
IAA
HungaroControl
Finavia
ENAV
EANS
DSNA
DHMI
DFS
DCAC Cyprus
Croatia Control
Belgocontrol
Avinor
Austro Control
BULATSA
ANS CR
Aena
-12%
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
-36% -32% -28% -24% -20% -16% -12% -8% -4% 0% 4% 8% 12% 16% 20% 24% 28% 32% 36%
Difference between 2009 actual ATM/CNS provision costs and plans for 2009 provided in Nov.2008
Dif
fere
nce
be
twee
n 2
009
act
ua
l c
om
po
sit
e fl
igh
t-h
ou
rsa
nd
pla
ns
for
2009
pro
vid
ed
in
No
v. 2
008
2009 actual costs higher than planned2009 actual costs higher than planned2009 actual costs lower than planned
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0%
Oro Navigacija
PANSA
Figure 0.12: Comparison of 2009 actual ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic with ACE 2007 plans
Improved shift planning
Enhanced management of overtime
Change pension scheme for new recruits
Increase retirement age
Review staffing needs for support functions
Pay freeze for top executives
Postpone recruitment
Curtail travel
Postpone training
Review property needs. Sell surplus assets.
Improved procurement processes
Extend life of technical systems
Review investment plan
ATCOproductivity
ATCOemployment
costs
Other operating
costs
Capital-related costs
Critical review of plans
Critical review of operational processes
Rationalise ACCs and other operational units
Across-the-board areas of improvement for ANSPs
Seek improvements through cooperation (FABs)
More rigorous budgetary control
ANSP seeks additional revenue for inadequately funded services
State funds specific elements of the cost base
Use stabilisation fund or other reserves to smooth unit rate fluctuations
Reduced requirement for return on State-owned equity
Cross-subsidies and
transfers
Figure 0.13: Summary of main cost-containment measures announced by States/ANSPs in 2009
Due to the variety of measures and to a lack of detailed information it is rather difficult to carry out for each ANSP an in-depth analysis for the different cost-containment measures listed in the green boxes of Figure 0.13 below. Moreover, given short term rigidities to adjust costs downwards and unavoidable lead time, it is understood that some of the measures that were implemented in 2009 will actually only have an impact on costs in 2010 and onwards. It is therefore important that this analysis be also carried out in next year ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report.
After six years of continuous increases, ATCO-hour productivity significantly fell at European system level Eight ANSPs achieved an increase in ATCO-hour productivity in 2009 and 18 could achieve a reduction in the number of ATCO-hours on duty (see ANSPs reported under the x-axis in Figure 0.14 below). This indicates that most of these organisations showed a certain flexibility in deploying operational staff (through for example the use of less overtime hours) to better adapt to the sharp decrease in traffic volumes.
Executive Summary xii ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
EANS
Avinor
MoldATSA
NATA AlbaniaUkSATSE
LGS
MATS
DHMI
M-NAV
Oro Navigacija
SMATSA
BULATSA
ROMATSA
DCAC Cyprus
LPS
Croatia Control
Finavia
Slovenia Control
HungaroControl
PANSALFV
ANS CR
HCAAIAA
DSNAENAV
NATS
NAVIAIR
Skyguide
LVNL
BelgocontrolNAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
DFS
MUAC
Austro Control
Aena
-12%
-8%
-4%
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
24%
-18% -16% -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%
Changes in composite flight-hours (2008-2009)
Cha
nge
s in
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty (
200
8-2
009)
I II
III IV
Figure 0.14: Changes in ATCO-hours on duty and traffic volumes (2008-2009)
Following the sharp traffic decrease in 2009, it is expected that in the short-term productivity improvements result from more effective OPS room management and by making a better use of existing resources, for example through the adaptation of rosters and shift times by effective management of overtime, and through the adaptation of sector opening times to traffic demand patterns. In other words, in the next years when traffic volumes will bounce back, there is an opportunity to increase ATCO-hour productivity without significantly affecting the other components of cost-effectiveness. Similarly, following the traffic downturn, in the short-term the trade-offs between ATCO-hour productivity and quality of service will be less significant than normal. There is therefore scope to improve ATCO-hour productivity while maintaining adequate levels of quality of service. ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour increased in 2009 but at a lower rate than in previous years Between 2005 and 2009 ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour increased by +21.4% in real terms at European system level. Figure 0.15 shows that this overall change is made of (1) significant employment costs increases over 2005-2007 and (2) smaller increases in 2008 and 2009. It is likely that the reduction of the growth rate of ATCO employment costs is linked to a reduction of overtime hours and also reduced bonuses and benefits.
+7.4%+7.8%
+3.3% +1.5%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Figure 0.15: Changes in ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (2005-2009)
Executive Summary xiii ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
In recent years pensions have had a major impact on unit employment costs (both for ATCOs and non-ATCOs). In fact, there has been a growing recognition from States/ANSPs that the costs of providing generous pension schemes are substantially higher than was expected. This arises from a number of factors, including increased life expectancy, strong increases in wages and salaries, earlier retirement age, historically inadequate contributions and, as a consequence of the financial turmoil, lower than expected returns on pension assets. Furthermore, the SES requirement for ANSPs to adopt International Accounting Standards has required transparent accounting and reporting for these costs. ANSPs have taken various approaches to dealing with this, including increased contributions and one-off payments. These various approaches do not have the same impact on costs and contribute to the differences in employment costs observed across ANSPs. Several ANSPs have taken decisive actions to deal with future pension obligations, notably changing the pension scheme for new recruits and moving away from a “defined benefit” pension plan. However, it appears inevitable that these costs will need to be fully recognised across the industry, and as a consequence the impact of pensions on measured performance is likely to rise. In 2009, the increase in total support costs combined to the decrease in traffic is a major driver for the rise in unit ATM/CNS provision costs. The +1.8% increase in support costs between 2008 and 2009 at system level is mainly due to increases in non-staff operating costs (+5.5%) and depreciation costs (+7.2%) which were not compensated by the decrease in exceptional costs (-30.4%) (see Figure 0.16). It is noteworthy that in 2009, the main component of support costs (i.e. employment costs for support staff) remained fairly constant.
+0.7%
+5.5%
+7.2%
-0.1%
-30.4%-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non-staffoperating
costs
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Mill
ion
€
Figure 0.16: Changes in the components of support costs (2008-2009)
Eighteen ANSPs could reduce their support costs between 2008 and 2009. For most of these ANSPs, the decrease in support costs was not sufficient to compensate for the significant fall in traffic volumes and to avoid an increase of unit support costs. Nevertheless, this indicates a certain degree of reactivity and suggest that cost-containment measures were implemented by these ANSPs.
Executive Summary xiv ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
The planned profile of ANSPs unit costs has been revised upwards compared to previous plans Unit ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to fall by -11% in real terms between 2009 and 2014 (i.e. -2.3% p.a.). This is due to the fact that traffic volumes are expected to increase faster (+17%) than ATM/CNS provision costs (+4%) over this period. This has to be seen in the light of the EU-wide cost-efficiency target (i.e. -3.5% p.a. decrease in determined unit rate) adopted as part of the SES II for RP1 (2012-2014).
-4% -2% -2% -2% -1%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
98
106
114
122
130
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 438 420 410 403 396 391
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 98 100 102 103 104
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 102 107 111 114 117
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PEuropean system
-4% -7%-6% -7%
-8%-9%
-8%-9%
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
14
16
18
20
22
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs (
Mill
ion
s)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traff ic (ACE 2007) Planned traff ic (ACE 2009)
Figure 0.17: Forward-looking cost-effectiveness at European system level (2009-2014, real terms)
Compared to ACE 2007 plans, the traffic volumes planned for 2010 onwards have been revised significantly downwards (i.e. by 8-9% p.a.) reflecting the impact of the economic downturn on the aviation community. In the meantime, planned costs have also been revised downwards but in a lower proportion (i.e. by 6-7% p.a.) leading to a more pessimistic outlook in terms of unit ATM/CNS provision costs than in ACE 2007 plans. Between 2010 and 2014, the cumulated planned capex at European system level is over €5.5 billion. A significant proportion of these investments relate to major upgrades or to the replacement of existing ATM systems. It will be important, and a challenge, to start monitoring how these investments relate to IP1 or to the European ATM Master Plan, and gaining an understanding of the quantified contribution to performance improvements (e.g. improve ATCO productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years). It is noteworthy that four ANSPs which are part of FAB CE plan significant investments relating to the construction of new ACCs or to the upgrade of the ATM system. It is clear that all these local initiatives in the context of a FAB will not alleviate the current fragmentation of the European system.
Introduction ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
1
1 INTRODUCTION
The Air Traffic Management Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) 2009 Benchmarking Report commissioned by EUROCONTROL's independent Performance Review Commission (PRC) is the ninth in a series of reports comparing the ATM cost-effectiveness of EUROCONTROL Member States’ Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs)1. The ACE benchmarking work is carried out by the Performance Review Commission (PRC) and the Performance Review Body (PRB) in the context of Articles 3.3(i), 3.6(b)(c), and 3.8 of EC regulation N°691/2010. The report is based on information provided by ANSPs in compliance with Decision No. 88 of the Permanent Commission of EUROCONTROL, which makes annual disclosure of ANS information mandatory, according to the Specification for Information Disclosure2 (SID), in all EUROCONTROL Member States. Since these services are outside the PRC’s terms of reference, this report does not address performance relating to:
• oceanic ANS;
• services provided to military operational air traffic (OAT); or,
• airport (landside) management operations.
The focus of this report is primarily a cross-sectional analysis of ANSPs for the year 2009. However, the aviation community is also interested in measuring how cost-effectiveness and productivity at the European and ANSP levels varies over time, and in understanding the reasons why variations occur. Hence, this report makes use of previous years’ data from 2005 onwards to examine changes over time, where relevant and valid. Five-year periods are considered to form a solid basis to examine changes in the medium term. This is particularly relevant given the characteristics of the ANS industry which requires a long lead time to develop ATC capacity and infrastructure.
1.1 Organisation of the report
This report presents a slightly different structure than in the 2008 ACE report. This year, an explicit choice was made to streamline the report and to expand the performance focus at ANSP level (Chapter 8). It is expected that this new analysis will be particularly informative for the ATM stakeholders involved in the setting up of national/FAB performance plans during the first part of 2011. The structure of the ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report is as follows: Chapter 1 provides an overview of the participating ANSPs and outlines the processes involved in the production of this report. Then the report is divided into four parts.
Part I provides an overview of the economics of the European ATM system with a focus on the supply side.
1 Previous reports in the series from ACE 2001 (Sept. 2003) to ACE 2008 (May 2010) can be found on the PRC web site at http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/. 2 PRC Specification for Information Disclosure - Version 2.6, December 2008, can be found on the PRC web site.
Introduction ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
2
• Chapter 2 presents 2009 key data for the European ATM system;
• Chapter 3 examines the importance of exogenous factors (such as cost of living, traffic variability and traffic complexity) and endogenous factors (such as operational and technical set-up) when assessing and benchmarking the performance of an ANSP.
Part II focuses on the financial cost-effectiveness of ANSPs, based on their gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per unit of traffic output.
• Chapter 4 compares ANSPs' 2009 financial cost-effectiveness and the various components of cost-effectiveness (productivity, employment costs, and support costs);
• Chapter 5 looks at how financial cost-effectiveness and its components have changed over time (2005-2009);
• Chapter 6 analyses ANSPs’ five-year data projections (2010-2014), as disclosed to the PRU in November 2010. This chapter infers on future financial cost-effectiveness performance and shows explicit links between the current average accounting life of assets, depreciation and future capital expenditure at European level.
Part III looks at economic cost-effectiveness by valuing ATFM delays (a measure of the quality of service) attributable to ANSPs in monetary terms. Given the likely trade-offs at play, a measure of quality of service is important when considering the performance of an ANSP. This analysis is expected to expand in future years, as more data become available for analysis.
• Chapter 7 compares ANSPs’ 2009 economic cost-effectiveness and considers how it has changed over time (2005-2009).
Part IV provides a cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level.
• Chapter 8 provides a four-page summary for each ANSP. It includes an individual assessment of ANSPs’ cost-effectiveness performance between 2005 and 2009, and identifies for each ANSP what the main sources of changes in performance were. It also provides an analysis of productivity and capacity at ACC level. Finally, it examines what the prospects for further improvements are, based on the ANSPs’ forward-looking expectations in terms of ATM/CNS cost-effectiveness performance, including capital investment and staff projections for the period 2010-2014.
This chapter should provide useful insights and information to NSAs for the drawing up of national/FAB performance plans during the first half of 2011. In particular, it includes benchmarking analysis with a set of comparators for each ANSP/State and an explicit link with the en-route determined costs.
To conclude the report comprises several annexes which include statistical data used in the report, and individual ANSP Fact Sheets comprising a factual description of the governance and institutional arrangements in which the ANSP operates.
Introduction ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
3
1.2 Overview of participating ANSPs
In total, 37 ANSPs reported 2009 data in compliance with the requirement from Decision No. 88 of the Permanent Commission of EUROCONTROL (see Table 1.1). In addition to the EUROCONTROL Member States, the en-route ANSPs of two Baltic States (Estonia and Latvia) provided data on a voluntary basis for inclusion in the analysis. Following accession to EUROCONTROL, the sample of 37 ANSPs includes for the first time a full information disclosure from the Armenian ANSP, ARMATS. With one exception3, all the reported information relates to the calendar year 2009.
ANSP Code Country Organisational & Corporate Arrangements
OA
T S
ervi
ces
Oce
anic
MU
AC
CE
AT
S
Del
ega
ted
AT
M
Inte
rna
l ME
T
Ow
ners
hip
and
m
an
ag
em
en
t o
f ai
rpor
ts
1 Aena ES Spain State enterprise X
2 ANS CR CZ Czech Republic State enterprise X
3 ARMATS AM Armenia Joint-stock company (State-owned)4 Austro Control AT Austria Joint-stock company (State-owned) X X
5 Avinor NO Norway Joint-stock company (State-owned) X X X
6 Belgocontrol BE Belgium State enterprise X X
7 BULATSA BG Bulgaria State enterprise X
8 Croatia Control HR Croatia Joint-stock company (State-owned) X X X
9 DCAC Cyprus CY Cyprus State body
10 DFS DE Germany Limited liability company (State-owned) X X
11 DHMİ TR Turkey State body (autonomous budget) X X
12 DSNA FR France State body (autonomous budget) X
13 EANS EE Estonia Joint-stock company (State-owned)
14 ENAV IT Italy Joint-stock company (State-owned) X X
15 Finavia FI Finland State enterprise X X X X
16 HCAA GR Greece State body X
17 HungaroControl HU Hungary State enterprise X X
18 IAA IE Ireland Joint-stock company (State-owned) X
19 LFV SE Sweden State enterprise X X X X
20 LGS LV Latvia Joint-stock company (State-owned) X X
21 LPS SK Slovak Republic State enterprise X X
22 LVNL NL Netherlands Independent administrative body X
23 MATS MT Malta Joint-stock company (State-owned)
24 M-NAV MK F.Y.R. Macedonia Joint-stock company (State-owned) X X
25 MoldATSA MD Moldova State enterprise X X
26 MUAC International organisation27 NATA Albania AL Albania Joint-stock company (State-owned) X X
28 NATS UK United Kingdom Joint-stock company (part-private) X
29 NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) PT Portugal State enterprise X
30 NAVIAIR DK Denmark State enterprise X
31 Oro Navigacija LT Lithuania State enterprise
32 PANSA PL Poland State body (acting as a legal entity with an autonomous budget) X
33 ROMATSA RO Romania State enterprise X
34 Skyguide CH Switzerland Joint-stock company (part-private) X X
35 Slovenia Control SI Slovenia State enterprise X X
RS SerbiaME Montenegro
37 UkSATSE UA Ukraine State enterprise X
States covered by the SES RegulationsStates part of the ECAAStates not covered by the SES Regulations
XXSMATSA36 Limited liability company X
Table 1.1: States and ANSPs participating in ACE 2009
Table 1.1 shows the list of participating ANSPs, describing both their organisational and corporate arrangements, and the scope of ANS services provided. More detailed information on each ANSP can be found in the individual Fact Sheets provided in Annex 7 of this Report. Table 1.1 indicates (coloured yellow) which ANSPs were at 1 January 2009 part of the Single European Sky (SES), and hence subject to relevant SES regulations and obligations. In addition to SES members, a number of States (coloured blue) are committed, following the signing of an agreement relating to the establishment of a European Common Aviation Area (ECAA)4, to cooperate in the field of ATM, with a view
3 For NATS, the disclosed data relate to the financial year 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010. 4 Decision 2006/682/EC published on 16 October 2006 in the Official Journal of the European Union. States which have signed this Agreement but are not yet EU members comprise the Republic of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Iceland, the Republic of Montenegro, the Kingdom of Norway, and the Republic of Serbia.
Introduction ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
4
to extending the SES regulations5 to the ECAA States. Hence, in principle all the en-route ANSPs of EUROCONTROL States and other States disclosing information to the PRC are covered by the SES regulations, except Armenia, Moldova, Turkey and Ukraine. Table 1.1 also shows the extent to which the ANSPs incur costs relating to services that are not provided by all ANSPs. In order to enhance cost-effectiveness comparison across ANSPs, such costs, relating to oceanic ANS, military operational air traffic (OAT), airport management operations and payment for delegation of ATM services6 were excluded to the maximum possible extent.
1.3 Data submission
The SID (see footnote 2) requires that participating ANSPs submit their information to the PRC/PRU by 15 July in the year following the year to which it relates. The SID became mandatory as part of the SES II legislation. The ACE 2008 data have been submitted in the SID Version 2.6 which is being used on a pilot basis for two years (ACE2008 and ACE2009 data). Lessons learnt will be drawn in 2011 and it is expected that marginal refinements and/or clarifications be brought to the SID in 2012. The Version 2.6 of the SID requires information in new areas such as physical units of assets, information on the ATM systems in place at ACC operational units and more detailed data on staff and working-hours. These new features of the SID allow for improved insights into many area of performance. Figure 1.1 indicates that the timeliness of submissions has continued to improve since by 15 July 2009 the PRU had received 26 out of 37 ACE data submissions (compared to 25 for ACE 2008 and 22 for ACE 2007). It is important that this timely submission of ACE data is sustained and improved. The ACE benchmarking analysis must be seen as timely since several stakeholders, most notably ANSPs’ management and airspace users, have a keen interest in receiving the information in the ACE reports as early as possible. Clearly, the timescale of the ACE Benchmarking Report production is inevitably delayed if data is not submitted on time.
02-06-2010
23-06-2010
15-07-2010
05-08-2010
27-08-2010
17-09-2010
09-10-2010
UkS
AT
SE
Au
stro
Co
ntro
lR
OM
AT
SA
NA
VIA
IRS
kygu
ide
LFV
/AN
S S
wed
enF
ina
via
NA
V P
ortu
gal
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
Slo
veni
a C
ont
rol
Cro
atia
Co
ntro
lA
NS
CR
MU
AC
Oro
Na
viga
cija
DH
MI
DF
S
PA
NS
AA
ena
LP
S
NA
TS
LVN
LLG
S
AT
SA
Bu
lga
riaN
AT
A A
lban
iaE
NA
V
SM
AT
SA
MA
TS
Hun
gar
oCo
ntro
lD
SN
A
M-N
AV
EA
NS
HC
AA
Be
lgoc
ont
rol
IAA
Mol
dAT
SA
AR
MA
TS
Avi
nor
AC
E2
009
da
ta p
rovi
ded
on
:
02-06-2009
23-06-2009
15-07-2009
05-08-2009
27-08-2009
17-09-2009
09-10-2009
AC
E2
008
da
ta p
rovi
ded
on
:
Submission of ACE2009 data Submission of ACE2008 data
Figure 1.1: Progress with submission of 2009 data 5 This includes the second package of SES regulations (EC No 1070/2009), the performance scheme regulation (EC No 691/2010) and the amended charging scheme regulation (EC No 1191/2010). 6 The column 'Delegated ATM' in Table 1.1 relates to the delegation of ATM services to other ANSPs, based on financial agreements.
Introduction ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
5
The general and gradual improvement in the quality and the timing of the ACE data submission is marred by some problems relating to individual ANSPs. For instance, HCAA provided a timely submission of ACE 2009 data, however little progress has been made in terms of data quality and quantity. Since 2002, HCAA has never been in a position to provide the value of ANS-related assets, although capital-related costs are charged to airspace users. Similarly, the quality of the operational data provided by HCAA (in particular staff numbers and working hours) is not satisfactory. This issue with HCAA is of particular concern and the implementation of adequate data submission processes by HCAA would greatly contribute to improve the quality and the quantity of the information provided.
1.4 Data validation, processing and reporting
The PRU is supported by an ACE Working Group (WG), including regulatory authorities, ANSPs and airspace users’ representatives. The process leading to the production of the ACE report, which comprises data validation, analysis and consultation, is summarised in Figure 1.2 below.
• Validation against: • previous data• CRCO data• Annual Reports
• Consultation of ANSPs for data clarification purposes
2009 Data files from ANSPs
(July 2010)
Data validation and processing
Submission to PRC
(May 2011)
First draft of ACE report
(December 2010)
ACE consultation meetings and
comments on draft report
EUROCONTROL/ PRU 2011
Three weeks period for written
consultation
Second draft of ACE report
(March 2011)
Final ACE report
(June 2011)
Figure 1.2: Data validation, processing and reporting
In order to ensure comparability among ANSPs and quality of analysis, the information submitted by the ANSPs is subject by the PRU to a thorough data validation process which makes extensive use of ANSPs’ Annual Reports and of their statutory financial accounts. During this validation process a number of issues emerged:
• Annual Reports with disclosure of financial accounts are not available for some ANSPs (see Section 1.5 below). This removes one means of validating the financial data submitted;
• ANSPs which are involved in non-ANS activities (such as airport ownership and management, see Table 1.1) do not necessarily disclose separate accounts for their ANS and non-ANS activities. This means that the financial data submitted for the ANS activities cannot be validated with the information provided in the Annual Report;
• Except for a few ANSPs, Annual Reports do not disclose the separate costs for the various segments of ANS (such as en-route and terminal ANS) which means that the cost breakdown submitted cannot be validated.
As ANSPs progressively comply with the SES Regulation on Service Provision, which requires publication of Annual Reports including statutory accounts, and separation of ANS from non-ANS activity in ANSPs internal accounts, some of these shortcomings are expected to be gradually overcome (see also Section 1.5 below). In most cases, CFMU data have been used as the basis for the output metrics used in the ACE data analysis, and this practice has been generally accepted, including in cases
Introduction ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
6
where in previous years there had been discrepancies. However, for Estonia (EANS) and Latvia7 (LGS), who are not part of the CFMU area, the output metrics used in this report are based on their own traffic data.
1.5 ANSPs’ Annual Reports
ANSPs’ Annual Reports provide a valuable means of validating the 2009 information disclosure data. The SES Service Provision Regulation (SPR) (EC No 550/2004) came into force on 20 April 2004 and is applicable to 2009 Financial Accounts in all EU Member States (plus Switzerland and Norway) and to associated ANSPs. This Regulation is also applicable to States which have signed the ECAA Agreement (see Section 1.2), although the timing of its implementation is not yet decided for individual States. Among other provisions, the SPR requires that ANSPs meet certain standards of information disclosure (transparency) and reporting, and in particular that:
• ANSPs should draw up, submit to audit and publish their Financial Accounts (Art.12.1);
• in all cases, ANSPs should publish an Annual Report and regularly undergo an independent audit (Art 12.2);
• ANSPs should, in their internal accounting, identify the relevant costs and income for ANS broken down in accordance with EUROCONTROL’s principles for establishing the cost-base for route facility charges and the calculation of unit rates and, where appropriate, shall keep consolidated accounts for other, non-air navigation services, as they would be required to do if the services in question were provided by separate undertakings (Art 12.3). The latter requirement is particularly relevant for the ANSPs which are part of an organisation which owns, manages and operates airports, such as Aena8, LFV9, Avinor, Finavia10, HCAA, and DHMI11.
Figure 1.3 displays the status of ANSPs 2009 Annual Reports and indicates that 32 out of 37 participating ANSPs have published an Annual Report for the year 2009.
7 Latvia is part of the CFMU area as of 1st January 2011. 8 In 2011, Aena went through a restructuration process relating to the separation of the airport division of Aena (creation of a new company Aena Aeropuertos S.A.) from the ANS department. 9, 10 For these two organisations, in 2010 the ANS division will be split from the airport division, and will operate as separate companies. 11 Although it should be noted that DHMI is not covered by the SES Regulations. 12 From 2007 onwards, this has been the case for the German ANSP, DFS, whose cost base includes costs recognised only since the conversion to IFRS. These costs, mainly due to the revaluation of DFS pension obligations, have been spread over a period of 15 years.
Introduction ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
7
It is generally considered that an Annual Report produced according to “best practice” should comprise three main components:
• a Management Report;
• Annual Financial Accounts with relevant business segmentation and explanatory notes; and,
• an independent Audit Report. Five ANSPs (including two which are subject to SES Regulations – namely HCAA and DCAC Cyprus) have not published Annual Reports for 2009.
DCAC Cyprus *
HCAA *
M-NAV**
MoldATSA
ARMATS
Aena*
BULATSA*
ANS CR*
Austro Control*
Avinor*
Croatia Control**
Belgocontrol*
DFS*
DHMI
DSNA*
EANS*
ENAV*
Finavia*
LVNL*
MATS*
NAVIAIR*
IAA*
HungaroControl*
LGS*
LPS*
LFV*
MUAC*
NATA Albania**
NAV Portugal*
PANSA*
ROMATSA*
Slovenia Control*
SMATSA**
UkSATSE
Oro Nav.*
NATS*
Skyguide*
2009 Annual Report notpublicly available
2009 Annual Report publicly available
Separate disclosure of revenues and costs for en-route and terminal ANS
* ANSPs covered by the SES Regulations
** ANSPs operating in States member of ECAA
Figure 1.3: Status of 2009 Annual Reports
ANSPs’ Annual Accounts are drafted in accordance with specific accounting principles. Often, (national) General Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) are used. In the context of the SES, Article 12 of the SPR prescribes that ANSPs Annual Accounts shall comply, to the maximum extent possible, with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Table 1.2 shows the ANSPs whose 2009 Annual Accounts were partly or fully prepared according to IFRS.
ANSPs reporting according to IFRS in 2009
Aena ARMATS ANS CR BULATSA Austro Control Avinor Croatia Control DFS EANS LGS LPS
LVNL MATS NATA Albania NATS NAVIAIR Oro Navigacija PANSA ROMATSA Skyguide
Table 1.2: IFRS reporting status
It should be noted that in some cases, the implementation of IFRS may have a significant impact on an ANSPs’ cost base12 (such as different treatment of costs related to the pension scheme, and changes in depreciation rules), hence the importance to identify and understand the impact of changes in the accounting principles used to draw the financial accounts.
Introduction ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
8
1.6 A new EU regulatory environment for ANS performance
As part of the SES II package adopted in 2009 (EC N°1070/2009), a stronger framework on performance has been implemented (see Figure 1.4 below). Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 laying down a performance scheme (see yellow box in Figure 1.4) entered into force on 23 August 2010. This marked the start of the implementation of the performance scheme, and in particular preparation for the first reference period (RP1) that runs for three years from 2012 to 2014.
SES II packageSES II package
Performance Safety
Performance
scheme
FABs
R&D
SESAR
Network Mgt&
Design (NMD)
EASA+
ATM, airports
Airports
Airport
Observatory
SES II packageSES II package
Performance Safety
Performance
scheme
FABs
R&D
SESAR
Network Mgt&
Design (NMD)
EASA+
ATM, airports
Airports
Airport
Observatory
Figure 1.4: SES II pillars
The SES Performance Scheme includes EU-wide targets for Safety, Cost-Efficiency, Capacity and Environment which are transposed into binding national/FAB targets for which clear accountabilities must be assigned within national/FAB performance plans. The PRB published recommendations for EU-wide targets, following extensive public consultation, on the 27th September 2010. EU-wide targets for Cost-Efficiency, Capacity and Environment were adopted by the EC on 3rd December 2010 for RP1 (2012-2014).
Safety During RP1, States have to monitor and publish the following Safety KPIs:
1) Effectiveness of safety management; 2) Application of the harmonised severity
classification in reporting of:
• Separation minima infringements;
• Runway incursions;
• ATM special technical events; 3) Reporting of Just Culture.
Environment
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
-0.75% points
vs. 2009
Actual baseline
Prior enhancement plans (-0.6% points vs. 2009)
EU-wide target
% of horizontal en route extension
Capacity
0,0
0,3
0,5
0,8
1,0
1,3
1,5
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
0.5 min
Current capacity planning
Current EUROCONTROL target
En route ATFM delay per flight (min.)
Actual baseline
EU-wide target
Cost-Efficiency
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Determined unit rate (State plans Nov. 2010)
Adjustment with one-off effect for EUROCONTROL cost base in 2011
EU-wide target
€53.92 per SU
€ per service unit (2009 prices)
Actual baseline
Figure 1.5: EU-wide targets adopted on 3rd December 2010 for RP1 (2012-2014)
The ACE factual and independent benchmarking has set the foundation for a normative analysis to quantify the potential scope of cost-efficiency improvements for ANSPs and has been one of the main inputs considered for determining the EU-wide Cost-Efficiency target. The ACE data analysis will also have a significant role in the context of the assessment of national performance plans that will be carried out by the PRB during the Summer 2011.
Part I: European ANS data and introduction to ANSP benchmarking 2009 Benchmarking Report
9
PART I: EUROPEAN ANS DATA AND INTRODUCTION TO ANSP BENCHMARKING
Part I: European ANS data and introduction to ANSP benchmarking 2009 Benchmarking Report
10
European ANS System Data ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
11
2 EUROPEAN ANS SYSTEM DATA
This chapter provides aggregate information on the European ANS system13 reported, in compliance with the SID for the year 2009.
2.1 Coverage of the ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
This ACE Report includes all EUROCONTROL Member States as of 1 January 2009, with one exception: Bosnia & Herzegovina14, for which information was not requested. It includes the ANSPs of two Baltic States (Estonia and Latvia15), which provided information on a voluntary basis and the Armenian ANSP, ARMATS, which was “integrated” into the Multilateral Route Charges System as from January 2009. For the purpose of this report, oceanic airspace was excluded. The geographical area covered by the information disclosed is shown in Figure 2.1.
Lower Airspace
Figure 2.1: Geographic coverage of the ACE 2009 data analysis
Over the last five years, the ACE Report has provided increasing coverage of the ANS system. The ACE 2005 data analysis included 35 ANSPs. In ACE 2006, one more ANSP (SMATSA) started to participate, and for ACE 2009 the number of ANSPs included in the ACE data analysis increased to 37 with the addition of ARMATS.
2.2 European ANS system data for the years 2008 and 2009
Table 2.1 below comprises high level data for the European ANS system in 2009 and compares this information with the data provided in ACE 200816.
The economic downturn which became apparent in the last quarter of 2008 has affected the aviation community throughout 2009 with an unprecedented severity. This is reflected in Table 2.1 which indicates that at European system level traffic volumes significantly decreased by some -6.6% between 2008 and 2009. As a consequence, in 2009 ANS revenues fell by -3.4% in real terms. On the other hand, gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs slightly increased (+1.4%) in 2009. This rise was equally driven by an increase of en-route costs (+1.4%) and terminal costs (+1.5%) compared to 2008. 13 For the purpose of this report, the “European ANS system” includes all 37 ANSPs that submitted data following the requirement from Decision No. 88 of the Permanent Commission of EUROCONTROL. 14 Although Bosnia & Herzegovina (BIH) has been a EUROCONTROL Member State since 1 March 2004, its ANSP (BHANSA) was not requested to report data according to the SID, since the area control services in BIH’s airspace are provided by Croatia Control and SMATSA. It should be noted that BHANSA will start to provide area control services in BIH’s airspace gradually from the last quarter of 2011 to the beginning of 2012. As a result, the PRU expects that BHANSA starts providing data according to the SID by 2013 (ACE 2012). 15 Latvia is expected to be a EUROCONTROL Member State as of 2011. 16 Note that for consistency purposes, the changes between 2008 and 2009 have been computed for the 36 ANSPs that consistently reported 2008 and 2009 data.
European ANS System Data ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
12
In 2009, for the 36 ANSPs that consistently reported in ACE 2007 and ACE 2008, MET costs and EUROCONTROL Agency costs rose by +2.0%. Total gate-to-gate ANS staff slightly decreased by -0.8%, but the number of ATCOs in OPS increased by +0.8%. Finally, as expected in a context of significant traffic decrease, gate-to-gate ATFM delays greater than 15 minutes significantly fell by -35.5%. Taking into account a -6.6% traffic decrease, this corresponds to a traffic/delay elasticity of about 5. 2008 2009 08/09
36 ANSPs 37 ANSPs 36 ANSPs
7 977 7 712 -3.4%
En-route ANS revenues 6 327 6 116 -3.4% Terminal ANS revenues 1 651 1 596 -3.6%
8 512 8 627 1.3% ATM/CNS provision costs 7 470 7 580 1.4% MET costs 414 422 2.0% EUROCONTROL Agency costs 515 525 2.0% Payment to national authorities and irrecoverable VAT 113 100 -12.0%
7 470 7 580 1.4% En-route ATM/CNS costs 5 719 5 800 1.4% Terminal ATM/CNS costs 1 751 1 780 1.5%
57 443 57 500 -0.8%ATCOs in OPS 16 607 16 837 0.8%
ACC ATCOs 9 436 9 621 1.6%APPs + TWRs ATCOs 7 171 7 217 -0.2%
6 967 7 316 4.9%
1 165 1 275 9.4%
Distance controlled (km) 10 115 9 491 -6.3%Total flight-hours controlled 14.5 13.6 -6.6%ACC flight-hours controlled 12.8 11.9 -6.9%IFR airport movements controlled 15.9 14.8 -7.4%IFR flights controlled 10.1 9.4 -6.6%
Gate-to-gate ATFM delays > 15 min. ('000 min.) 18 823 12 147 -35.5%
Gate-to-gate ANS staff:
NBV of gate-to-gate fixed assets (in € M)
Gate-to-gate capex (in € M)
Outputs (in M)
Gate-to-gate ANS revenues (not adjusted by over/under recoveries) (in € M):
Gate-to-gate ANS costs (in € M):
Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs (in € M):
Table 2.1: High level data for the European ANS system for 2008 and 2009 (real terms)
2.3 System outputs
In 2009, European ATC operational units controlled 13.6M flight-hours over a total distance of 9 491M kilometres. The various TWR units handled 14.8M IFR airport movements and 3.7M VFR airport movements. In ACE 2001 (Chapter 4) the concept of “composite flight-hours” was introduced, to reflect the fact that the service provided by ANSPs is “gate-to-gate” and that difference in the boundaries used by different ANSPs between terminal and en-route ANS could distort the picture obtained if they were considered individually. Composite gate-to-gate flight-hours were defined as en-route flight-hours plus IFR airport movements weighted by a factor that reflected the relative (monetary) importance of terminal and en-route costs in the cost base. Details of the calculation are shown in Annex 2, and the definition is:
Composite gate-to-gate flight-hours = (en-route flight-hours) + (0.26 x IFR airport movements)
European ANS System Data ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
13
According to this definition, the total number of composite flight-hours for the European system in 2009 is 17.4M. The average weighting factor (0.26) is based on the total monetary value of the outputs over the 2002-2009 period. En-route flight-hours are computed from the flight plans provided by airspace users to the EUROCONTROL CFMU (so-called “CFMU Model III17”). En-route flight-hours comprise the number of flight-hours controlled by ACCs and APPs operational units18. Similarly, the number of IFR airport movements controlled by the TWRs operational units is used as the output measure for terminal ANS.
2.4 ANS revenues
Total ANS revenues in 2009 were €7 712M. This is slightly higher than the combined revenues of Europe’s three largest airport operators (BAA, AdP and Fraport), which amounted to €6.6B.
The breakdown of ANS revenues is shown in Figure 2.2. The main share (79.3%) was collected for en-route ANS services and the remainder (20.7%) for terminal services. Overall, this share has remained fairly stable between 2005 and 2009. However, marginal changes are expected in the forthcoming years with the progressive adoption of the Common Charging Scheme Regulation (EC No. 1794/2006), which inter alia, will harmonize the computation of the terminal service units and will enhance the transparency on the financing of terminal ANS.
Almost all en-route revenue comes from the collection of charges (96.0%, see left pie chart). The proportion is lower for terminal revenue (71.6%, see right pie chart), as additional income may directly come from airport operators (17.6% e.g. through a contractual arrangement between the ANSP and the airport operator) much of which is subsequently recovered from airspace users and passengers.
Terminal20.7%
En-route79.3%
Income in respect of exempted
flights1.3%
Income from domestic
government0.8%
Financial income1.1%
Income from the military
0.02%
Other income (incl.
exceptional revenue item)
0.8%
Income from charges 96.0%
Income in respect of
exempted flights4.1%
Income from the military0.02%
Income from airport operators
17.6%
Income from domestic
government2.7%
Financial income1.6%
Other income (incl. exceptional
revenue item)2.4%
Income from charges 71.6%
Total en-route revenue: Gate-to-gate ANS revenue: Total terminal revenue:
€ 6 116 M € 7 712 M € 1 596 M
En-route % Gate-to-gate revenues (€ M) Terminal %5 871 96.0% Income from charges 1 142 71.6%
n.a. n.a. Income from airport operators 282 17.6%1.2 0.02% Income from the military 0.4 0.02%
80.7 1.3% Income in respect of exempted flights 65 4.1%48.1 0.8% Income from domestic government 43 2.7%67.6 1.1% Financial income 26 1.6%
47 0.8% Other income (incl. exceptional revenue item) 38 2.4%6 116 100.0% 1 596 100.0%
Figure 2.2: Breakdown of gate-to-gate ANS revenues in 2009
17 In the CFMU Model III, the flight plan is updated with the actual position of the flight, when a given threshold of lateral, horizontal and time deviations are observed. It is therefore not as accurate as radar tracks, but is nevertheless fairly close to actual trajectories. 18 Since 2007, en-route flight-hours include time spent in Terminal Manoeuvring Areas (TMAs) and therefore account for airborne holdings.
European ANS System Data ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
14
2.5 ANS costs
Total ANS costs for the European system amounted to €8 627M in 2009, comprising the following five cost categories19 (see Figure 2.3):
• ATM/CNS provision costs20 (including MUAC21);
• aeronautical Meteorological costs (MET)22;
• EUROCONTROL costs23;
• payments for regulatory and supervisory services; and,
• payments to governmental authorities (e.g. for the use of government-owned assets).
Around 88% of the total costs relates to the provision of ATM/CNS, and is under the direct control and responsibility of the ANSP. These ATM/CNS provision costs amounted to €7 580M in 2009, and form the basis for the analysis of ATM cost-effectiveness in Parts II, III, and IV of this report.
Total ANS costs
€ 8 627 M € 7 580 M
Gate-to-gate ANS costs (€ M) 2009 % totalATM/CNS provision costs (including AIS & SAR) 7 580 87.9%MET costs 422 4.9%EUROCONTROL costs 525 6.1%Payment for regulatory and supervisory services 80 0.9%Payment to governmental authorities and irrecoverable VAT 20 0.2%Gate-to-gate ANS costs 8 627 100.0%
Total ATM/CNS provision costs
4.9%
6.1%0.9%
0.2%87.9%
EUROCONTROLcosts
Payments togovernmentalauthorities and irrecoverable
VAT
MET costs
ATM/CNS provision costs
Payments for regulatory and
supervisory services
En-route ATM/CNS
costs78%
Terminal ATM/CNS
costs22%
Figure 2.3: Breakdown of total ANS costs at system level in 2009
ATM/CNS provision costs can be further broken down into the following cost types24:
• staff costs, comprising:
19 Detailed definitions of these costs are given in the SID. 20 The costs of providing ATM services and the Communication, Navigation and Surveillance infrastructure. For the purpose of this report this includes the costs for Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) and, if any, Search and Rescue Services (SAR). 21 Costs for MUAC are included in the ATM/CNS costs in Figure 2.3 as MUAC is an operational ANSP in its own right and therefore included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. 22 Including MET costs reported by the UK and Danish CAAs. 23 Excluding MUAC, CEATS, and CRCO administrative costs. 24 Detailed definitions of these costs are given in the SID.
European ANS System Data ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
15
o employment costs for ATCOs in OPS;
o employment costs for all other staff;
• non-staff operating costs (e.g. rentals, energy, telecom, insurance, outsourced maintenance);
• capital-related costs comprising:
o depreciation;
o the cost of capital;
• exceptional items.
The distribution of costs between these categories is shown in Figure 2.4 below. Staff costs are the main element of costs, followed by direct operating costs, depreciation costs and cost of capital.
At European system level, operating costs (including staff costs, non-staff operating costs and exceptional cost items) account for some 82% of total ATM/CNS provision costs, and capital-related costs (cost of capital and depreciation) amount to some 18%.
Total ATM/CNS provisioncosts: € 7 580 M
ATM/CNS provision costs (€ M) En-route % Terminal % Gate-to-gate %Staff costs 3 601 62.1% 1 165 65.5% 4 766 62.9%
ATCOs in OPS employment costs n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2 360 -Other staff employment costs n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2 406 -
Non-staff operating costs 1 039 17.9% 301 16.9% 1 340 17.7%Depreciation costs 691 11.9% 195 10.9% 885 11.7%Cost of capital 376 6.5% 94 5.3% 470 6.2%Exceptional Items 93 1.6% 25 1.4% 118 1.6%Total 5 800 100.0% 1 780 100.0% 7 580 100.0%
50%
50%
Exceptional Items1.6%
Cost of capital6.2%
Staff costs62.9%Non-staff
operating costs17.7%
Depreciation costs11.7%
ATCOs in OPS employment costs
Other staff employment costs
Figure 2.4: Breakdown of European ATM/CNS provision costs in 2009
2.6 Assets, liabilities and capital expenditures
For the comparison of ATM performance across ANSPs, only the capital employed by the ANSPs which is directly related to the provision of en-route and terminal ANS should be used. Therefore, in this report assets relating to ANS activities reported under the “Other ANS” column of the SID (such as Oceanic and OAT), have been excluded. The disclosure of consistent and reliable ANS assets and liabilities data is proving particularly difficult for ANSPs which are part of an organisation which owns, manages and operates airports. However, the more extensive disclosure of balance sheet information required by the SID V2.6 has allowed a more comprehensive and consistent picture of ANSPs assets and liabilities to be developed.
European ANS System Data ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
16
In ANSPs’ balance sheets, assets comprise:
• the net book value (NBV) of fixed assets both in operation25 and under construction;
• current assets, comprising principally stock, cash and debtors; and,
• long-term financial assets, including investments in other companies, and investments required to cover provisions for pensions.
The liabilities (which must be numerically equal to the assets), comprise:
• capital and reserves – the equity in the organisation, including both shareholders’ funds and the accumulated retained profit;
• current liabilities, comprising creditors, short-term loans and provisions; and
• long-term liabilities, comprising long-term loans, and provisions for pensions and other long-term liabilities.
The total NBV of the fixed assets used by the European ANSPs to provide ATM/CNS is valued at some €7 316M26, which means that overall for the ANS industry €0.95 of capital is required to generate €1 of revenue, an indication of capital intensity (this ratio is about 2 for airlines and about 3 for main airports operators). Figure 2.5 shows the breakdown of the balance sheet for European ANS, both assets and liabilities.
ANSPs asset structure ANSPs capital & liability structure
ANSP Fixed Asset Structure (€ M)Gate-to-gate
ANSTotal NBV fixed assets in operation 5 735
Land & Buildings 2 073Systems & Equipments 2 998Intangible assets 664
Total NBV fixed assets under construction 1 581Land & Buildings 236Systems & Equipments 1 001Intangible assets 345
Total NBV of fixed assets 7 316
Current liabilities
18%
Long-term
liabilities38%
Capital and
reserves44%
NBV fixed assets in operation
49%
NBV fixed assets under construction
14%Long-term financial assets
7%
Current assets30%
Figure 2.5: ANSP assets and liabilities structure, 2009
Asset values comprise chiefly fixed assets (63%) either already in operation (49%) or under construction (14%). Current assets amount to 30% and long-term financial assets
25 The NBV is the value of the asset net of cumulative depreciation. 26 Note that this figure exclusively relates to assets booked in ANSPs accounts. Assets owned by MET service providers and NSAs are not included.
European ANS System Data ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
17
represent 7% of the total. The liability side of the balance-sheet comprises capital and reserves (44%), long-term liabilities (38%) and current liabilities (18%). The ANSPs’ equity at European system level substantially exceeds their long-term debt, although this is an area where there is a great variance across ANSPs. Understanding the main drivers for the differences in the equity/long-term debt ratio across ANSPs would require further investigation. The ratio of current assets to current liabilities is commonly known as “current ratio” and it is used to measure the “liquidity” risk. Therefore, it indicates the capability to cover the current debt by only employing “liquid” resources. For instance, its value at ANSPs’ European system level was some 1.7 at the end of 2009 despite the severe traffic downturn which hit the system over the course of the year. This is a high value if we consider that, on average, ANSPs would be able to cover up to 170% of their current debt by only using their liquid assets. Even when using a more stringent measure of liquidity, such as the “quick ratio” (retaining only debtors and cash assets instead of all current assets) the value is 1.2. In this case, it indicates that, on average, ANSPs would be able to pay 120% of their current debt by only using their most “liquid” assets.
Figure 2.6 shows the breakdown of 2009 capital expenditure (capex) between Land & Building, Systems & Equipments and intangible assets. At European system level, the capex for ANS amounted to €1 275M in 2009. The asset structure of ANSPs, the changes in NBV of fixed assets in operation and under construction, and the planned capex are analysed in more detail for each ANSP in Part IV of this Report.
Total gate-to-gate capex: € 1 275 M
Capex for Land &
Buildings assets18%
Capex for Systems & Equipments
assets63%
Capex for intangible
assets19%
Figure 2.6: ANSP capex structure, 2009
Similarly to last year, data concerning the physical numbers of surveillance and navigation assets have been collected. The 37 ANSPs were responsible for 208 primary radars, and 331 secondary surveillance radars (SSRs), Mode S and MSSR, many of which were co-located with primary radars. This amounts to 25 SSRs per million km2. Densities of SSRs tend to be low (less than 20) in peripheral areas of Europe (although in some cases this is inevitable as the areas include major areas of sea), and higher in the core area. A rather similar pattern is observed with different types of navaids. On average, there were some 82 DMEs and 50 VORs per million km2, with in general lower values observed in peripheral areas of Europe. Note that in the table below, no SSRs are displayed for MUAC which uses the CNS infrastructure made available by the four States contributing to MUAC budget (see lower airspace map).
European ANS System Data ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
18
Surveillance and navigation aids physical assets 2009Primary radar only 40Primary radar co-located with Mode S 61Primary radar co-located with MSSR 107MSSR only 163Surface movement radars 91ADS-B ground stations 67Wheather radars 48Other surveillance assets 65Distance measuring equipment (DME) 1 072Non-directional beacons (NDBs) 890Very high frequency omni-directional ranges (VORs) 658Runway ends with ILS 539Other navaids assets 305
Lower Airspace
Number of SSR per million Km²
<= 20
> 20
> 40
> 60
> 80
No SSR
Figure 2.7: Surveillance and navigation aids physical assets, 2009
2.7 Staff
ANSPs are required to disclose information about a number of staff categories27. The staff numbers are reported as Full Time Equivalents (FTEs).
The 37 European ANSPs, including MUAC, employed 57 500 staff28 in 2009. Of these, some 48% are directly involved in operations (blue colours in Figure 2.8 below).
The largest share (29%) relates to air traffic controllers working on operational duty (ATCOs in OPS). Some 57% of ATCOs in OPS work in ACCs and some 43% in APP and TWR operational units, as illustrated in Figure 2.8 below.
Staff 2009 % totalNumber of ANSPs 37ATCOs in OPS: 16 837 29.3% ACC ATCOs in OPS 9 621 57.1% APPs + TWRs ATCOs in OPS 7 217 42.9%ATCOs on other duties 2 293 4.0%Ab-initio trainees 1 090 1.9%On-the-job trainees 1 107 1.9%ATC assistants 2 539 4.4%OPS-Support 3 624 6.3%Technical support staff for maintenance 11 850 20.6%Technical support staff for planning & development 2 796 4.9%Administration 8 693 15.1%Staff for ancillary services 3 259 5.7%Other 3 411 5.9%Gate-to-gate ANS Staff 57 500 100%
57%
43%Technical
support staff for
maintenance21%
Technical support staff
for planning & development
5%
OPS-Support6% ATC
assistants4%
On-the-job trainees
2%
ATCOs on other duties
4%Ab-initio trainees
2%
Admin.15%
Staff for ancillary services
6%
ATCOs in OPS29%
Other6%
APPs + TWRs ATCOs in OPS
ACC ATCOs in OPS
Figure 2.8: Breakdown of European ANS system staff in 2009
27 Precise definitions of the categories can be found in the SID - see footnote 19. 28 This excludes EUROCONTROL Agency staff other than MUAC.
European ANS System Data ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
19
In addition to operational duties, some 2 293 FTE ATCOs (4.0% of the total workforce) participate in activities outside the operations room (such as providing training, or working on special projects) which are not directly related to the active control of traffic.
The second and third largest categories are technical support staff for maintenance (20.6%) and administration staff (15.1%) (see Figure 2.8 above).
For the purpose of this report, “support staff” are defined as staff who are not ATCOs in OPS, and the “support staff ratio” is defined as:
Total Staff 57 500Total ATCOs in OPS 16 837
3.4Support Staff Ratio = = =
That means that for every ATCO in OPS there are 2.4 additional staff needed for support. This is slightly higher than in 2005 where 2.3 additional staff for support were required for each ATCO employed in OPS.
European ANS System Data ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
20
Factors affecting performance 21 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
3 FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE
3.1 Introduction
The ACE benchmarking programme has the objective of comparing ATM cost-effectiveness performance across a wide range of ANSPs. The major focus of this report is to examine and analyse the quantitative facts about the observed performance of the ANSPs. The bulk of this and previous ACE reports has been devoted to this factual benchmarking of ANSP outputs and costs. This factual analysis provides a comprehensive description and comparison of performance as viewed by the users of ATM/CNS services. However, such a factual analysis cannot be either a complete explanation of performance differences between ANSPs, or an exhaustive guide on how performance can be improved, without some complementary consideration of how differences in performance arose. This is particularly true in the present context. Indeed, the second SES legislative package, enacted in September 200929, requires that ANSP performance be subject to quantified target setting. This chapter is structured as follows:
• Section 3.2 provides a comprehensive description of the factors that could possibly affect cost-effectiveness performance.
• Section 3.3 presents in further details factors that are measured by the PRU.
• Section 3.4 is an attempt to make a preliminary and a priori assessment of the magnitude and the direction of the possible impact of these factors through an econometric analysis.
The proposed framework is not at this stage intended to be applied quantitatively, rather it should be seen as an instrument contributing to establish a better understanding of differences in performance. In general terms, it is difficult to identify a full set of factors which may significantly impact on the performance. However, it is likely that many of the factors, even when recognised, may be impossible to reliably measure or quantify; others may be even difficult to observe. The factual analysis presented in Part II, Part III and Part IV of this report does not explicitly account for these factors; the results presented in those sections should therefore be viewed in the context of this chapter.
3.2 Framework for factors affecting performance
Figure 3.1 below illustrates the important distinction between exogenous and endogenous influences on ANSP performance. The framework presented in Figure 3.1, and the discussion in the chapter, focuses on cost-effectiveness performance, although a similar analytical framework could equally be applied to other performance areas.
29 Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009.
Factors affecting performance 22 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ANSP performance
ANSP performance
Legal & socio-economic conditions
Legal & socio-economic conditions
Operational conditions
Operational conditions
Factors outside direct ANSP
control
Factors outside ANSP control but under
influence of State and international institutions
National and international institutional & governance
arrangements
National and international institutional & governance
arrangements
Organisational factors
Organisational factors
Managerial and financial
aspects
Managerial and financial
aspects
Operational and technical
setup
Operational and technical
setup
Factors under direct ANSP
control
ANSP performance
ANSP performance
Legal & socio-economic conditions
Legal & socio-economic conditions
Operational conditions
Operational conditions
Factors outside direct ANSP
control
Factors outside ANSP control but under
influence of State and international institutions
National and international institutional & governance
arrangements
National and international institutional & governance
arrangements
Organisational factors
Organisational factors
Managerial and financial
aspects
Managerial and financial
aspects
Operational and technical
setup
Operational and technical
setup
Factors under direct ANSP
control
Figure 3.1: Factors affecting cost-effectiveness performance
Exogenous factors are those outside the control of an ANSP; endogenous factors are those entirely under the ANSP’s control. Fair benchmarking of ANSP performance needs to recognise the impact of exogenous factors. Effective target-setting will need to account for exogenous factors to the maximum extent possible, while encouraging the optimisation of endogenous factors through the recognition and movement towards best practice. Exogenous factors can influence endogenous factors. For example, ANSP’s organisational and management decisions are to some extent influenced by its institutional, legal and socio-economic environment.
3.2.1 Exogenous factors
Exogenous factors arise from the basic conditions in which an ANSP operates, these can differ from one country to another. Exogenous factors are likely to influence the way ANSPs organise and conduct their business. In some cases they may also affect the way an ANSP manages costs and determines the level of charges. Exogenous factors cover a spectrum of observability and measurability. At one extreme, the impact of irrecoverable VAT on inputs, which differs from state to state, is readily quantified. It has a direct impact on apparent performance which can be perfectly adjusted for. At an intermediate level there are factors for which it is possible to derive metrics (for instance, traffic complexity, market wage rates, and exchange rate volatility). However, it is difficult to specify exactly how such factors might affect performance. Even more difficult to take into account are factors such as political influence (and interference) on ANS provision. Finally, there will inevitably be exogenous factors that are simply impossible to identify, although they are no less real than the other factors discussed. Exogenous factors need, as far as possible to be taken into account both in achieving fair benchmarking, and in effective target setting:
• local differences in exogenous factors can either create a direct advantage or a direct burden on performance;
• local institutional and governance arrangements may have been set with the specific purpose of creating incentives to follow performance-driven strategies.
Factors affecting performance 23 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Capturing the local impact of an exogenous factor on ANSPs performance is not a straightforward exercise. First, there is no guarantee that a given exogenous factor will affect all ANSPs in the same manner. It is possible that similar conditions could create effects working in opposite direction (bringing both benefits and difficulties). Secondly, similar exogenous factors may not necessarily affect different ANSPs to the same degree, either because of endogenous factors relating to how an issue is managed, or because of other exogenous factors constraining an ANSP’s response. So a given factor might create a small burden in one ANSP, while affecting another more seriously. In Figure 3.1, exogenous factors that could have an impact on performance have been classified into two main areas (top and central set of factors in Figure 3.1), according to which decision-makers have an influence over them. The top set, comprising legal and socio-economic conditions, and operational conditions, are affected by decision makers and conditions outside aviation policy-making. The central set, comprising institutional and governance arrangements, are exogenous to the ANSP but are influenced by aviation sector policy decisions. The legal and socio-economic conditions prevailing in individual countries are affected by national policy-makers at a more general level (for example taxation policy), or by national and international macro-economic conditions. Major examples include the prevailing national wage rates, and levels and systems of taxation. Some examples that affect ATM cost-effectiveness performance are illustrated in Figure 3.2.
Legal & socio-economic conditions, including:
Overall business & economic environment• Exchange & inflation rates• Cost of living & market wage rates• Political factors• Taxes on turnover or profit• Accounting standards
General labour law and rules governing industrial relations• Working hours• Retirement age• Social security and pensions
Value Added Tax application
Legal & socio-economic conditions, including:
Overall business & economic environment• Exchange & inflation rates• Cost of living & market wage rates• Political factors• Taxes on turnover or profit• Accounting standards
General labour law and rules governing industrial relations• Working hours• Retirement age• Social security and pensions
Value Added Tax application
Figure 3.2: Legal & socio-economic conditions
The operational conditions, such as the traffic patterns the ANSP has to deal with, are determined by decisions made by airports, airlines, and especially, flying travellers. Operational conditions include a number of factors, summarised in Figure 3.3. Operational conditions undoubtedly have a direct impact on cost-effectiveness performance, although the extent and magnitude of the impact is not straightforward to isolate.
Operational conditions, including:
Size of the ANSP Traffic complexity
• Density of traffic• Structural complexity • Traffic mix
Spatial and temporal traffic variability Type of airspace under ANSP responsibilityWeather
Operational conditions, including:
Size of the ANSP Traffic complexity
• Density of traffic• Structural complexity • Traffic mix
Spatial and temporal traffic variability Type of airspace under ANSP responsibilityWeather
Figure 3.3: Operational conditions
The institutional and governance arrangements for ANS in a particular country are set in place by the policies and specific aviation laws of each country. These factors are exogenous to the ANSP but decision-making concerning some of them is largely driven by national aviation policy-makers. Some of these factors relate to international requirements such as those imposed by ICAO, EUROCONTROL and the Single European Sky. These policies at State and European level are subject to changes according to the strategic objectives for the sector.
Factors affecting performance 24 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Figure 3.4 provides a list of such factors relating to:
• the way ANS is regulated;
• the institutional structure surrounding ANS, the ANSP ownership and control structure; and
• the civil/military arrangements.
National and international institutional & governance arrangements, including:
Regulatory aspects• Information disclosure & independent benchmarking• Overall policy for “market access”• Degree of economic oversight/regulation
Governance arrangements• Institutional structures• Ownership and control structures
Civil/military arrangements
National and international institutional & governance arrangements, including:
Regulatory aspects• Information disclosure & independent benchmarking• Overall policy for “market access”• Degree of economic oversight/regulation
Governance arrangements• Institutional structures• Ownership and control structures
Civil/military arrangements
Figure 3.4: Institutional & governance arrangements
It is generally considered that institutional and governance arrangements will not affect ATM cost-effectiveness directly; rather they act as influences or constraints affecting endogenous factors (such as the overall business objectives, the internal organisation, and the operational setup between civil and military).
3.2.2 Endogenous factors
In principle, once the impact of all exogenous factors has been allowed for, the remaining performance differences should comprise residual inefficiency which lowers performance below that obtained by best practice. Such residual inefficiency arises from a number of endogenous factors, under the direct control of ANSPs. A better understanding of the endogenous factors would enable some progress in the analysis of benchmarking results, in the identification of best practices, and in the process of target setting.
Endogenous factors – the way that an ANSP manages its business to optimise performance – are influenced by exogenous factors. “Best practice” in any given area will depend on the exogenous circumstances. ANSPs can take action to fully exploit the benefit of their environment or to minimise the impact of relative disadvantages. Therefore, the impact of an exogenous factor should not be analysed in isolation from an analysis of the degree to which this impact has been minimised or maximised through appropriate internal measures. Different data and methodologies from those currently used in the ACE Benchmarking Report would be required to investigate endogenous factors in more depth. This section should be seen as a guide to support qualitative judgment, with no aim at providing definite answer to what is “best practice” in any given area. Clearly, it is the responsibility of the ANSP to determine how best to respond to the local conditions. Endogenous factors fall into three groups:
• organisational factors;
• managerial and financial aspects; and,
• operational and technical setup.
Factors affecting performance 25 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Figure 3.5 lists the factors that would need to be considered in the scope of a comprehensive analysis of the impact of ANSP organisation on performance. They mainly relate to four issues which are typically addressed in the Balanced Scorecard methodology. These issues are:
• the internal organisation structure;
• the degree to which assets and activities are retained in-house;
• human resources; and
• relationship with customer. Each issue is briefly described in the paragraphs below.
Organisational factors, including:
Internal organisational structure• Degree of centralisation • Optimisation of internal processes• Corporate culture
Extent of in-house ownership and activities• Leasing, renting, owning assets• Research & development policy• Outsourcing non-core activities
Human resources• Recruitment and training• Staff/management relationships • Internal communication
Relationship with the customers • Arrangements for customer consultation• Disclosure of audited financial statements
Organisational factors, including:
Internal organisational structure• Degree of centralisation • Optimisation of internal processes• Corporate culture
Extent of in-house ownership and activities• Leasing, renting, owning assets• Research & development policy• Outsourcing non-core activities
Human resources• Recruitment and training• Staff/management relationships • Internal communication
Relationship with the customers • Arrangements for customer consultation• Disclosure of audited financial statements
Figure 3.5: Organisational factors
Not all organisational factors will directly affect cost-effectiveness; some enable or facilitate the achievement of performance when they are set in conformity with the business objectives. It is likely that no single model should constitute “best practice” in all circumstances. Figure 3.6 provides a list of factors that would need to be considered in the scope of a comprehensive examination of the influence of ANSP managerial and financial arrangements on performance. They mainly relate to the following three issues:
• the quality of management;
• the collective bargaining process; and
• financial and accounting considerations.
Managerial & financial aspects, including:
ANSP management•Top-management leadership and actions• Performance oriented management
Collective bargaining process Financial and accounting aspects
• Business planning process • Investment policy• Balance sheet structure• Depreciation policy
Managerial & financial aspects, including:
ANSP management•Top-management leadership and actions• Performance oriented management
Collective bargaining process Financial and accounting aspects
• Business planning process • Investment policy• Balance sheet structure• Depreciation policy
Figure 3.6: Managerial & financial aspects
Most of the managerial and financial aspects are expected to directly affect cost-effectiveness, since they have an impact, for example, on investment decisions, productivity and wage policies. The managerial and financial aspects are to some extent influenced by the ANSP organisational factors and by some of the exogenous factors (especially among the institutional and governance factors, and among the socio-economic factors).
Factors affecting performance 26 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Figure 3.7 provides a list of factors that would need to be considered in a comprehensive examination of the influence of ANSP operational and technical setup on performance. They mainly relate to the following three issues:
• operational structure;
• operational concepts and processes; and
• operational flexibility.
Operational & technical setup, including:
Operational organisation Operational concepts and processes
• Airspace and sector design• ASM, ATFM or ATFCM• Civil/military arrangements
Operational flexibility• ATM systems & equipments• Human/system interaction
Operational & technical setup, including:
Operational organisation Operational concepts and processes
• Airspace and sector design• ASM, ATFM or ATFCM• Civil/military arrangements
Operational flexibility• ATM systems & equipments• Human/system interaction
Figure 3.7: Operational & technical setup
The operational and technical setup of an ANSP is expected to be influenced by both exogenous factors (typically the operational environment) and other endogenous factors (such as internal organisation and investment policy). The operational and technical setup is expected to affect both labour and capital productivity and the level of support costs.
3.3 Quantification of some exogenous factors
Progress has been made in identifying ways of quantifying some exogenous factors that might have an impact on ATM performance, and the results of this analysis are shown in this report. The factors examined comprise:
• differences in prevailing wage rates between countries;
• measurements of traffic characteristics that can be classified under the general heading of “traffic complexity”; and,
• traffic variability. Employment costs constitute a major part of ANS provision costs. Staff has to be recruited in local labour markets, and therefore the prevailing wage rates, for many different grades and types of staff, will have a major influence on the overall employment costs. There are a number of ways of measuring differences in prevailing wage levels between different countries. In previous ACE reports, unit employment costs have been compared with levels of GDP per head, and with Purchasing Power Parity (PPP30) indices. To demonstrate the variability of PPP across our sample, an index has been calculated which expresses the PPP index31 relative to Ukraine =100 (Ukraine having the lowest PPP index). The interpretation of this index is that to achieve the same standard of living, earnings in Switzerland or in Denmark (using market exchange rates) will need to be some four times higher as those in Ukraine (see Figure 3.8 below).
30 PPP compares the price, in national currency, of a defined basket of goods and services, between different countries. PPP exchange rates are then the exchange rates at which the price of the basket is the same in the two countries being compared. A PPP index is the ratio of the PPP exchange rate to the market exchange rate, and a high PPP index means that the same amount of money, converted to national currency, will buy fewer goods and services. 31 UkSATSE does not agree with the value of the PPPs used for Ukraine. According to UkSATSE the real PPP in Ukraine is significantly higher than the value used in Figure 3.8. According to the information provided in the IMF database (April 2011), PPP exchange rates for Ukraine have increased from 1.678 UAH per current international Dollar in 2005 to 3.153 UAH per current international Dollar in 2009 (+88%). The current IMF PPP estimated figure for 2010 (3.549 UAH per current international Dollar) is 13% higher than in 2009. This indicates that the relative cost of living is increasing faster in Ukraine and that the difference in cost of living with the other States is reducing. See Annex 5 for further details on the PPPs indices that are used in this report.
Factors affecting performance 27 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
372
330319313
305302300299293293
267257254245240
220202201199198190186
174173165158155
132132131130125122
100
390388
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
De
nm
ark
Sw
itze
rlan
d
No
rwa
y
Fin
lan
d
Ire
lan
d
Fra
nce
Bel
gium Ital
y
Sw
ed
en
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Ge
rma
ny
Aus
tria
Sp
ain
Cyp
rus
Un
ited
Kin
gd
om
Gre
ece
Po
rtu
ga
l
Slo
ven
ia
Mal
ta
Est
onia
Cro
atia
La
tvia
Slo
vak
Re
pu
blic
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic
Hu
ng
ary
Tu
rke
y
Lith
ua
nia
Ro
ma
nia
Po
lan
d
Mo
ldo
va
Se
rbia
an
d M
on
ten
eg
ro
Alb
ania
Arm
en
ia
Bul
garia
F.Y
.R.
Ma
ced
on
ia
Ukr
ain
e
Cos
t of
livi
ng in
dex
Cost of living index (Ukraine = 100)
Figure 3.8: Index of PPP cost of living, 2009
The influence of prevailing wage levels on actual employment costs will differ for different classes of staff – for specialised, highly-qualified staff such as ATCOs there will be a degree of staff mobility which will cause some convergence of unit costs, compared with general wage levels. A number of traffic characteristics that might be expected to have an impact on the cost-effectiveness performance have been grouped together under the generic label of “traffic complexity”. In ACE 2005, an indicator of “traffic complexity” was implemented for the first time. It is a combination of two elements which give a quantitative representation of the density of traffic and intensity of potential interactions between traffic. In concrete, these two elements are:
• an adjusted density, which is a measure of the concentration of traffic in a given volume of airspace (ANSP/ACC level), and defined in terms of minutes of interaction among aircraft per flight-hour32; and,
• a structural complexity index, which captures the fact that the traffic in some areas is structurally more complex. The structural complexity index is composed of the sum of three metrics: ascending and descending routes, crossing routes, and variable speeds (a proxy for traffic mix). Clearly, ATC provision in lower airspace will, all other things being equal, face a relatively higher proportion of ascending and descending routes.
Structural complexity and adjusted density are independent. Traffic in an area could be dense, but structurally simple; equally, traffic could be structurally complex but sparse. However, the two impacts are multiplicative; the impact of structural complexity is greater when the traffic is denser.
32 Interactions are defined as a period in which two aircraft are simultaneously present in a cell of 20×20 Nautical Miles and 3 000 feet in height. Only cells above FL85 are considered in this computation.
Factors affecting performance 28 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
The relationship between “traffic complexity” and cost-effectiveness, or ATM performance in general, is not straightforward. The effects of traffic complexity on ATM performance can work in either of two ways, which go in opposite directions as briefly described below:
Positive effect
Higher density is expected to contribute to a better utilisation of resources and to more effective exploitation of economies of scale (up to the point when resources become fully utilised). This is similar to the “density effect” argument described in the table above.
Negative effect
Higher structural complexity entails higher ATCO workload and more sophisticated ATM systems and tools for the same volume of traffic.
Traffic complexity can influence either costs or quality of service, depending on an ANSP’s response to it. The 2009 structural complexity index and adjusted density metric calculated at ANSP level (yearly data) are shown in Figure 3.933. ANSPs with the greatest traffic complexity score (Belgocontrol, Skyguide, NATS, DFS) are in the area close to the top right corner. Moving to the left it shows ANSPs (like Avinor) with high structural complexity but low density. Moving down it shows ANSPs with high density but lower structural complexity (such as BULATSA). Annex 3 provides the detailed figures of the traffic complexity metrics for each ANSP34.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Adjusted density
Str
uct
ura
l In
dex
Belgocontrol
DFSNATS
Skyguide
MUAC
LVNLAustro Control
ENAV
ANS CR
DSNA
Slovenia Control
Avinor
NAVIAIR
PANSALFV
LPS
Aena
Croatia Control
HungaroControl
MATSMoldATSA
UkSATSE EANS
NATA Albania
ROMATSA
BULATSAIAA
SMATSAM-NAV
Finavia
Oro Navigacija
LGSDCAC Cyprus
HCAA
DHMI
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)ARMATS
Figure 3.9: Traffic complexity metrics for ANSPs, 2009
33 See Annex 3 for a table displaying the traffic complexity indicators for each ANSP. 34 As neither Estonia nor Latvia were part of the CFMU area in 2009, the CFMU does not record all the traffic crossing these countries. As a consequence, since the traffic complexity metrics are based on CFMU data, the figures calculated for these two ANSPs and their ACCs (Tallinn ACC and Riga ACC) might be underestimated.
Factors affecting performance 29 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
The ten most “complex” ANSPs (those with an overall complexity score higher than 5 minutes of interaction per flight-hour) comprise four of the five largest ANSPs (Aena being ranked 15th with an overall complexity score just above four minutes of interaction per flight-hour). The map shown in Figure 3.10 displays five different groupings of ANSPs that have been identified according to the overall complexity scores. Belgocontrol, Skyguide, NATS and DFS, MUAC and LVNL show the highest complexity score - more than 9 minutes of interaction per flight-hour. In other words, for each flight-hour controlled in these airspaces there are on average more than 9 minutes of potential interactions between aircraft.
Lower Airspace
Traffic complexity score
<= 2
> 2
> 4
> 6
> 8
Figure 3.10: Overall complexity scores at ANSP level, 2009
The average complexity score for the European system is close to six minutes (6.03) of interaction per flight-hour, and corresponds to the boundary between the fourth and the fifth grouping in Figure 3.10. At European system level, the complexity score for 2009 is -6.5% lower than in 2008 (i.e. 6.44). This is in line with a priori expectations that the aggregated complexity score would be affected by the significant traffic decrease. Variability in traffic demand is another important factor in comparative ATM performance. If traffic is highly variable, resources may be underutilised, or made available when there is little demand for them – this is termed “allocative inefficiency”. Variability in traffic demand is therefore likely to have an impact on productivity, cost-effectiveness, quality of service and predictability of operations. It is broadly recognised that the different types of variability in traffic demand can be characterized as follows:
Seasonal variability
the difference in traffic levels between different times of the year.
Within-week variability
the difference in traffic levels between different days of the week.
Tem
po
ral
Hourly variability
the variation of traffic through the day.
Spatial variability
variability within the ANSP airspace (e.g., variability in the tracks across the North Atlantic, caused principally by weather variation).
Conceptually, an index of traffic variability could be developed to capture each types of variability. Different types of variability require different types of management practices, processes, and training to ensure that an ANSP can operate flexibly in the face of variable traffic demand. To a large extent, variability can be statistically predictable, and therefore adequate measures to mitigate the impact of variability could in principle be planned (for example, overtime, flexibility in breaks, and flexibility to extend/reduce shift length). When the degree of unpredictable variation, either temporal or spatial, is significant additional flexibility might be required, with a clear trade-off between costs and quality of service.
Factors affecting performance 30 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Seasonal variability is particularly difficult for an ANSP to adapt to as working practices that are practically feasible have only a limited ability to deal with high seasonal variability. A useful indicator of differences in seasonal variability is the ratio of traffic in the peak week to the average weekly traffic. Seasonal traffic variability tends to be significantly higher in South-Eastern Europe (see Figure 3.11), where the “traffic complexity” score tends to be lower (see Figure 3.10).
Lower Airspace
Traffic variability
<= 1.15
> 1.15
> 1.25
> 1.35
> 1.45
Data not provided
Figure 3.11: Seasonal traffic variations, 2009
3.4 How should these factors be accounted for in cost-efficiency benchmarking analysis
Introduction The current cost-effectiveness benchmarking is a factual benchmarking of outputs and costs. It does not take account of exogenous and endogenous factors shaping cost-effectiveness in a quantitative manner. The differences in exogenous and endogenous factors are important in the ANS industry. The ANSPs provide ANS in contexts that differ significantly from country to country in terms of the environmental characteristics - such as the size of the airspace - and different institutional characteristics - such as the relevant state laws, relationship with supranational entities such as the EU, the stage of development of implementation of European rules, and of course operations and processes. Given the level of flights and movements to be controlled, the costs of ATM/CNS provision are affected by differences in exogenous factors and by the ability to manage ANS in a cost-effective manner. The main goal of quantitative benchmarking of cost-effectiveness is to distinguish the contribution to costs from exogenous factors which the ANSPs cannot control (such as the nature of the airspace or being in an area subject to dense traffic and strong seasonality) from weaker performance in controlling costs (all else equal). Achieving this object requires measures of the different elements that have been identified as contributing to the costs of service provision. However it is hardly ever the case that all factors contributing to the costs of providing ANS are fully measurable. In some cases there will only be “proxy” measures of some of the factors of interest and in some cases there will be no way of measuring certain factors (for instance differences in public procurement laws). Practically, the best that can be achieved is to identify and obtain reliable measures of the main factors and to quantify the impact thereof. Exogenous factors related to operational conditions are, for the time being, those which have received greatest attention and focus. As indicated in Section 3.3 several of these factors are now measured robustly by metrics developed by the PRU.
Factors affecting performance 31 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Use of econometric modelling in benchmarking Where exogenous effects can be measured (or at least a classification determined), their impact can be analysed using objective and appropriate statistical techniques. In particular, a quantitative approach based on the use of recognized econometrics techniques provides a tool to separate out and quantify the likely impact of measurable cost drivers, and to some extent to interpret what is not measurable and still contributes to overall cost differences. The econometric models used in benchmarking are extensively discussed in the economic literature35 and are used, among other tools, in regulated monopoly industries (such as water, electricity, gas supply, and surface transport), to support the regulators when developing incentive mechanisms, setting targets or benchmarking different operators. In essence, econometric models can statistically estimate the “average” effect of measurable exogenous factors that impact on costs. An important feature of econometric models is that they provide a “confidence range” for the scale of these effects; this information is helpful in assessing whether the actual effect is likely to be close to the average effect. For instance, as the cost drivers include “proxy” measures of the price of the inputs required for the provision of ANS, the statistical results will quantify the average impact on costs of an increase of the input price and will provide information about the statistical precision of the predicted impact. The quality of the results will be affected by a variety of factors, including the completeness and precision of the “proxy” measures used for the cost drivers (e.g. the traffic complexity score or labour costs) and the ability of the model to disentangle what is unobserved and contributes to costs from poor performance/inefficiency. Recent advances in econometric modelling provide insights on how to account for non-measurable exogenous factors. Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that each model rests on a particular set of assumptions and that these techniques are more robust when a longer time period is covered and there is a large number of data points. The ACE database has been building up since 2001 and is now providing an adequate basis for moving towards an econometric approach. Indeed the output of econometric analysis, among other evidence, has been taken into account in the 2010 PRB proposals36 to the EC on a range for an EU-wide cost-efficiency target for 2012-2014, although it is fair to say that a lower weight was given to this econometric evidence. The extent and size of the various factors impacting on performance is not straightforward to identify even when complete data for the relevant metrics or their proxies are available. Given the large diversity (commonly referred in the jargon as “heterogeneity”) between ANSPs there is no guarantee that a given operational condition will affect all ANSPs in the same way and it may be appropriate to allow for the effect of cost drivers to differ by ANSP. The toolkit of the econometrician includes many models but there is no superior “one size fits all” approach. Ideally, the chosen model should reflect the specifics of the
35 See for example: Farsi, Mehdi, Massimo Filippini, and William Greene (2006). 'Application of Panel Data Models in Benchmarking Analysis of the Electricity Distribution Sector', Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 77 (3): 271-290. Farsi, Mehdi, Massimo Filippini and Michael Kuenzle (2006). 'Cost Efficiency in the Swiss Gas Distribution Sector', forthcoming in Energy Economics. 36 See PRB report “Proposed EU-wide performance targets for the period 2012-2014” (Sept. 2010).
Factors affecting performance 32 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
industry and the specifics of the available data. However, the assumptions underlying the econometric models available may not perfectly match the characteristics of the ANS industry. Two issues in particular may be of relevance when modelling ANS:
1. Firstly, the econometric models are based on the standard economic assumption applied to private sector firms in competitive markets that firms seek to minimise their costs (and maximise their profits) by adjusting the way they provide services in response to changes to input prices which they cannot control. ANSPs do not however operate in a fully competitive setting and therefore it could be argued that the objective function is not cost minimization (while ensuring safety standards) per se;
2. Secondly, there may be concerns related to the potential “endogeneity” of key variables of interest. Endogeneity is a technical problem that arises when key variables are determined within the system being modelled rather than being determined exogenously by the external environment. Endogeneity can be a serious statistical issue as it biases the assessment of the effect of a particular factor on costs. In particular, wages may be affected by this issue. For example, unionization combined with a lack of competitive markets for key workers may imply that the wage levels are determined endogenously in some ANSPs rather than being exogenously set in broader labour markets37.
In any case, results will require careful interpretation and cannot be seen as a substitute for other instruments/tools (e.g. factual benchmarking, local audits, feedback from customers, benchmarking of processes, and expert judgement). The PRU recently commissioned a Report38 to CEG (Competition Economists Group) to develop an econometric methodology to estimate the level of cost-inefficiency at European system level. The main results of this analysis are provided below. Main quantitative findings and results For the purposes of this analysis the following cost drivers have been considered:
• ATM/CNS provision costs (C);
• composite flight-hours (Y);
• labour input prices: the data set two input prices, a measure of the hourly average employment costs of ATCOs in OPS (W1) and a measure of average employment costs of support staff (W2);
• non-staff operating costs (W3): non-staff operating costs39 are priced accordingly to a producer price index for all goods (provided by Eurostat).
• capital related input price (W4): the capital input price is defined as the ratio of capital-related costs (i.e. sum of depreciation costs and cost of capital) to a measure of capital physical inputs. The measure of capital physical inputs is computed for each ANSP as the NBV of fixed assets divided by the annual producer capital index from Eurostat.
• traffic variability (VAR) as defined in section 3.3 above;
• business environment quality (BUS): the proxy variable for the quality of the economy-wide business environment is an index extracted for the relevant countries/ANSPs from the Transparency International database. This variable
37 For example, labour input prices would be endogenous if the labour cost was higher when the ANSP is also less efficient in managing operations. In short, inefficiency may exist through excessive wages being paid, but the model will have difficulty determining this. 38 See “Econometric cost-efficiency benchmarking of Air Navigation Service Providers” a Technical Note commissioned by the PRU. 39 Note that for the purposes of this analysis, this cost category includes exceptional cost items.
Factors affecting performance 33 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
reflects the risk to invest in a given country taking into account the local business and institutional environments, lower is the index higher is the risk.
• structural traffic complexity (COMP) as defined in section 3.3 above;
• time trend (T);
• network concentration index (NET): the network concentration index is based on the number of airport movements controlled by the TWR operational units where the ANSP is responsible to provide ATC services. This index is calculated by (1) computing the share of each TWR operational unit in the total number of airport movement controlled by the ANSP and (2) summing the squared values of these shares.40 This implies that the network concentration index will be highest, if all the airport movements of an ANSP are controlled by one TWR operational unit. In this case, the value of the network concentration index will be 1, i.e. the square of the TWR’s share (100%) in the total number of airport movements controlled by the ANSP. On the contrary, if an ANSP is responsible to provide ATC services in 15 TWRs and assuming that 15% of the total airport movements is controlled by 5 TWRs (an individual share of 3% each) and that the remaining 85% are handled by 10 TWRs (an individual share of 8.5% each), then the network concentration index would amount to some 0.08 (i.e. 5 × 0.03² + 10 × 0.085²); and,
• size of airspace controlled in km² (SIZE).
The modelling approach is based on a Cobb-Douglas functional form which is widely used in regulatory and academic work. The two estimation models considered in this analysis were the “Pitt & Lee Random Effects” model and the “Greene True Random Effects” model. The Random Effects model proposed by Pitt and Lee41 assumes that ANSPs inefficiency is invariant in time. This implies that non-observed ANSP specificities which do not change over time will be considered as inefficiency. Therefore, inefficiency estimates are likely to be over-estimated when there is a high level of heterogeneity in the industry. The True Random Effects model proposed by W. Greene42 assumes that ANSPs inefficiency is variant in time. This means that persistent differences across ANSPs due to inefficiency will be considered as heterogeneity and not as inefficiency. This means that in this model inefficiency is likely to be under-estimated if there is a high level of heterogeneity in the industry. Table 3.1 below comprises the main results from the econometric analysis. All else equal, the Pitt & Lee model indicates that a +10% increase in composite flight-hours (Y) contribute to increase ATM/CNS provision costs by +5.7%. This suggests significant economies of density in the provision of ATM/CNS services. The coefficients estimated for the output (Y) and the size of the airspace controlled (SIZE) suggest the presence of economies of scale (i.e. the sum of the coefficients is lower than 1).
40 The concentration rate of each ANSP’s airspace is calculated using the Herfindahl-Hirschmann Index (HHI) principle for measuring market concentration. The HHI is calculated by summing the squared market share figures of all companies in an industry. Hence, if an industry is monopolised, the HHI will be 1 (100% x 100%). 41 Pitt, M. and L. Lee (1981) “The Measurement and Sources of Technical Inefficiency in Indonesian Weaving Industry”, Journal of Development Economics 9:43-64. 42 Greene, W. (2005), “Reconsidering Heterogeneity in Panel Data Estimators of the Stochastic Frontier Model”, Journal of Econometrics 126: 269-303.
Factors affecting performance 34 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
All input prices have a positive sign as expected indicating that an increase in input price contributes to increase ATM/CNS provision costs. The value of the coefficient for the employment costs per ATCO-hour (i.e. W1) is around 0.3 in both models. This is consistent with the share of ATCO employment costs in ATM/CNS provision costs (i.e. 31%).
Table 3.1: Main results from econometric analysis
On the other hand, the coefficient of capital input prices (0.07 see W4) is smaller than expected (the share of capital related costs in ATM/CNS provision costs amount to 18%) while the coefficient of the input price for non-staff operating costs (W3) is larger than expected (the share of non-staff operating costs in ATM/CNS provision costs is around 19%). As expected a higher traffic variability is associated with higher ATM/CNS provision costs. The NET coefficient is negative. This means that when most airport movements controlled by the ANSP are handled by a small number of large TWR operational units (high concentration), ATM/CNS provision costs tend to be lower. On the contrary, all else equal, ATM/CNS provision costs are higher for ANSPs which are responsible to provide ATC services in a large number of TWR operational units. The coefficient for the structural traffic complexity is negative. This means that a higher traffic complexity is associated with lower costs. This is not what was expected a priori. The use of an alternative measure of traffic complexity (e.g. aggregated traffic complexity score, average flight level, etc.) did not significantly change this result. Table 3.1 indicates that the estimated efficiency level varies between the two models:
Pitt & Lee Random Effects Greene True Random Effects
Coefficients Coefficients
[Standard errors] [Standard errors]
0.57*** 0.73***
[0.06] [0.01]
0.28*** 0.30***
[0.02] [0.02]
0.28*** 0.29***
[0.02] [0.02]
W3 0.37 0.34
0.07*** 0.07***
[0.02] [0.01]
-0.02*** -0.03***
[0.00] [0.00]
-0.04 -0.06**
[0.09] [0.02]
-0.22*** -0.19**
[0.04] [0.02]
1.27*** 0.90***
[0.20] [0.08]
0.28*** -0.01
[0.11] [0.01]
-0.34*** -0.41***
[0.09] [0.02]
4.27***
[1.45]
Observations 261 254
Inefficiencies 60% 13.4%
VAR
SIZE
NET
Constant
W4
T
COMP
BUS
Variables
Y
W1
W2
Factors affecting performance 35 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
• when all the time invariant elements are treated as inefficiency then the estimated system level inefficiency is greater (Pitt & Lee, 60%);
• when all the elements which are time invariant are not considered as inefficiency then the estimated system level inefficiency is lower (True random model, 13%).
Given the different underlying assumptions employed in these two models, it is likely that the “genuine” level of inefficiency is within this threshold (13%-60%). It is however important to note that if the hypothesis of “endogeneity” of ATCOs in OPS wages is confirmed then the “genuine” level of inefficiencies may be higher than estimated by the two models. Next steps The PRU plans to progress on the econometric cost-benchmarking analysis by including the ACE 2010 data when these will be available and to check whether a more flexible functional form than the Cobb-Douglas (such as the translog cost function) and other estimation models (e.g. random coefficients) can be used. The PRU also plans to test alternative assumptions and data to compute the non-staff operating input and the capital-related input. The potential “endogeneity” of ATCOs in OPS wages may affect the estimated cost-inefficiencies. Futher investigation would be required in order to address this issue in the econometric analysis. For the time being, the results provided in Table 3.1 above do not take into account the quality of service provided by the different ANSPs. It would therefore be important to develop a methodology to correlate ANSPs estimated inefficiency levels and ATFM delays.
Factors affecting performance 36 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Part II: Financial cost-effectiveness 37 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
PART II: FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Part II: Financial cost-effectiveness 38 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Financial cost-effectiveness 39 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
4 FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS (2009)
4.1 Introduction
This chapter examines and compares ANSPs’ financial cost-effectiveness for the year 2009. As illustrated in Figure 4.1, the financial cost-effectiveness analysis focuses on a subset of the total ANS costs submitted at State level: the ANSP ATM/CNS provision costs. These costs have been defined to cover, as far as possible, the costs that are under the direct control of ANSPs and that can be used meaningfully to compare performance across ANSPs and across time. The measure of output is the “composite flight-hour” as defined in Section 2.3, and the financial cost-effectiveness indicator is the cost of ATM/CNS provision per unit of output.
Gate-to-gate ANS costs (€ M) 2009 % totalATM/CNS provision costs (including AIS & SAR) 7 580 87.9%MET costs 422 4.9%EUROCONTROL costs 525 6.1%Payment for regulatory and supervisory services 80 0.9%Payment to governmental authorities and irrecoverable VAT 20 0.2%Gate-to-gate ANS costs 8 627 100.0%
87.9%0.2%
0.9%
6.1%
4.9%
EUROCONTROLcosts
Payments togovernmentalauthorities and irrecoverable
VAT
MET costs
ATM/CNS provision costs
Payments for regulatory and
supervisory services
EUROCONTROL/ PRU
Inputs
KPI
Outputs
MET costs
EUROCONTROL Agency costs
Payments to governmental or
regulatory authorities
Payments for delegation of ANS
Total ANS Costs (State Level)
Total ATM/CNS Costs (ANSP Level)
IFR airport movements
En-route flight-hours
Composite flight-hours
Financial cost-effectiveness
indicator
ATM/CNS provision costs
ATM/CNS provision costs
Figure 4.1: Conceptual framework for the analysis of financial cost-effectiveness
The following costs categories have therefore been excluded from the financial cost-effectiveness analyses:
• Costs relating to services provided to military OAT, Oceanic ANS, AFIS/ATC at smaller regional aerodromes43, and reported under the “Other” column in the SID;
• MET costs (whether provided internally or externally);
• Payments to governmental or regulatory authorities;
• EUROCONTROL costs44; and
• Payment to other ANSPs or States for delegated services, including payments for MUAC & CEATS.
The ANS costs per category for individual ANSPs/States, with a breakdown between en-route and terminal costs, are available in Annex 6 of this Report. As identified in previous ACE reports, the allocation of costs between en-route and terminal ANS is not done consistently across the European ANSPs. This lack of consistency might
43 This is the case for Avinor, ENAV, and Finavia. 44 Excluding MUAC and CEATS costs.
Financial cost-effectiveness 40 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
distort performance comparisons carried out separately for en-route and terminal ANS. For this reason, the focus of the cost-effectiveness analysis in this report is “gate-to-gate” ANS. Figure 4.2 shows individual ANSPs’ total gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs in 2009. These costs are used in subsequent chapters of Part II, Part III, and Part IV for the purposes of comparing ANSPs’ ATM/CNS cost-effectiveness. Five ANSPs (Aena, DSNA, NATS, DFS, and ENAV) bear 60% of total European gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs, while their share of traffic is 54%. At first sight, this result contrasts with the expectation of some form of increasing returns to scale in the provision of ANS (the performance of larger ANSPs might benefit from their larger size).
0
120
240
360
480
600
720
840
960
1 080
1 200
Aen
a
DS
NA
DF
S
NA
TS
EN
AV
DH
MI
Sky
guid
e
LVN
L
HC
AA
LFV
Aus
tro
Con
trol
Avi
nor
Be
lgoc
ont
rol
RO
MA
TS
A
UkS
AT
SE
MU
AC
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa)
PA
NS
A
NA
VIA
IR
AN
S C
R
IAA
BU
LAT
SA
Hun
gar
oCo
ntro
l
SM
AT
SA
Cro
atia
Con
trol
Fin
avia
LPS
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
LGS
Oro
Na
viga
cija
NA
TA
Alb
ania
MA
TS
M-N
AV
EA
NS
Mol
dAT
SA
AR
MA
TS
M€
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (in M€) Cumulative share ATM/CNS provision costs
60.3% of total European gate-to-gate ATM/CNS
provision costs
32.4% of total European gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
7.3% of total European gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Figure 4.2: Distribution of ATM/CNS provision costs in 2009
The impact of size on ANSPs performance is an important policy issue given the infrastructure characteristics of the ANS sector. It should be noted that:
• Under the current full cost recovery regime that applies to most ANSPs, they may have little incentive to exploit scale effects fully, hence the difficulty to observe them;
• Larger ANSPs tend to develop bespoke ATM systems internally which can be more costly than a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solution, and;
• Size is not the only factor that has an impact on ANSPs costs. It is likely that greater scale effects will be observed in the forthcoming decade as a result of a new regulatory regime introduced by the SES II Performance Scheme and in particular of the incentive scheme which is part of the amended Charging Scheme regulation. Because of their weight in the European system and their relatively similar operational and economic characteristics (size, scope of service provided, economic conditions, presence of major hubs), this ACE report places a particular focus on the results of the five largest ANSPs (Aena, DFS, DSNA, ENAV and NATS). Section 4.2 compares the financial gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness KPI across ANSPs for the year 2009. It also highlights the en-route and terminal components of this KPI. Section 4.3 presents the analytical framework developed to break down cost-effectiveness into its main economic components. Section 4.4 gives the results obtained from applying this framework to the financial cost-effectiveness indicator, providing insights into differences in ATCO productivity, ATCO employment costs, and support costs.
Financial cost-effectiveness 41 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
4.2 Overall financial cost-effectiveness
The European system ATM/CNS provision cost per composite flight-hour for 2009 was €435. The financial cost-effectiveness indicators for each ANSP45 are shown in Figure 4.3. The financial cost per composite flight-hour varies between €738 for Belgocontrol and €163 for EANS, a factor of more than four. The two dotted lines in Figure 4.3 represent the top and bottom quartiles46 and provide an indication of the dispersion of unit ATM/CNS provision costs across the sample of 37 ANSPs.
684678
536
488487480477470452444440
391386385364
343339337336331326
253
163
738
262
429
414411411404 395
312310295295
275271
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Bel
goco
ntro
l
LVN
L
Aen
a
LPS
Sky
guid
e
EN
AV
RO
MA
TS
A
DF
S
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
Mol
dAT
SA
DS
NA
M-N
AV
Aus
tro
Co
ntr
ol
BU
LAT
SA
NA
TA
Alb
ania
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa)
AN
S C
R
NA
VIA
IR
UkS
AT
SE
NA
TS
AR
MA
TS
Oro
Nav
igac
ija
Avi
nor
HC
AA
IAA
Cro
atia
Co
ntr
ol
Hu
ng
aro
Co
ntr
ol
Fin
avia
LFV
SM
AT
SA
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
PA
NS
A
MA
TS
DH
MI
LGS
MU
AC
EA
NS
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-h
ou
r
Gate-to-gate ATM/CNSEuropean system average: €435
Aen
a
EN
AV
DF
S
DS
NA
NA
TS
487 477
678
444
386
0
200
400
600
800
Figure 4.3: Comparison of the financial cost-effectiveness KPI, 2009
The unit costs for the five largest ANSPs are displayed in the top right corner of Figure 4.3. Although these ANSPs operate in relatively similar economic and operational environments, there is a substantial variation in unit cost, ranging from Aena47 (€678) to NATS (€386). NATS has continuously improved its economic cost-effectiveness performance since 2007, although it is important to note that the level of NATS 2009 unit costs expressed in Euro has
45 It should be noted that, although ANS CR and Oro Navigacija reported the cost of capital in their ACE 2009 data submission, these costs were not charged to airspace users (respectively for terminal ANS, and for en-route and terminal ANS). 46 25% of observations lie below the bottom quartile, whilst 25% lie above the top quartile; the remaining 50% lie between the two quartiles. Thus in Figure 4.3, 75% of ANSPs have ATM/CNS costs per composite flight-hour lower than €451. 47 It should be noted that Aena 2009 ATM/CNS provision costs comprise costs relating to ATM/CNS infrastructure shared with the military authority.
Note that this KPI is a factual indicator. A genuine measurement of cost inefficiencies would require full account to be taken of identified and measurable exogenous factors such as cost of living, traffic complexity, and traffic variability (as described in Chapter 3). While some of the more detailed analysis of the components of costs presented later in the chapter may contain some inconsistencies due to different reporting and different interpretations of definitions, the gate-to-gate financial cost-effectiveness KPI itself is robust for each ANSP since, in most cases, it is based on financial numbers that are reconcilable with audited accounts from Annual Reports and output data collected by EUROCONTROL.
Financial cost-effectiveness 42 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
benefited from the significant depreciation (20%) of the Pound compared to the Euro48 between 2007 and 2009. Figure 4.3 indicates that in 2009, there was a significant unit costs difference (+52%) for services rendered by Aena compared with the average of the four largest ANSPs. In 2010, a specific law (Ley 9/2010) was adopted in Spain in order to address performance issues in Aena, in particular the high level of ATCO employment costs and the lower productivity compared to other ANSPs. This law requires, among other things, that the Spanish unit rate converges towards the average of the five largest States by 2013. It is expected that an initial convergence trend be already visible in 2010. It should be noted that the unit ATM/CNS provision costs reported for MUAC in Figure 4.3 do not include costs of the infrastructure which is made available for joint use and provided free of charges by the ANSPs (Belgocontrol, DFS and LVNL) operating in the Four States49 airspace. To better assess the cost-effectiveness of ATM/CNS provided in each of the Four States national airspaces, MUAC costs and output are consolidated with the costs and outputs of the national providers. The top of Figure 4.4 shows the figures which have been used for this “adjustment”. The costs figures are based on the cost allocation keys used to establish the Four States cost-base, while the flight-hours are based on those controlled by MUAC in the three FIRs (Belgium, Netherlands and Germany). The bottom of Figure 4.4 provides a view of this consolidated ANSP costs per flight-hour in the airspace of Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany (see blue bars).
MUAC Belgium Germany NetherlandsFlight-hours allocated to:
134 123 246 824 150 925
Costs allocated to:
€38.9M €60.0M €35.7M
560
290
450
520
237
738
477
684
243
0
200
400
600
800
Belgocontrol Belgianairspace
MUACBelgium
DFS Germanairspace
MUACGermany
LVNL Dutchairspace
MUACNetherlands
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
Figure 4.4: Adjustment of the financial cost-effectiveness KPI for ANSPs operating in the Four
States airspace (2009)
Figure 4.4 shows that the gate-to-gate unit costs for ATM/CNS provision in the Belgian airspace would amount to €560 per composite flight-hour. While this is notably below Belgocontrol unit costs (-24%), gate-to-gate unit costs for ATM/CNS provision in the Belgian airspace would still be the second highest in Europe, just above LPS (see Figure 4.3). Similarly, the gate-to-gate unit costs in the Dutch airspace would be at €520 (-24% compared to LVNL), a level slightly below than LPS unit costs, and LVNL would rank fourth instead of second. Figure 4.4 also shows that the unit costs in German airspace (€450) would be very close to DFS unit costs (€477). This is not surprising since the size of MUAC operations in German airspace compared to the total en-route and terminal operations of DFS is smaller than for Belgocontrol and LVNL. 48 It should be noted that the changes in unit costs analysed in this Report (see Chapters 5- 8) are not affected by changes in national currency against the Euro. Annex 5 comprises further information on the methodology used to express financial figures in real terms. 49 Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. Note that for the purposes of this report Luxembourg figures are not included as they amount to less than 1% of MUAC total costs.
Financial cost-effectiveness 43 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
The gate-to-gate financial cost-effectiveness KPI in Figure 4.3 can be broken down into en-route and terminal components. This is shown in Figure 4.5 below. To facilitate the comparison and interpretation of the results, ANSPs are ranked according to the results obtained in the gate-to-gate financial cost-effectiveness KPI (Figure 4.3). The output units in Figure 4.5 are en-route flight-hours and IFR airport movements, respectively – compared to the gate-to-gate composite flight-hours used in Figure 4.3.
1013
835
624
517470
516480
516 504458430427465
414408418382
418
367404
280
370
255
324342332293
226
349
276283284247 260
215
253
147
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
Be
lgo
cont
rol
LV
NL
Ae
na
LP
S
Sky
gui
de
EN
AV
RO
MA
TS
A
DF
S
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
Mo
ldA
TS
A
DS
NA
M-N
AV
Au
stro
Co
ntro
l
BU
LAT
SA
NA
TA
Alb
ania
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa
)
AN
S C
R
NA
VIA
IR
UkS
AT
SE
NA
TS
AR
MA
TS
Oro
Nav
iga
cija
Avi
nor
HC
AA
IAA
Cro
atia
Co
ntro
l
Hu
nga
roC
ont
rol
Fin
avi
a
LF
V
SM
AT
SA
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
PA
NS
A
MA
TS
DH
MI
LG
S
MU
AC
EA
NS
€ p
er
fligh
t-ho
ur
En-route ATM/CNSEuropean system average: €428
Ae
na
EN
AV
DF
S
DS
NA
NA
TS
624
516
430 404
516
0
200
400
600
800
107
132
215
177
141
101
126
10089
112
132138
85
109 114100
133
90
147
88
165
87
135122
8397
154
129
53
194
102 113
82
117
71
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Be
lgo
cont
rol
LV
NL
Ae
na
LP
S
Sky
gui
de
EN
AV
RO
MA
TS
A
DF
S
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
Mol
dA
TS
A
DS
NA
M-N
AV
Au
stro
Co
ntro
l
BU
LA
TS
A
NA
TA
Alb
ania
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
bo
a)
AN
S C
R
NA
VIA
IR
UkS
AT
SE
NA
TS
AR
MA
TS
Oro
Nav
iga
cija
Avi
nor
HC
AA
IAA
Cro
atia
Co
ntro
l
Hun
garo
Co
ntro
l
Fin
avia
LF
V
SM
AT
SA
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
PA
NS
A
MA
TS
DH
MI
LG
S
MU
AC
EA
NS
€ pe
r IF
R a
irpor
t m
ovem
ent
Terminal ATM/CNSEuropean system average: €120
Ae
na
DS
NA
EN
AV
DF
S
NA
TS
215
132
101 10088
0
50
100
150
200
250
Figure 4.5: Breakdown of financial cost-effectiveness into en-route and terminal, 200950,51, 52
50 The dotted lines on the graphs represent the bottom and top quartiles.
Financial cost-effectiveness 44 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
It is difficult to determine whether the differences shown in Figure 4.5 above are driven by economic and operational factors (for example, size of operations, economies of scale, or traffic complexity), or purely cost-allocation differences, which are known to exist across States/ANSPs. There are cases where a high en-route cost per flight-hour (top graph) corresponds to a low terminal cost per IFR airport movement (bottom graph) and vice versa. For example:
• SMATSA and ARMATS have relatively high unit costs in terminal service provision but relatively low unit costs in en-route.
• Belgocontrol has a relatively high unit cost in en-route service provision but a relatively low terminal unit cost.
The rather low terminal unit cost for LFV might illustrate the difficulty of fair terminal cost comparisons in the case where an ANSP owns, manages and operates airports. The difference between LFV and comparable ANSPs such as Avinor and Finavia (who also own and operate a large number of airports – see Figure 4.5 seems to be mainly due to differences in cost allocation. Indeed, in Sweden most terminal ANS assets (TWR buildings, ILS) and capital-related costs were allocated to the airport division of LFV in 2009 and not to the ANS department. As a result, these costs are mainly recovered through landing fees rather than terminal ANS charges. From the 1st of April 2010, the former airport division of LFV operates as a separate limited liability company, 100% owned by the State (Swedavia AB). It is therefore expected that in Sweden, terminal ANS assets and capital-related costs be allocated to LFV in 2010 or 2011. Furthermore, in 2011, Aena went through a restructuration process relating to the separation of the airport division (creation of a new company Aena Aeropuertos S.A.) from the ANS department. Some ANSPs did not, historically, charge separately for terminal and en-route services, but have moved towards this practice recently. This is for example the case of HungaroControl, which introduced gradually a terminal navigation charge at Budapest Airport between 2006 and 2009. LVNL applied a new allocation method for the calculation of 2008 costs, shifting approach costs from the terminal to the en-route cost base, and further adjustments in the allocation methodology were implemented in 2009.
4.3 Framework for gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness and productivity analysis
The PRU has developed an analytical framework that allows cost-effectiveness to be broken down into a number of key components. This framework helps in understanding differences in cost-effectiveness by allowing examination of the detailed factors underlying it. The framework and the 2009 results for each of its components at European system level are displayed in Figure 4.6 below.
51 MUAC operates exclusively in upper airspace and therefore has no terminal ANS costs. It should also be noted that the terminal ANS costs and the number of airport movements used to compute HCAA terminal cost-effectiveness KPI only relate to Athens TWR operational unit. 52 See Footnote 45.
Financial cost-effectiveness 45 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Employment costs for
ATCOs in OPS€2 360 M
Composite flight-hours17 442 M
ATCO in OPS hours on duty
24 021 M
ATM/CNS provision costs
€7 579 M
Support cost ratio3.2
ATCO-hour Productivity
0.73
ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour
€98
Financialcost-effectiveness
KPI€435
EUROCONTROL/PRU
Support costs€ 5 219 M
Support costs per unit of output
€299
ATCOs employment costs per
unit of output€135
Figure 4.6: Performance framework for gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness analysis
The right-hand side of Figure 4.6 shows that the financial cost-effectiveness indicator (ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour) is made up of three component performance ratios:
• Higher ATCO-hour productivity (composite flight-hours per ATCO-hour) improves cost-effectiveness;
• Lower ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour improve cost-effectiveness; and,
• All other things being equal, a lower support cost ratio improves cost-effectiveness. These three ratios multiplied together give the overall financial cost-effectiveness KPI. The financial cost-effectiveness indicator can also be broken down into two additive factors, as shown on left-hand side of Figure 4.6:
• ATCO employment costs per unit of output is the ratio of the employment costs for the ATCOs in OPS to the output (measured in composite flight-hours). All other things being equal, lower ATCOs in OPS employment costs per unit of output will improve financial cost-effectiveness. At European level, this component comprises some 31% of the overall financial cost-effectiveness indicator;
• Support costs per unit of output is the ratio of support costs53 to the output. All other things being equal, lower support costs per unit of output will improve financial cost-effectiveness. At European level this component comprises some 69% of the overall financial cost-effectiveness indicator.
The latter indicator is preferred to the support cost ratio for two main reasons. First, the support cost ratio cannot be viewed in isolation since a low ratio may simply be a symptom of high ATCO employment costs. Second, given that there are fixed costs in the provision of ATM/CNS (such as infrastructure and ATM systems), “support costs per unit of output” can give additional insights into the analysis of support costs and scale effects. The analysis of cost-effectiveness provided in Section 4.4 therefore focuses on the support costs per unit of output indicator rather than the support cost ratio.
53 Support costs are defined as the sum of non-ATCO employment costs, non-staff operating costs and capital-related costs.
Financial cost-effectiveness 46 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Because of the critical importance of ATCOs in OPS in the provision of ATC services, the framework presented in Figure 4.6 puts a clear focus on this resource. Important support functions (with and without operational characteristics) are currently embedded in the so-called “support staff”. The employment costs of these support staff represent the majority of support costs and should be seen as an important contributor for cost-effectiveness performance improvement.
4.4 Breakdown of gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness for individual ANSPs
The breakdown of the overall indicator illustrated in Figure 4.3 into the components discussed above is shown in Figure 4.7, Figure 4.9, Figure 4.11 and Figure 4.14. In some of the figures, two dotted lines represent the bottom and top quartiles54 for the three components. In the bottom right of each figure a miniature replica of Figure 4.6 is displayed to guide the reader through the framework. Finally, to summarize and facilitate the interpretation of the results, the concept of the “performance ratio” has been introduced and presented in Section 4.5. Performance ratios are a simple way to capture the relative advantages and weaknesses of an ANSP compared to the European average.
4.4.1 ATCO-hour productivity (2009)
ATCO-hour productivity is the efficiency with which an ANSP deploys and makes use of its ATCOs. In 2009, the European system as a whole handled 0.73 composite flight-hours per ATCO-hour. ATCO-hour productivity for each ANSP is shown in Figure 4.7.
1.83
1.081.01
0.97 0.96 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.910.87
0.840.78 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74
0.68 0.67 0.65 0.65 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.580.52
0.470.43 0.41 0.40
0.300.25
0.180.12
0.87
0.57
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
MU
AC
Sky
guid
e
NA
TS
EA
NS
DF
S
Aus
tro
Con
trol
NA
VIA
IR
AN
S C
R
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa
)
LVN
L
PA
NS
A
IAA
Hu
ngar
oCon
trol
Avi
nor
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
DS
NA
EN
AV
SM
AT
SA
Bel
goco
ntro
l
HC
AA
LF
V
BU
LAT
SA
Cro
atia
Con
trol
DH
MI
LG
S
Fin
avia
LPS
NA
TA
Alb
ania
Ae
na
MA
TS
RO
MA
TS
A
Oro
Nav
igac
ija
Slo
ven
ia C
ontr
ol
UkS
AT
SE
M-N
AV
Mol
dA
TS
A
AR
MA
TS
Com
posi
te f
light
-hou
rs p
er A
TC
O-h
our European system average: 0.73
NA
TS
DF
S
DS
NA
EN
AV
Aen
a
1.010.96
0.52
0.75 0.75
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
Figure 4.7: ATCO-hour productivity (gate-to-gate)55, 2009
54 25% of observations lie below the bottom quartile, whilst 75% lie below the top quartile. (Thus, in Figure 4.7, 75% of ANSPs have ATCO-hour productivity less than 0.91). 55 It should be noted that HCAA ATCO-hour productivity (i.e. 0.67) is under-estimated since the composite flight-hours used to compute this indicator (i.e. 525 775) only relate to Athens TWR operational unit while the number of ATCO-hours on duty (i.e. 779 100) include data relating to all the TWRs where HCAA is responsible to provide ATC services. Note that if all the airport movements
Financial cost-effectiveness 47 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
There is a wide range of ATCO-hour productivity among individual ANSPs. The ANSP with the highest ATCO-hour productivity is MUAC (1.83) which only provides ATC services in upper airspace, while the ANSP with the lowest ATCO-hour productivity is ARMATS (0.12), i.e. one of the smallest ANSPs in terms of traffic volumes. A somewhat fairer comparison of MUAC ATCO-hour productivity is presented in Figure 4.8 (see Cluster 2) confirming a superior performance among peers ACCs. Figure 4.7 indicates that there are substantial differences in ATCO-hour productivity even among the five largest ANSPs. Indeed, there is a factor of almost 2 between the ATCO-hour productivity achieved by Aena (0.52) and NATS (1.01). Most of the ANSPs that achieved top quartile ATCO-hour productivity (ANS CR, Austro Control, DFS, MUAC, NATS and Skyguide) are among the 15 most complex ANSPs (see Figure 3.9, p.28). On the other hand, ARMATS, UkSATSE and MoldATSA, which belong to the least complex grouping in Figure 3.9, show an ATCO-hour productivity which is lower than the bottom quartile. Low productivity in some of these ANSPs may be a consequence of their small size, and the consequent difficulty in adapting their available capacity to low traffic volumes and high seasonal variability. ATCO-hour productivity measured at ANSP level reflects an average performance, which can hide large differences among ACCs even for those operating in the same country/ANSP. On the other hand, ACCs belonging to different ANSPs may share similar characteristics. It is therefore important to analyse and compare productivity at ACC level (see Figure 4.8).
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.02.2
Am
ster
dam
Lang
en
Lond
on
TC
Bru
ssel
s
Bre
men
Mila
no
Dub
lin
Pal
ma
Flig
ht-h
our
s pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
Average
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.02.2
Maa
stric
ht
Pra
ha
Wie
n
Rh
ein
Zur
ich
Pre
stw
ick
Lond
onA
C
Mun
chen
Gen
eva
Rei
ms
Pad
ova
Par
is
Flig
ht-
hour
s pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
Average
Cluster 1
Sta
van
ger
Sof
ia
Tira
na
Bra
tisla
va
Nic
osia
Tam
pere
Bod
o
Rov
anie
mi
Bri
ndis
i
Rig
a
Kha
rkiv
Viln
ius
L'vi
v
Mal
ta
Lju
blja
naS
kopj
e
Ode
sa
Chi
sina
u
Yer
eva
nD
nip
rope
trov
s'k
Tal
linn
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Flig
ht-h
our
s p
er A
TC
O-h
our
Average
Cluster 3b (ACCs < 7 sectors)
War
szaw
aB
udap
est
Lisb
oaZ
agre
bB
rest
Ank
ara
Bor
dea
ux
Rom
aS
han
non
Beo
grad
Mar
seill
eK
obe
nhav
nS
tock
holm
Mal
mo
Mad
rid
Ista
nbul
Can
aria
sO
slo
Bar
celo
naB
ucur
esti
Sev
illa
Sim
fero
pol
Kyi
v
Ath
ina
i+M
ake
doni
a
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
Flig
ht-h
our
s p
er A
TC
O-h
our
Average
Cluster 3a (ACCs ≥ 7 sectors)
Cluster 2
Figure 4.8: Summary of productivity results at ACC level
In Figure 4.8, ACCs are grouped in clusters based on their complexity scores, average used flight levels and number of sectors. More information on the definition of clusters can be
were considered, HCAA ATCO-hour productivity would be around 0.75 in 2009. The main reason for this adjustment is that in its ACE data submission HCAA provided terminal ANS costs data for Athens TWR only and therefore for consistency purposes only the number of airport movements controlled by this operational unit was considered to compute HCAA financial cost-effectiveness KPI.
Financial cost-effectiveness 48 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
found in previous ACE reports56. So far, no clear-cut statistical relationship between ATCO productivity, traffic complexity and traffic variability could be inferred because the relationships are not directly causal or straightforward. Nevertheless, it is useful to compare the ATCO productivity of ACCs that share similar “operational” characteristics. Each cluster is briefly described below:
• Cluster 1 (ACCs serving predominantly lower airspace with relatively high structural complexity) has the lowest average productivity of any of the clusters (0.63 flight-hour per ATCO-hour). Palma (with the lowest productivity) has also the lowest overall complexity score but the highest seasonal traffic variability of Cluster 1;
• Cluster 2 (ACCs serving dense upper airspace) has the highest overall productivity, at 1.05 flight-hour per ATCO-hour. Within this cluster, Maastricht has significantly higher productivity (1.83 flight-hours per ATCO-hour, some +74% above the average in Cluster 2). Factors that could explain Maastricht’s higher productivity (in particular advanced ATC systems and procedures) are detailed in p.128 of the ACE 2006 Benchmarking Report;
• Cluster 3a (ACCs with less than 7 sectors serving airspace with relatively low complexity) has an average productivity of 0.90 flight-hour per ATCO-hour. Within this cluster, Warszawa has significantly higher productivity (2.0 flight-hours per ATCO-hour) but this is also the ANSP with the higher number of minutes of ATFM delays greater than 15 min. in Cluster 3a (i.e. 2.6 min. per flight-hour). It should also be noted that Marseille and Bordeaux have the highest overall complexity, and Canarias, Shannon and Kyiv the lowest;
• Cluster 3b (ACCs with more than 7 sectors serving airspace with relatively low complexity) has an average productivity of 0.73 flight-hour per ATCO-hour. While Yerevan and Dnipropetrovs'k show the lowest productivity, they also have among the lowest overall complexity.
If the European average productivity (0.73) could be raised to the level of the top quartile in Figure 4.7 (0.91), it would bring significant gains in cost-effectiveness. ATCO productivity is affected by a number of factors, including:
• Advanced ATM systems, tools and procedures, with increased ATM system functionality and reliability, allowing greater ATCOs confidence in using them.
• Flexible deployment of operational staff to meet demand through the optimisation of roster cycles and the use of overtime. Manning per sector and rating policies have an impact on the flexibility to change the sector configuration and to adapt to changes in operational conditions.
• Operational concepts and processes affecting the airspace and sector designs, the ASM, ATFM and ATFCM processes and the civil/military arrangements.
• Adequate combination of technical, human and managerial tools such as training, and willingness to work flexibly.
• Enhancement of the cooperation with other ANSPs to achieve synergies (e.g. cross border sectorization and rating).
SES tools such as FABs, the Network Management and Design function, the performance scheme and the technological pillar (SESAR) should contribute to increase ATCO productivity by a significant factor while ensuring safety standards.
56 See for example ACE 2008 report, p.104. Report available on the PRC web site at the following address: http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/public/standard_page/doc_ace_reports.html.
Financial cost-effectiveness 49 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Changes over time in ATCO-hour productivity for the European system and for individual ANSPs level are described in Section 5.3 and further analysis of relationship between productivity and quality of service is provided in Chapter 8.
4.4.2 ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (2009)
The average unit ATCO employment costs in the European system amount to €98 per ATCO-hour. Figure 4.9 shows the values for this indicator for all the ANSPs.
193
149146140
130
116
9185 85
76 75 72 7163 62 60
52 5145
4034
2723 23 22
11 11 106
127124
10397
92
74 71
44
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
Aen
a
Au
stro
Con
trol
MU
AC
DF
S
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa)
Bel
goco
ntro
l
LVN
L
Sky
guid
e
NA
TS
EN
AV
DS
NA
NA
VIA
IR
IAA
Avi
nor
HC
AA
AN
S C
R
LFV
PA
NS
A
Hu
ngar
oCon
trol
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
Fin
avia
Cro
atia
Con
trol
LPS
RO
MA
TS
A
BU
LAT
SA
SM
AT
SA
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
EA
NS
Oro
Nav
igac
ija
M-N
AV
DH
MI
LGS
MA
TS
UkS
AT
SE
NA
TA
Alb
ania
Mol
dAT
SA
AR
MA
TS
€ p
er
hou
r
European system average: €98
Aen
a
DF
S
NA
TS
EN
AV
DS
NA
140
97 92
193
103
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
Figure 4.9: ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (gate-to-gate), 2009
There is a wide range of ATCO-hour employment costs across ANSPs, which is not surprising given the heterogeneity in the social and economic environments across Europe. The changes over time in ATCO employment costs at European system level and for individual ANSPs are described in Chapter 5, Section 5.3 and Chapter 8, respectively. A major exogenous factor that underlies differences in unit employment cost is the difference in prevailing market wage rates in the national economies in general. This is also associated with differences in the cost of living (see discussion in Chapter 3). To assess the influence of these exogenous differences, employment costs per ATCO-hour have been examined in the context of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)57. Figure 4.10 below shows the ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour both before and after adjustment for PPP. The adjustment reduces the dispersion of this indicator. After PPP adjustment, the average unit employment costs per ATCO-hour amounts to €103 (compared to €98 without adjustment). For many Central and Eastern European ANSPs (PANSA, HungaroControl, BULATSA, ANS CR, ROMATSA, Croatia Control, LPS and SMATSA), the PPP adjustment brings the unit costs close to those in Western Europe.
57 The significance of PPP was discussed in Section 3.3 and footnote 30, and the PPP indices themselves are presented in Annex 5 of this report.
Financial cost-effectiveness 50 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
1220
2629303340
48525558636466
70717981858689919494
102107110110111114
116125
130131
133155
204
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Aen
a
NA
V P
ort
ugal
(F
IR L
isb
oa)
Aus
tro
Con
trol
DF
S
MU
AC
PA
NS
A
Hu
ngar
oC
ontr
ol
BU
LAT
SA
AN
S C
R
Bel
goc
ontr
ol
LVN
L
NA
TS
RO
MA
TS
A
EN
AV
SM
AT
SA
Cro
atia
Con
trol
LPS
Sky
guid
e
Slo
ven
ia C
ont
rol
HC
AA
DS
NA
IAA
M-N
AV
LFV
NA
VIA
IR
Avi
nor
EA
NS
Oro
Nav
iga
cija
Fin
avi
a
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
DH
MI
LGS
MA
TS
UkS
AT
SE
NA
TA
Alb
an
ia
Mo
ldA
TS
A
AR
MA
TS
€ pe
r ho
urATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour in € adjusted for PPPs
ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour in €
Figure 4.10: Employment costs per ATCO-hour with and without PPPs, 2009
4.4.3 ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour (2009)
The ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour result from the combination of the previous two components: ATCO-hour productivity and employment costs per ATCO-hour. All other things being equal, lower ATCO employment costs per unit output will contribute to greater financial cost-effectiveness. This indicator is displayed in Figure 4.11.
188178
157146142136130
12312011397
84 83 82 81 80 78
5647 42 37 36 36
19
371
113110110108103 103102 99 98
60 5848
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Ae
na
Be
lgo
cont
rol
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
Au
stro
Co
ntro
l
DF
S
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
bo
a)
LV
NL
EN
AV
DS
NA
RO
MA
TS
A
LF
V
HC
AA
M-N
AV
Avi
nor
Sky
gui
de
Fin
avia
LP
S
NA
TS
Cro
atia
Co
ntro
l
IAA
NA
VIA
IR
Hu
nga
roC
ont
rol
Oro
Nav
iga
cija
PA
NS
A
AN
S C
R
MU
AC
BU
LA
TS
A
SM
AT
SA
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
Mo
ldA
TS
A
AR
MA
TS
MA
TS
EA
NS
DH
MI
LG
S
UkS
AT
SE
NA
TA
Alb
ania
€ p
er c
om
posi
te f
ligh
t-ho
ur
European system average: €135
102123146 130
371
NA
TS
DS
NA
EN
AV
DF
S
Aen
a
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
420
Figure 4.11: ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour, 2009
Financial cost-effectiveness 51 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
The ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour for the five largest ANSPs are displayed in the top right corner of Figure 4.11. It is striking to note that there is a factor of almost three between Aena and the average of the four largest ANSPs which operate in relatively similar economic and operational environments. For Aena, more than a third of the total hours on duty are accomplished as overtime, which is one of the reasons behind the high ATCO employment costs observed in 2009. The Spanish State decided to address this structural performance issue through the law adopted in April 2010 (i.e. Ley 9/2010) according to which ATCOs in OPS working hours will be capped at 1670 hours, plus a maximum of 80 overtime hours (i.e. a total of 1750 hours). In order to provide an insight into the relationship between ATCO-hour productivity and employment costs, Figure 4.12 below presents the ANSPs classified in four quadrants according to their level of ATCO productivity and employment costs. The quadrants are established on the basis of the European average values for these two metrics.
EANS
Avinor
ARMATS
MoldATSA
NATA AlbaniaUkSATSE
LGSMATS DHMIM-NAV
Oro Navigacija
SMATSABULATSAROMATSA
DCAC Cyprus
LPS Croatia ControlFinavia
Slovenia ControlHungaroControl
PANSALFVANS CRHCAA
IAADSNA
ENAV NATS
NAVIAIR
Skyguide
LVNLBelgocontrol NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
DFSMUACAustro Control
Aena
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
ATCO-hour productivity
AT
CO
em
ploy
men
t co
sts
per
AT
CO
-hou
r
I II
III IV
Figure 4.12: Components of ATCO employment costs per unit output, 2009
An ANSP may have high ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour but if its ATCOs are highly productive then it will have lower employment costs per composite flight-hour. This is the case for the ANSPs in the top right (Quadrant II) of Figure 4.12 such as MUAC and to a lower extent Skyguide, which shows ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour above the European average but mid-range ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour below the European average (see also Figure 4.11 above). Aena, and to a lesser extent Belgocontrol (Quadrant I) combine higher ATCO employment costs with lower ATCO productivity, resulting in high ATCO employment costs per unit of output (see also Figure 4.11 above). Some ANSPs such as ANS CR (Quadrant IV) have both high ATCO-hour productivity and lower ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (without PPP adjustment). Finally, ANSPs such as ARMATS, MoldATSA, M-NAV and UkSATSE (Quadrant III) show both lower ATCO-hour productivity and lower ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour.
Financial cost-effectiveness 52 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
4.4.4 Support costs per composite flight-hour (2009)
Support costs amount to 69% of total ATM/CNS provision costs. Effective management of these costs, especially in a context of traffic increases, would have a major impact on cost-effectiveness. It is therefore important to understand the components of support costs, and what might drive changes in them. A study of ATM/CNS fragmentation throughout Europe suggested that fragmentation contributed to higher support costs58. Reducing the current level of fragmentation therefore has the potential to reduce support costs and improve cost-effectiveness. For the purposes of analysing differences in support costs, the part of the framework presented in Section 4.3 which is relating to support costs is further developed in Figure 4.13 below.
Non-ATCO employmentcosts per unit of output
(46.1%)
Non-staff operatingcosts per unit of output
(25.7%)
Capital-relatedcosts per unit of output
(26.0%)
Non-ATCO staffper unit of output
Employmentcosts per non-ATCO staff
Exceptionalcosts per unit of output
(2.3%)Depreciation costsper unit of output
Cost of capitalper unit of output
Employment Employment costs for costs for
ATCOsATCOs in OPSin OPS
Composite Composite flightflight--hourshours
ATCO in OPS ATCO in OPS hours on dutyhours on duty
ATM/CNS ATM/CNS provision costsprovision costs
Support cost ratioSupport cost ratio
ATCOATCO--hour hour productivityproductivity
ATCO employment ATCO employment costs per ATCOcosts per ATCO--hourhour
FinancialFinancialcostcost--effectiveness effectiveness
KPIKPI
EUROCONTROL/PRU
Support costsSupport costsSupport costs per Support costs per unit of outputunit of output
ATCOsATCOs employment employment costs per costs per
unit of outputunit of output
Figure 4.13: Framework for support costs analysis
As shown in Figure 4.13 support costs can be broken down into four separate components that provide further insight into the nature of support costs:
• employment costs for non-ATCO in OPS staff; these cover ATCOs on other duties, trainees, technical support and administrative staff (46.1% of support costs);
• non-staff operating costs mostly comprise expenses for energy, communications, contracted services, rentals, insurance, and taxes (25.7% of support costs);
• exceptional costs (2.3% of support costs); and,
• capital-related costs, comprising depreciation and financing costs for the capital employed (26.0% of support costs).
Employment costs for staff other than ATCOs in OPS account for some 46% of total support costs. In the context of planning processes and contract renegotiation for support staff, it is
58 The impact of fragmentation in European ATM/CNS, Report commissioned by the EUROCONTROL PRC, April 2006. The report is available on the PRC website at the following address: http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/public/standard_page/doc_other_reports.html.
Financial cost-effectiveness 53 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
important for ANSPs to monitor this indicator and to set quantitative objectives in terms of employment costs per output unit.
122
173199
213223226226229233234237237239247250269272281283292298
307321324330331336337355357360
380392396
433
548551
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Bel
goc
ontr
ol
LVN
L
LP
S
Mol
dA
TS
A
NA
TA
Alb
ani
a
Sky
gu
ide
RO
MA
TS
A
EN
AV
UkS
AT
SE
AR
MA
TS
BU
LA
TS
A
DF
S
M-N
AV
AN
S C
R
DS
NA
Ae
na
NA
VIA
IR
Slo
ven
ia C
ontr
ol
NA
TS
Oro
Na
viga
cija
Au
stro
Con
trol
NA
V P
ort
ugal
(F
IR L
isbo
a)
SM
AT
SA
Hun
garo
Con
trol
IAA
Cro
atia
Con
trol
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
DH
MI
Avi
nor
MA
TS
LGS
HC
AA
Fin
avia
PA
NS
A
LFV
MU
AC
EA
NS
€ p
er c
om
po
site
flig
ht-
hou
r
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) per composite flight-hour Non-staff operating costs per composite flight-hour
Capital-related costs per composite flight-hour Exceptional costs per composite flight-hour
European system average: €298 321331
283307357
0
100
200
300
400
EN
AV
DF
S
DS
NA
Aen
a
NA
TS
Figure 4.14: Support costs per composite flight-hour59, 2009
The European average support costs per composite flight-hour are €298. Figure 4.14 shows that:
• The level of unit support costs varies significantly across ANSPs – a factor greater than four between LVNL and EANS; and,
• There are important differences in the composition of support costs. In some instances this might indicate the substitution which can take place through the contracting out of support functions.
The choice between providing some important operational support functions internally or externally has clearly an impact on the proportion of support costs that is classified as employment costs, non-staff operating costs, or capital-related costs. This is particularly the case for the five largest ANSPs. ENAV outsources the maintenance of ATM systems and the corresponding costs are comprised in the non-staff operating costs60. On the other hand, for Aena, DSNA, DFS and NATS some of these activities are carried out by internal staff and the relating costs appear as employment costs or as capital-related costs when, according to IFRS, the employment costs of staff working on research and development projects are capitalised in the balance-sheet.
59 It should be noted that, although ANS CR and Oro Navigacija reported the cost of capital in their ACE 2009 data submission, these costs were not charged to airspace users (respectively for terminal ANS, and for en-route and terminal ANS). 60 A non negligible part of ENAV non-staff operating costs (some 20%) relates to ATC services provided by the Italian Air Force mainly at regional civil/military airports. Furthermore, a part of ENAV support costs is financed through public contributions and therefore not charged to airspace users.
Financial cost-effectiveness 54 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Non-ATCO in OPS employment costs per composite flight-hour Like ATCO in OPS employment costs, employment costs for the support staff are also affected by the cost of living61. Using the same methodology as in Figure 4.10, Figure 4.15 shows the impact of adjusting the non-ATCO in OPS employment costs per composite flight-hour for PPPs. After PPP adjustment, the unit employment costs for support staff per composite flight-hour amounts to €151 (compared to €138 without adjustment). Contrary to the situation observed for ATCO employment costs, the dispersion is not reduced by adjusting for PPPs, and the unit employment costs of many Central and Eastern European ANSPs are, after adjustment, generally higher than to those in Western Europe.
227 221 218206
187
135
113 109
43
160153
252
281
359
464
442
347
312 312287
239
172 170161
152 140
121 118 111 102 101 93 88 81 7667
58
0
100
200
300
400
500
UkS
AT
SE
M-N
AV
BU
LAT
SA
LV
NL
RO
MA
TS
A
Be
lgo
cont
rol
AR
MA
TS
Mo
ldA
TS
A
LPS
PA
NS
A
Oro
Nav
iga
cija
NA
V P
ort
uga
l (F
IR L
isb
oa)
SM
AT
SA
AN
S C
R
Slo
veni
a C
ont
rol
HC
AA
NA
TA
Alb
ania
Cro
atia
Con
tro
l
Hu
ngar
oC
ont
rol
DS
NA
Sky
guid
e
Aus
tro
Co
ntro
l
DF
S
NA
TS
LGS
DH
MI
Aen
a
EN
AV
MU
AC
NA
VIA
IR
Fin
avi
a
Avi
nor
MA
TS
IAA
LF
V
EA
NS
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) per composite flight-hour in € adjusted for PPPs
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) per composite flight-hour in €
Figure 4.15: Non-ATCO in OPS employment costs with and without adjustment for PPPs, 2009
As economic conditions, both cost of living and general wage levels, are converging across Europe, there is a clear upward pressure on employment costs for these ANSPs. In order to sustain the current level of staffing and associated employment costs, it will be of great importance to effectively manage non-ATCO in OPS employment costs. As shown in Figure 4.16, which comprises an extract of the framework presented in Figure 4.13, non-ATCO in OPS employment costs per composite flight-hour can be broken down into two indicators:
(1) the employment costs per non-ATCO in OPS staff; and,
(2) the number of non-ATCO in OPS staff required by unit of output.
Non-ATCO employmentcosts per unit of output
(46.1%)
Non-ATCO staffper unit of output
Employmentcosts per non-ATCO staff
Figure 4.16: Breakdown of non-ATCO in OPS employment costs
61 There may also be an impact on non-staff operating costs if support functions have been outsourced, particularly if outsourced staff are paid in local currency. However, this relationship is less clear and for the purposes of this analysis, the focus is on employment costs.
Financial cost-effectiveness 55 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
In order to provide an insight into the relationship of these two indicators, Figure 4.17 below presents the ANSPs classified in four quadrants according to their level of employment costs per non-ATCO in OPS staff and the number of non-ATCO in OPS staff required per composite flight-hour. As explained in the introduction of this section, MET costs are not included in the ACE data analysis. Therefore to ensure consistency, for those ANSPs where MET services are provided internally, MET staff are deducted from the total support staff reported in Figure 4.17. In Figure 4.17, the quadrants are determined by the European averages i.e. some 60 €’000 for the employment costs per non ATCO-staff, and 2.3 support staff for 1000 composite flight-hours.
SMATSA
Slovenia Control
Skyguide
ROMATSA
PANSA
Oro Navigacija
NAVIAIR
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
NATS
NATA Albania
MUAC
MATS
LVNL
LPS
LGS
LFV
IAA
HungaroControl
HCAA
Finavia
ENAV
EANS
DSNA
DHMI
DFS
DCAC CyprusCroatia Control
Belgocontrol
Avinor
Austro Control
BULATSA
ANS CR
Aena
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Non-ATCO in OPS staff for 1000 composite flight-hours
Em
plo
yme
nt
cost
s pe
r no
n-A
TC
O in
OP
S s
taff
(€'
000)
ARMATS
M-NAV
MoldATSAUkSATSE
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
I II
III IV
Figure 4.17: Unit employment costs for support staff and support staff per unit of output, 2009
An ANSP may have high unit employment costs for support staff but if a low number of support staff is required per unit of output it will have lower support staff employment costs per composite flight-hour. This is the case for the ANSPs in the top left of Figure 4.17 such as MUAC and IAA (Quadrant I). Belgocontrol and LVNL (Quadrant II) combine relatively high unit employment costs for support staff with a relatively high number of support staff per composite flight-hour, resulting in high support staff costs per unit of output (see also Figure 4.15 above). DCAC Cyprus, EANS and MATS (Quadrant III) have lower unit employment costs for support staff and a low number of support staff per composite flight-hour. Finally, for ANSPs such as BULATSA, DHMI, Oro Navigacija and NATA Albania (Quadrant IV) lower unit employment costs for support staff are combined with a high number of support staff per unit of output. Figure 4.17 indicates that there is no clear-cut relationship between these two indicators. However, ANSPs where the unit employment costs for support staff are lower tend to have a larger number of support staff per unit of output. This is particularly the case for four ANSPs,
Financial cost-effectiveness 56 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ARMATS, M-NAV, MoldATSA and UkSATSE. These ANSPs are shown in the miniature replica which is inserted in Figure 4.17 (see top-right corner). For these ANSPs, those large numbers of support staff per unit of output are the main driver for the high non-ATCO in OPS employment costs shown in Figure 4.15. In some cases, a low number of support staff per unit of output might be associated with an ANSP involved in airport management activities (e.g. Aena, Avinor and LFV) illustrating potential staff allocation issues. It can also reflect the fact that maintenance activities are outsourced (e.g. ENAV) or even capitalised (e.g. NATS). For this reason, support staff employment costs should not be treated separately but analysed along with the other components of support costs (i.e. non-staff operating costs and capital-related costs). Capital-related costs per composite flight-hour A further component of support cost which shows an important variation between ANSPs is the capital-related costs. As shown in Figure 4.18 capital-related costs can be further broken down into depreciation costs per unit of output and cost of capital per unit of output.
CapitalCapital--relatedrelatedcosts per unit of outputcosts per unit of output
Depreciation costsDepreciation costsper unit of outputper unit of output
Cost of capitalCost of capitalper unit of outputper unit of output
Depreciation costsDepreciation costsper fixed assets per fixed assets
in operationin operation
Cost of capitalCost of capitalper asset baseper asset base
Asset baseAsset baseper unit of outputper unit of output
Unit of output per Unit of output per fixed assets in operationfixed assets in operation
(A)
(B)
(A1)
(A2)
(B1)
(B2)
Figure 4.18: Breakdown of capital-related costs
Depreciation costs per unit of output (A) is the relationship between the average depreciation rate of fixed assets (see A1) with the productivity of fixed assets (see A2). These relationships are discussed in details at ANSP level in Chapter 8.
Cost of capital per unit of output (B) is the relationship between the average rate of return (see B1) with a measure of capital intensity (see B2). These two factors are examined in Figure 4.19. The bar, measured on the left-hand scale, shows the asset base to which the cost of capital is applied, divided by the composite flight-hours, to give a fair comparison across ANSPs. At a minimum, the asset base should comprise fixed assets that are employed to provide ATC services (the purple bar in the diagram). It is also reasonable to include some current assets which are shown as the blue bar. The sum of these two quantities (fixed assets and current assets) is the asset base to which an average rate (see red dots) is applied to calculate the cost of capital62. ANSPs are ranked by their ratio of asset base per composite flight-hour. It should be noted that a number of ANSPs did not yet report complete information relative to the calculation of the cost of capital in their ACE data submission.
62 The information provided in Figure 4.19 relates to the assumptions used to compute an economic cost of capital for the purposes of the ACE Benchmarking analysis. This may differ from the cost of capital that is part of the cost-base charged to airspace users.
Financial cost-effectiveness 57 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
0100200300400500600700800900
1 0001 1001 2001 3001 4001 5001 6001 700
NA
TA
Alb
ani
a
BU
LA
TS
A
EN
AV
Mol
dA
TS
A
Be
lgo
cont
rol
Oro
Na
viga
cija
NA
VIA
IR
DH
MI
NA
TS
Sky
gui
de
Ae
na
LP
S
AN
S C
R
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
RO
MA
TS
A
M-N
AV
AR
MA
TS
SM
AT
SA
LGS
Cro
atia
Con
trol
DF
S
LV
NL
PA
NS
A
LF
V
IAA
Slo
ven
ia C
ontr
ol
Aus
tro
Con
trol
Hun
garo
Co
ntro
l
MU
AC
MA
TS
Fin
avia
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa)
Avi
no
r
EA
NS
DS
NA
HC
AA
UkS
AT
SE
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%10%11%12%13%14%15%16%17%
Ave
rag
e r
ate
app
lied
to
ass
et
ba
se
Fixed assets in asset base Current assets in asset base Average rate applied to asset base
Figure 4.19: Asset bases and average rates used to compute the cost of capital, 2009
Figure 4.19 shows that out of the 29 ANSPs63 reporting complete data on the calculation of the cost of capital, seven calculated a cost of capital based only on the value of fixed assets. The remaining 22 ANSPs included current assets which in some cases represent a significant proportion of the asset base. This is particularly the case for BULATSA and NATA Albania for which current assets respectively represent 41% and 42% of the total asset base. Figure 4.19 indicates that NATA Albania and BULATSA have by far the highest asset base in Europe when it is expressed in terms of composite flight-hour. This would certainly deserve further attention64. The nominal rates of return used to calculate the finance costs are mostly in the range of 4-9% per year. Figure 4.19 indicates that the rates for MoldATSA, ARMATS and SMATSA are over 10% (16.3%, 14.0% and 12.4%, respectively). For SMATSA, this higher rate shall be seen in the light of the higher inflation in Serbia (8% in 2009). On the other hand, some of the rates reported in Figure 4.19 appear high considering the low-risk nature of the ANS activity. Both the magnitude of the asset base and the level of the rates of return would require further analysis in order to better understand the differences reported in Figure 4.19.
4.5 Performance ratios (2009)
Table 4.1 summarises the relationship between the three multiplicative components of financial cost-effectiveness (ATCO-hour productivity, employment costs per ATCO-hour and support cost ratio) and the two complementary components (ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour and the support cost per composite flight-hour), described in
63 It should be noted that, although ANS CR and Oro Navigacija reported the cost of capital in their ACE 2009 data submission, these costs were not charged to airspace users (respectively for terminal ANS, and for en-route and terminal ANS). 64 It should be noted that the large asset base reported for NATA Albania in Figure 4.19 reflects an exceptional situation due to delays in the implementation of the National Airspace Modernisation Programme, where cash drawn from a bank loan to finance the investments is recorded as current asset by NATA Albania.
Financial cost-effectiveness 58 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Section 4.4. To facilitate the interpretation of the results, the concept of the “performance ratio” has been introduced. The performance ratios represent the relationship between the value for an ANSP of an indicator and the value of that indicator for the European system as a whole. Performance ratios are defined such that a value greater than one implies a performance better than the European average, in terms of the positive contribution it makes to cost effectiveness. An ANSP with the same performance as the European system will have a performance ratio of one.
AT
CO
-hou
r p
rodu
ctiv
ity
AT
CO
em
plo
yme
nt
cost
s pe
r A
TC
O-h
our*
Su
ppo
rt c
ost
ratio
*
AT
CO
em
plo
yme
nt
cost
s pe
r co
mpo
site
fli
ght-
hou
r*
Su
ppo
rt c
osts
pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-
hou
r*
Aena ES 0.64 0.71 0.51 1.76 0.36 0.97ANS CR CZ 1.07 1.29 1.30 0.64 1.68 0.92ARMATS AM 1.13 0.16 17.55 0.40 2.81 0.89Austro Control AT 1.01 1.30 0.66 1.18 0.86 1.10Avinor NO 1.27 1.07 1.15 1.03 1.23 1.29Belgocontrol BE 0.59 0.93 0.77 0.82 0.72 0.54BULATSA BG 1.05 0.90 1.94 0.60 1.74 0.89Croatia Control HR 1.29 0.87 1.58 0.95 1.37 1.26DCAC Cyprus CY 1.47 1.05 2.22 0.63 2.32 1.26DFS DE 0.91 1.32 0.70 0.98 0.93 0.90DHMI TR 1.61 0.86 4.28 0.44 3.69 1.28DSNA FR 0.98 1.03 1.07 0.89 1.10 0.93EANS EE 2.66 1.33 2.44 0.82 3.25 2.46ENAV IT 0.89 1.03 1.01 0.86 1.04 0.84Finavia FI 1.33 0.84 1.56 1.02 1.31 1.34HCAA GR 1.28 0.93 1.29 1.07 1.20 1.32HungaroControl HU 1.31 1.16 1.39 0.82 1.61 1.21IAA IE 1.29 1.20 1.15 0.94 1.38 1.25LFV SE 1.39 0.90 1.33 1.17 1.20 1.51LGS LV 1.66 0.86 4.36 0.44 3.75 1.32LPS SK 0.81 0.80 1.63 0.62 1.31 0.69LVNL NL 0.64 1.25 0.80 0.64 0.99 0.55MATS MT 1.58 0.65 4.45 0.54 2.90 1.31M-NAV MK 0.99 0.34 3.60 0.80 1.23 0.91MoldATSA MD 0.96 0.24 9.93 0.40 2.43 0.76MUAC 1.72 2.51 0.67 1.02 1.69 1.73NATA Albania AL 1.06 0.79 9.10 0.15 7.18 0.76NATS UK 1.13 1.39 0.95 0.85 1.32 1.06NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) PT 1.06 1.26 0.76 1.11 0.95 1.11NAVIAIR DK 1.10 1.29 1.09 0.79 1.40 1.00Oro Navigacija LT 1.19 0.57 2.90 0.73 1.64 1.06PANSA PL 1.47 1.20 1.37 0.89 1.65 1.40ROMATSA RO 0.91 0.59 1.91 0.80 1.13 0.83Skyguide CH 0.89 1.48 0.85 0.71 1.26 0.79Slovenia Control SI 0.92 0.55 1.39 1.22 0.76 1.03SMATSA RS/ME 1.40 1.03 2.21 0.62 2.26 1.20UkSATSE UA 1.11 0.42 9.01 0.29 3.78 0.84
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0Total European System
Performance ratiosPerformance ratios
ANSPs Country Fin
anci
al c
ost-
effe
ctiv
ene
ss
KP
I in
dexe
s*
Table 4.1: The components of gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness, 200965
65 For the ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour, the support costs ratio, the ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour and the support costs per composite flight-hour (asterisked in
Financial cost-effectiveness 59 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
In Table 4.1 ANSPs for which a given component makes a particularly positive contribution to its cost-effectiveness (more than 1.30) are highlighted in green – those where a given component makes a particularly low contribution (less than 1/1.30) are in orange. Some ANSPs more than make up for a relatively low contribution from one component by a relatively high contribution from another and, as a result, are more cost-effective than the average (cost-effectiveness index greater than 1). On the left-hand-side the three ratios are multiplicative; the product of the ratios for each of the components equals the performance ratio for overall financial cost-effectiveness (see financial cost-effectiveness index in Table 4.1). The following example for ANS CR illustrates the interpretation of the performance ratios:
1.07 ANS CR’s gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs per composite flight-hour are some 8% lower (1/1.07 - 1) than the European average.
= 1.29 Its ATCO-hour productivity is +29% higher than the European average, and X 1.30 the ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour of ANS CR are -23% lower
(1/1.30 - 1) than the sample average. X 0.64 This is however partially outweighed by a higher support cost ratio, which
is +56% higher (1/0.64 - 1) than the sample average. On the right-hand-side, the two complementary performance ratios are normalised using the European average (note that these ratios are neither multiplicative nor additive):
1.68 ANS CR’s ATCOs in OPS employment costs per composite flight-hour are
-40% lower (1/1.68 - 1) than the European average, while 0.92 the support costs per composite flight-hour are +8% higher (1/0.92 - 1)
than the sample average.
Table 4.1), the inverse ratio is used, since higher unit employment costs and higher support costs imply lower cost-effectiveness.
Financial cost-effectiveness 60 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009) 61 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
5 CHANGES IN FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS (2005-2009)
5.1 Introduction
This chapter examines the changes in financial cost-effectiveness between 2005 and 2009, both for the European system level and for individual ANSPs. The indicators presented in this chapter will not be directly comparable to those in individual ACE reports (including this one), for the following reasons:
• The sample of ANSPs must be consistent; this has to be the 34 which disclosed consistent information over the period66;
• The monetary values in previous years’ calculations have been restated in 2009 prices and 2009 exchange rates in order to ensure consistency in time series comparison. At European system level for the period 2005-2009, price indexes increased by +9.6% (i.e. +2.3% per annum)67;
• As part of the experience and understanding gained from the last data validation process, the PRU has made some data adjustments in order to ensure comparability over time. These adjustments have been made in a fully transparent way with the cooperation of the participating ANSPs.
The main objective of this Chapter is to look at the medium term developments in financial cost-effectiveness for 2005-2009 at European system level and at ANSP level. A five year period forms a solid basis to derive medium term trends. However, the significant decrease in traffic observed in 2009 makes the analysis of the period 2005-2009 relatively complex and biased since it comprises a period of growth (2005-2008) and a year of significant downturn (2009). Therefore in this year Report, a special focus is made on the changes in costs and traffic between 2008 and 2009 in order to understand how the European ANS system reacted to the significant demand shock.
Figure 5.1 shows that a majority of ANSPs experienced a significant fall in traffic demand. Indeed, for 11 ANSPs the decrease in traffic volumes was greater than -8% in 2009. It is noteworthy, however, that for DHMI, MoldATSA and NATA Albania the traffic rose by more than 4% in 2009, a situation clearly contrasting with the rest of Europe.
Lower Airspace
Annual change in composite flight-hours (2008-2009)
ANSPs not included in trend analysis
< -12%
< -8%
< -4%
< 0%
>= 0%
> 4%
> 8%
Figure 5.1: Annual change in composite flight-hours between 2008 and 2009
66 This is not a serious limitation. Only three ANSPs disclosing information today are omitted from the historical analysis. SMATSA and ARMATS did not start disclosing information until after the start of the period, while HCAA only started disclosing terminal costs in 2006. Those included constitute 95% of the 2009 sample in terms of output (composite flight-hours). 67 Source: Inflation rates (average consumer prices) from IMF database available at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/weodata/index.aspx.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009) 62 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
5.2 Medium term changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
5.2.1 Changes at European system level (2005-2009)
Figure 5.2 shows how the financial cost-effectiveness KPI has changed over time for Europe as a whole. The blue bars show the ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour, with all years expressed in the same price base (2009 prices), with the scale on the left-hand axis. To show how the indicator is influenced by growth in traffic and in costs, indexes of those variables are plotted as the orange and dark blue lines, with the scale on the right-hand axis. At European system level, unit ATM/CNS provision costs rose by +4.6% in real terms between 2005 and 2009 (or +1.1% per annum). Figure 5.2 indicates that, after one year of marked reduction in 2006 (-3.0%), unit costs fell only moderately in 2007 (-0.6%) and 2008 (-0.5%), before rising by a staggering +9.2% in 2009. As indicated on the right-hand side of Figure 5.2, in 2009 while traffic volumes decreased by -7.0%, ATM/CNS provision costs increased by +1.5%.
+9.2%
-0.5%-0.6%-3.0%
0
100
200
300
400
500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
hou
r (2
00
9 p
rice
s)
100
105
110
115
120
125
Inde
x of
co
sts
and
tra
ffic
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour ATM/CNS provision costs index Composite flight-hours index
+1.5%
+5.0%
+1.5%
+4.7%
+1.2% +1.8%
+5.7%
-7.0%-10%
-8%-6%-4%-2%0%2%4%6%8%
10%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Figure 5.2: Changes in financial cost-effectiveness KPI (2005-2009, real terms)
It should be noted that in nominal terms, unit ATM/CNS provision costs increased by some +15% between 2005 and 2009, given that at European system level, price indexes increased by +9.6%.
5.2.2 Changes at ANSP level (2005-2009)
Figure 5.3 shows the annual changes in unit ATM/CNS provision costs for each ANSP68, between 2005 and 2009 (yellow bars) and between 2008 and 2009 (blue bars). Figure 5.3 indicates that the rise in unit ATM/CNS provision costs for Europe as a whole (+1.1% per annum or +4.6%) masks different trends across individual ANSPs. Between 2005 and 2009, unit costs rose for 19 out of 34 ANSPs. Among the largest five ANSPs, between 2005 and 2009 unit costs fell in real terms for ENAV (-1.4% p.a.) and remained fairly constant for DFS (+0.4% p.a.). On the other hand, during this period unit costs rose for Aena (+4.5% p.a.), DSNA (+2.0% p.a.) and NATS (+1.7% p.a.).
68 It should be noted that, although ANS CR and Oro Navigacija reported the cost of capital in their ACE 2009 data submission, these costs were not charged to airspace users (respectively for terminal ANS, and for en-route and terminal ANS).
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009) 63 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Ae
na
DS
NA
DF
S
NA
TS
EN
AV
DH
MI
Sky
gui
de
LV
NL
LF
V
Aus
tro
Con
trol
Avi
nor
Be
lgoc
ontr
ol
RO
MA
TS
A
UkS
AT
SE
MU
AC
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa)
PA
NS
A
NA
VIA
IR
AN
S C
R
IAA
BU
LA
TS
A
Hun
garo
Co
ntro
l
Cro
atia
Con
trol
Fin
avia
LP
S
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
Slo
ven
ia C
ontr
ol
LGS
Oro
Na
viga
cija
NA
TA
Alb
ani
a
MA
TS
M-N
AV
EA
NS
Mol
dA
TS
AAnn
ua
l cha
ng
es in
ga
te-t
o-g
ate
uni
t A
TM
/CN
Spr
ovis
ion
cost
s (%
)
Annual changes in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2005-2009 Changes in unit ATM/CNS provision costs 2008-2009
European system average (2005-2009): +1.1% p.a.
60% of European system ATM/CNS provision costs
Figure 5.3: Annual changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour, 2005-2009 (real terms)
Figure 5.3 also shows changes in ATM/CNS provision costs between 2008 and 2009 (see blue bars). Following the sharp decrease in traffic volumes, unit costs significantly rose in 2009 for a majority of ANSPs and these increases cancelled the performance improvements achieved in the previous years. It is therefore important to analyse the information provided in Figure 5.3 in the light of changes in ATM/CNS provisions costs and traffic volumes between 2008 and 2009.
MoldATSA
EANS
M-NAV
MATS
NATA Albania
Oro Navigacija
LGS
Slovenia Control
DCAC Cyprus
LPS
Finavia
Croatia Control
HungaroControl
BULATSA
IAAANS CR
NAVIAIR
PANSA
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
MUAC
UkSATSE
ROMATSABelgocontrol
Avinor
Austro Control
LFV LVNL
Skyguide
DHMI
ENAV
NATS
DFS
DSNA
Aena
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
-20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10%
Changes in composite flight-hours (2008-2009)
Cha
nges
in A
TM
/CN
S p
rovi
sion
cos
ts (
2008
-200
9)
Increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs
Figure 5.4: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic volumes (2008-2009)
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009) 64 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Figure 5.4 shows that 14 ANSPs could reduce their ATM/CNS provision costs between 2008 and 2009 (see bottom left corner of the chart). For four ANSPs (BULATSA (-0.5%), ANS CR (-0.6%), M-NAV (-0.5%) and NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) (-2.9%)), unit costs decreased in 2009 since the reduction in ATM/CNS provision costs more than compensated for the decrease in traffic. At face value, this indicates for these ANSPs a certain degree of reactivity and would suggest that cost-containment measures have been implemented by these ANSPs. However, in most of the cases these costs reductions were not sufficient to compensate for the fall in traffic and to avoid an increase in unit costs. Figure 5.4 also indicates that for nine ANSPs (DCAC Cyprus, DFS, HungaroControl, LVNL, LFV, NATA Albania, MoldATSA, UkSATSE and DHMI) ATM/CNS provision costs increased by more than +5% in 2009. Among the five largest ANSPs, NATS (i.e. -1.6%) and Aena (-1.9%) could achieve a cost reduction in 2009 and therefore slightly smoothed the impact of the traffic downturn on unit costs. ATM/CNS provision costs remained fairly constant for ENAV (+0.9%) against a background of -7.1% traffic drop, while they actually increased for DSNA (+2.8%) and DFS (+7.6%) in a context of -6.9% and -7.5% traffic decrease, respectively. Another complementary analysis to understand whether and where cost-containment measures have been implemented is to compare the actual 2009 ATM/CNS provision costs to the plans prepared in November 2008 (and reported in ACE 2007) for 2009. This is done in Figure 5.5 below which shows the difference between actual and planned 2009 ATM/CNS provision costs (see x-axis in red). Similarly, the difference between the actual and planned 2009 traffic is shown on the y-axis (in blue).
UkSATSE
SMATSA
Slovenia Control
SkyguideROMATSA
NAVIAIR
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
NATS
NATA Albania
MUAC
MoldATSAM-NAV
MATS
LVNL
LPS
LGS
LFV
IAA
HungaroControl
Finavia
ENAV
EANS
DSNA
DHMI
DFS
DCAC Cyprus
Croatia Control
Belgocontrol
Avinor
Austro Control
BULATSA
ANS CR
Aena
-12%
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
-36% -32% -28% -24% -20% -16% -12% -8% -4% 0% 4% 8% 12% 16% 20% 24% 28% 32% 36%
Difference between 2009 actual ATM/CNS provision costs and plans for 2009 provided in Nov.2008
Dif
fere
nce
be
twee
n 2
009
act
ua
l c
om
po
sit
e fl
igh
t-h
ou
rsa
nd
pla
ns
for
2009
pro
vid
ed
in
No
v. 2
008
2009 actual costs higher than planned2009 actual costs higher than planned2009 actual costs lower than planned
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0%
Oro Navigacija
PANSA
Figure 5.5: Comparison of 2009 actual ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic with ACE 2007 plans
Figure 5.5 above shows that the actual 2009 traffic was lower than planned in ACE 2007 for all ANSPs, with the exception of BULATSA for which actual and planned traffic were in line.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009) 65 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
For seven ANSPs the actual 2009 traffic was at least -10% below ACE 2007 plans. This is for example the case of DSNA and ENAV (both -10%) although these two ANSPs were planning for a very modest growth in 2009. This is also the case for PANSA (-27%) and Oro Navigacija (-23%), two ANSPs for which the optimistic traffic outlook shown in November 2008 did not materialise in 2009. The left-hand side of Figure 5.5 shows that for 27 ANSPs, actual 2009 costs were lower than planned in ACE 2007. Among the five largest ANSPs, 2009 actual costs were lower than planned for NATS (-13%), DFS (-8%) and DSNA (-7%) and to a lower extent for Aena and ENAV (-1%). For four ANSPs, 2009 actual costs are more than -15% lower than planned in ACE 2007 (i.e. LGS (-34%), Oro Navigacija (-26%), IAA (-16%) and PANSA (-15%)). It should be noted that these four ANSPs were planning for significant costs increases (above +20%) compared to their 2007 levels. The right hand side of Figure 5.5 shows that for eight ANSPs, actual 2009 costs were higher than planned in ACE 2007. For three of them, ROMATSA (+32%), UkSATSE (+24%) and MoldATSA (+21%), actual costs were more than +20% higher than planned. It should be noted that in ACE 2007, ROMATSA and UKSATSE were planning for cost reductions (-8% and -5% respectively), which did not materialise in 2009.
Improved shift planning
Enhanced management of overtime
Change pension scheme for new recruits
Increase retirement age
Review staffing needs for support functions
Pay freeze for top executives
Postpone recruitment
Curtail travel
Postpone training
Review property needs. Sell surplus assets.
Improved procurement processes
Extend life of technical systems
Review investment plan
ATCOproductivity
ATCOemployment
costs
Other operating
costs
Capital-related costs
Critical review of plans
Critical review of operational processes
Rationalise ACCs and other operational units
Across-the-board areas of improvement for ANSPs
Seek improvements through cooperation (FABs)
More rigorous budgetary control
ANSP seeks additional revenue for inadequately funded services
State funds specific elements of the cost base
Use stabilisation fund or other reserves to smooth unit rate fluctuations
Reduced requirement for return on State-owned equity
Cross-subsidies and
transfers
Figure 5.6: Summary of main cost-containment measures announced by States/ANSPs in 2009
Due to the variety of measures and to a lack of detailed information it is rather difficult to carry out for each ANSP an in-depth analysis for the different cost-containment measures listed in the green boxes of Figure 5.6 below. Moreover, given short term rigidities to adjust costs downwards and unavoidable lead time, it is understood that some of the measures that were implemented in 2009 will actually only materialize in terms of lower costs in 2010 and onwards. It is therefore important that this analysis be also carried out in next year ACE 2010 Benchmarking Report.
Some States/ANSPs also implemented measures focused on reducing or stabilizing the chargeable cost base that is charged to airspace users (see blue column on the left). The impact of such measures is not fully reflected in Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5 since the objective of the ACE data analysis is to focus on the costs relating to the provision of ATM/CNS services and not on the costs charged to airspace users. However, it is noteworthy that some ANSPs could genuinely reduce ATM/CNS provision costs between 2008 and 2009 and at the same time decided not to charge a part of the cost-base to airspace users. This is particularly the case of ANS CR and Oro Navigacija which did not charge the cost of capital to airspace users in 2009 (respectively for terminal ANS, and for en-route and terminal ANS). It should also be noted that in 2009 and 2010, ENAV used its “stabilisation fund” to reduce the chargeable cost-base and that a part of ENAV costs is financed through public contributions and therefore not charged to airspace users. Spain decided not to charge
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009) 66 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
some 10% of its en-route cost-base in 2010. Similarly, in Switzerland, EUROCONTROL costs are borne by the Swiss government and not charged to the airspace users. More details on the changes in unit ATM/CNS provision costs for individual ANSPs are reported in Chapter 8 (Part IV of this report).
5.3 Changes in the components of financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
This section compares changes in the components of financial cost-effectiveness between 2005 and 2009 for the 34 ANSPs that have reported ACE data consistently since 2005. Year-on-year changes that can be observed in the charts could be due to:
• Genuine changes in performance;
• Changes in ANSPs data reporting; and,
• Known errors that were made in data submissions in earlier years and identified during the extensive data validation process carried out by the PRU. Where possible the PRU has made retrospective adjustments to ensure data consistency.
The maturity in reporting has improved since 2005. Some, but not all, ANSPs have been able to revise their 2005-2008 data to be consistent with the data definitions used in 2009. Therefore some caution is needed with the interpretation of these comparisons, since the results can be affected by changes in data reporting.
5.3.1 Changes at European system level (2005-2009)
Figure 5.7 shows how the various component ratios have contributed to the overall unit cost increase of +4.6% at European level:
• The left-hand side indicates that the increase in ATCO employment costs (+21.4%) was far greater than the increase in ATCO-hour productivity (+6.0%). This resulted in higher ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour (+14.5%);
• The right-hand side indicates that support costs (+5.4%) rose slightly faster than the traffic (+4.7%), resulting in fairly constant support costs per composite flight-hour (+0.7%) over the 2005-2009 period;
• The central part shows that, given the weights of ATCO costs (31%) and support costs (69%), the overall unit costs rose (+4.6%).
+6.0%
+21.4%
+14.5%
+4.6%
+0.7%
+5.4% 4.7%
"Traffic effect"
Increased ATCO-hour productivity
Increase inunit ATM/CNS provision costs
2005-2009
"Support costs effect"
Increased employment
costs per ATCO-hour
Increased ATCO
employment costs per
composite flight-hour
Increased support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight31%
Weight69%
Figure 5.7: Breakdown of changes in financial cost-effectiveness, 2005-2009 (real terms)
The changes shown in Figure 5.7 are significantly affected by the sharp decrease in traffic volumes in 2009. Indeed, as shown in the ACE 2008 Benchmarking Report, unit ATM/CNS
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009) 67 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
provision costs decreased by -7.2% between 2004 and 2008 at European system level with productivity increasing by +12.7% and unit support costs decreasing by -12.7%. In other words, the unit costs increase in 2009 (+9.2%) cancels the performance improvements achieved in previous years. Changes in the components of cost-effectiveness between 2008 and 2009 are shown in Figure 5.8 below.
-6.4%
+1.5%
+8.5% +9.2% +9.4%
+1.8%
-7.0%
"Traffic effect"
Decreased ATCO-hour productivity
Increase inunit ATM/CNS
provision costs
2008-2009
"Support costs effect"
Increased employment
costs per ATCO-hour
Increased ATCO
employment costs per
composite flight-hour
Increased support costs per composite
flight-hour
Figure 5.8: Breakdown of changes in financial cost-effectiveness, 2008-2009 (real terms)
The following sections provide an analysis of the changes in the three main components of the cost-effectiveness KPI: ATCO-hour productivity (Section 5.3.2), ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (Section 5.3.3), and support costs per composite flight-hour (Section 5.3.4).
5.3.2 Changes in ATCO-hour productivity at ANSP level (2005-2009)
As indicated in Figure 5.7, between 2005 and 2009 ATCO-hour productivity increased by +6.0% at European system level. Figure 5.9 shows that this overall change is made of: (1) regular and continuous productivity increases over 2005-2008, and (2) a significant decrease in 2009, reflecting the -7.0% fall in traffic. The information presented in Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.9 for the European system level masks contrasted trends across ANSPs, hence the importance to look at changes in ATCO-hour productivity at ANSP level.
-6.4%+3.9%
+4.9%+3.9%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
per
AT
CO
-hou
r on
dut
y
Figure 5.9: Changes in ATCO-hour productivity (2005-2009)
Figure 5.10 shows the annual changes in ATCO-hour productivity for each ANSP, between 2005 and 2009 (yellow bars) and between 2008 and 2009 (blue bars). It also shows the ATCO-hour productivity achieved in 2005 (blue dots).
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009) 68 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
UkS
AT
SE
BU
LA
TS
A
Mol
dA
TS
A
Avi
nor
RO
MA
TS
A
LP
S
Cro
atia
Co
ntro
l
PA
NS
A
DF
S
MA
TS
EN
AV
NA
VIA
IR
MU
AC
NA
TS
Oro
Nav
iga
cija
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
bo
a)
LV
NL
IAA
Be
lgo
cont
rol
Au
stro
Co
ntro
l
NA
TA
Alb
ania
DS
NA
AN
S C
R
DH
MI
Hun
garo
Co
ntro
l
Sky
gui
de
LF
V
Fin
avia
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
Ae
na
EA
NS
LG
S
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
M-N
AV
Ann
ual c
hang
es in
AT
CO
-hou
r pr
oduc
tivity
-2.0
-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
Com
posi
te f
light
-hou
rs p
er A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Annual changes in ATCO-hour productivity 2005-2009 Changes in ATCO-hour productivity 2008-2009 ATCO-hour productivity 2005
Figure 5.10: Annual changes in ATCO-hour productivity at ANSP level (2005-2009 and 2008-2009)
Between 2005 and 2009, ATCO-hour productivity rose for 22 out of 34 ANSPs. This arises mainly from high traffic growth until 2008 and more effective use of spare capacity and existing resources. However, in the same period, ATCO-hour productivity fell for 12 ANSPs. For most of these ANSPs, the decrease in productivity over the 2005-2009 period is mainly driven by a significant fall in 2009 following the traffic downturn. In fact, Figure 5.10 clearly shows that in 2009, ATCO-hour productivity decreased for 26 out of 34 ANSPs. The most significant decreases in productivity are observed for Oro Navigacija (-28%), LGS (-25%), EANS (-16%), DCAC Cyprus (-15%), Slovenia Control (-13%) and IAA (-13%). Since the impact of the economic downturn on traffic was not of the same magnitude across all ANSPs, it is important to analyse the information provided in Figure 5.10 in the light of changes in traffic volumes between 2008 and 2009. It is also important to look at the changes in terms of ATCO-hours on duty69 in order to understand how each individual ANSP reacted to the lower traffic volumes in 2009. This information is provided in Table 5.1 where the change in each ANSP’s productivity indicator between 2008 and 2009 has been broken down into a traffic volume effect (B) and an ATCO-hour effect (C).
69 It is possible that some of the ANSPs showing particularly large productivity changes have recorded ATCO-hours on duty inconsistently across the years. The figures for ATCO-hours on duty are often estimated figures, or figures used for planning purposes, which could deviate from actual hours on duty. Although the SID V2.6 has brought further clarity and enhanced comparability, this is still an area where accurate and consistent reporting across all ANSPs remain a challenge.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009) 69 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
(A) (B) (C)
Ch
ang
es in
AT
CO
-hou
r p
rodu
ctiv
ity 2
008
-20
09
"Tra
ffic
effe
ct"
"AT
CO
-ho
ur e
ffect
"
LPS 6.8% -5.1% -11.1%MoldATSA 4.9% 6.5% 1.5%NATA Albania 3.1% 7.5% 4.2%HungaroControl 3.1% -4.1% -7.0%BULATSA 2.8% -0.6% -3.2%LVNL 2.3% -7.4% -9.5%Avinor 1.5% -4.2% -5.7%ROMATSA 0.4% -1.5% -1.9%NAVIAIR -1.3% -9.0% -7.8%MUAC -1.9% -8.4% -6.6%ANS CR -2.1% -3.1% -1.1%Finavia -2.5% -6.7% -4.2%Belgocontrol -2.5% -6.2% -3.7%MATS -3.2% 0.4% 3.8%Aena -3.9% -10.1% -6.5%DHMI -4.1% 6.0% 10.6%NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) -4.3% -6.1% -1.9%PANSA -5.9% -6.9% -1.1%Skyguide -6.1% -7.0% -1.0%DFS -6.6% -7.5% -1.0%Austro Control -6.6% -9.0% -2.5%LFV -7.0% -9.4% -2.6%Croatia Control -7.4% 3.3% 11.7%DSNA -7.5% -6.9% 0.6%ENAV -8.1% -7.1% 1.1%M-NAV -9.7% -2.5% 8.1%NATS -11.4% -10.6% 0.9%UkSATSE -11.8% -8.5% 3.8%IAA -12.9% -11.4% 1.7%Slovenia Control -13.3% -2.6% 12.3%DCAC Cyprus -14.5% -2.4% 14.2%EANS -16.0% -15.5% 0.5%LGS -25.3% -8.6% 22.3%Oro Navigacija -28.4% -17.7% 15.0%
Total European System (34 ANSPs) -6.4% -7.0% -0.6%
ANSPs
Table 5.1: Changes in ATCO-hours on duty and traffic volumes (2008-2009)
Table 5.1 indicates that seven ANSPs achieved an increase in ATCO-hour productivity in 2009: LPS (+7%), MoldATSA (+5%), NATA Albania (+3%), HungaroControl (+3%), BULATSA (+3%) LVNL (+2%) and Avinor (+2%). It should be noted that for MoldATSA and NATA Albania, this performance improvement was achieved in a context of traffic increase (+6% and +7%, respectively). Table 5.1 also shows that 16 ANSPs could achieve a reduction in the number of ATCO-hours on duty in 2009 (see green dot in column (C)). This indicates a certain flexibility to deploy operational staff (for example through the use of less overtime hours) to better adapt to the sharp decrease in traffic volumes. Among these 16 ANSPs, for Avinor, LPS, HungaroControl, BULATSA and LVNL ATCO-hour productivity increased in 2009. On the other hand, for Finavia, NAVIAIR, MUAC, ANS CR, Belgocontrol, Aena, NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa), PANSA, LFV and Austro Control, the reduction in ATCO-hours on duty was not sufficient to compensate for the decrease in traffic and to avoid a decrease in ATCO-hour productivity between 2008 and 2009.
Positive values in column (A) mean that productivity improvedbetween 2008 and 2009. Positive values in column (B) mean that traffic volumes rose between 2008 and 2009. Positive values in column (C) mean that the number of ATCO-hours rose between 2008 and 2009. All other things being equal, a positive value contributes to lower productivity (hence the red dot). Productivity improves if traffic grows faster than the ATCO-hours on duty. For example: DFS’s 2009productivity is -6.6% lower than in 2008 because the traffic decreased by -7.5% while the number of ATCO-hours decreased by -1.0%. Note: By mathematical construction, the % variation in productivity (A) can be approximated as the difference between the “traffic effect” (B) and the “ATCO-hour effect” (C). The larger the % variations, the less accurate the approximation. This explains why in some cases (A) is not exactly equal to (B) - (C).
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009) 70 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
On the other hand, for some ANSPs such as Croatia Control, LGS, M-NAV, Slovenia Control and DCAC Cyprus the decrease in productivity between 2008 and 2009 is mainly due to a significant increase in ATCO-hours on duty. Similarly, for DHMI ATCO-hours on duty increased by +11% in 2009 and as a result ATCO-hour productivity fell by -4% despite a +6% increase in traffic volumes. The increase in ATCO-hours for DHMI is mainly due to a rise the number of FTE ATCO in OPS (+10% in 2009). Following the sharp traffic decrease in 2009, it is expected that productivity improvements result from more effective OPS room management and by making a better use of existing resources, for example through the adaptation of rosters (preferably individually based) and shift times, effective management of overtime, and through the adaptation of sector opening times to traffic demand patterns. In other words, in the next years when traffic volumes will bounce back, there is an opportunity to increase ATCO-hour productivity without significantly affecting the other components of cost-effectiveness, while ensuring safety standards. Similarly, following the traffic downturn, in the short-term the trade-offs between ATCO-hour productivity and quality of service will be less significant than normal. There is therefore scope to improve ATCO-hour productivity while maintaining adequate levels of quality of service. More details on changes in ATCO-hour productivity for individual ANSPs are reported in Chapter 8 (Part IV of this report).
5.3.3 Changes in ATCO employment costs at ANSP level (2005-2009)
As indicated in Figure 5.7, between 2005 and 2009 ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour increased by +21.4% in real terms at European system level. Figure 5.11 shows that this overall change is made of: (1) significant employment costs increases over 2005-2007, and (2) smaller increases in 2008 (+3.3%) and 2009 (+1.5%). Again, the information presented in Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.11 for the European system level masks contrasted trends across ANSPs, hence the importance to look at changes in ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour at ANSP level.
+7.4%+7.8%
+3.3% +1.5%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(20
09 p
rices
)
Figure 5.11: Changes in ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (2005-2009)
Figure 5.12 shows the annual changes for each ANSP between 2005 and 2009 (yellow bars), and between 2008 and 2009 (blue bars). Between 2005 and 2009, ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour rose for 27 out of 34 ANSPs; in four ANSPs these increases were greater or equal than +10% p.a. (MoldATSA, Oro Navigacija, Avinor and NATS).
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009) 71 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
Avi
nor
Mol
dAT
SA
Oro
Nav
iga
cija
NA
TS
PA
NS
A
LVN
L
NA
VIA
IR
DS
NA
Aus
tro
Con
tro
l
RO
MA
TS
A
M-N
AV
DH
MI
Hu
ngar
oCon
tro
l
DF
S
LFV
MU
AC
IAA
UkS
AT
SE
Cro
atia
Con
trol
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
NA
V P
ort
uga
l (F
IR L
isb
oa)
LPS
EN
AV
Aen
a
MA
TS
BU
LAT
SA
Bel
goco
ntro
l
AN
S C
R
Sky
gui
de
EA
NS
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
NA
TA
Alb
ania
Fin
avi
a
LG
S
Ann
ual c
hang
es in
AT
CO
em
ploy
men
t cos
ts p
er A
TC
O-h
our
-60
-30
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Annual changes in ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO-hour 2005-2009
Changes in ATCO employmentcosts per ATCO-hour 2008-2009
ATCO employment costsper ATCO-hour 2005
Figure 5.12: Annual changes in ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour, 2005-2009 and 2008-2009 (real terms)
Similarly, Figure 5.12 indicates that in 2009 ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour increased by more than +10% for eight ANSPs, namely NAVIAIR (+16%), HungaroControl (+25%), NATA Albania (+19%), LPS (+14%), MoldATSA (+14%), M-NAV (+14%), NATS (+12%) and LFV (+10%). Employment costs are typically subject to complex bargaining agreements between management and staff which usually are embedded into a collective agreement. The duration of the collective agreement, the terms and methods for renegotiation greatly vary across ANSPs. In many cases salary conditions are negotiated every year. Employment costs can be profoundly affected by pension arrangements, and particularly whether the pension scheme is defined benefit or defined contribution. In recent years there has been increasing recognition that traditional methods of accounting for the costs of providing for future pensions tend to under-represent costs. New methods, now mandated by IFRS, make a fairer provision for these costs. In the cases where this has been fully applied, recognition of the true costs has resulted in very substantial increases in employment costs, as well as exceptional costs. The impact of this is likely to spread as it is recognised in more and more ANSPs. More details on changes in ATCO employment costs for individual ANSPs are reported in Chapter 8 (Part IV of this report).
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009) 72 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
5.3.4 Changes in support costs per composite flight-hour (2005-2009)
As indicated in Figure 5.7, support costs per composite flight-hours remained fairly constant between 2005 and 2009 (+0.7% in real terms) at European system level. Figure 5.13 shows that this reflects the combination of: (1) consecutive decreases over 2005-2008, and (2) a significant increase in 2009 (+9.4%). Figure 5.13 also indicates that the unit support costs increase in 2009 cancels out the performance improvements that were achieved since 2005.
+9.4%-0.5%-2.1%-5.6%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ p
er c
omp
osite
flig
ht-h
our
(20
09 p
rices
)
Figure 5.13: Changes in ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour (2005-2009)
The right-hand-side of Figure 5.14 indicates that the rise in unit support costs in 2009 results from the combination of higher support costs (+1.8%) with much lower traffic than in 2008 (-7.0%). The left-hand-side of Figure 5.14 shows that between 2008 and 2009, unit support staff costs rose by +8.2%, unit non-staff operating costs rose by +8.8%, while unit capital-related costs increased by +12.4%.
+8.2% +8.8%
+12.4%
+9.4%
+1.8%
-7.0%
Increased unit capital-related
costs
Increased unit non-staff operating
costs (incl. exceptional costs)
Increased unit employment costs
(exc. ATCOs in OPS)
Increase insupport costs per composite
flight-hour2008-2009
"Support costs effect"
"Traffic effect"
Figure 5.14: Changes in the components of support costs per composite flight-hour, 2008-2009 (real terms)
The significant decrease in traffic experienced in 2009 significantly affects the comparison of unit support costs between 2008 and 2009. In order to address this issue, Figure 5.15 shows the changes in the different components of support costs (see the “support costs effect” bar on the right-hand side of Figure 5.14) between 2008 and 2009, excluding the traffic effect.
+0.7%
+5.5%
+7.2%
-0.1%
-30.4%-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
Employmentcosts for
support staff
Non-staffoperating
costs
Depreciationcosts
Cost of capital Exceptionalcosts
Mill
ion
€
Figure 5.15: Changes in the components of support costs (2008-2009)
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009) 73 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Figure 5.15 indicates that the +1.8% increase in support costs between 2008 and 2009 is mainly due to increases in non-staff operating costs (+5.5%) and depreciation costs (+7.2%) which were not compensated by the decrease in exceptional costs (-30.4%). It is noteworthy that in 2009, the main component of support costs (i.e. employment costs for support staff) remained fairly constant. Figure 5.16 displays the annual changes in unit support costs for each ANSP70 between 2005 and 2009 (yellow bars) and between 2008 and 2009 (blue bar).
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
LF
V
NA
VIA
IR
Hu
ngar
oC
ont
rol
Slo
veni
a C
ont
rol
UkS
AT
SE
Avi
nor
Aen
a
Sky
guid
e
Fin
avi
a
IAA
PA
NS
A
MU
AC
LPS
NA
TA
Alb
ania
DS
NA
NA
TS
AN
S C
R
Mo
ldA
TS
A
DF
S
Be
lgo
cont
rol
Aus
tro
Co
ntro
l
EN
AV
LG
S
RO
MA
TS
A
LVN
L
Cro
atia
Co
ntro
l
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
MA
TS
M-N
AV
EA
NS
NA
V P
ort
uga
l (F
IR L
isb
oa)
DH
MI
Oro
Nav
iga
cija
BU
LAT
SA
Ann
ual c
hang
es in
sup
port
cos
ts p
er c
ompo
site
flig
ht-h
our
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
Annual changes in support costs per composite flight-hour 2005-2009
Changes in support costs per composite flight-hour 2008-2009
Support costs per composite flight-hour 2005
Figure 5.16: Annual Change in support cost per composite flight-hour at ANSP level, 2005-2009 and 2008-2009 (real terms)
Between 2005 and 2009, unit support costs fell for 18 ANSPs, and for three ANSPs the fall was more than 5% p.a. (BULATSA, Oro Navigacija and DHMI). On the other hand, increases in unit support costs larger than +5% p.a. are observed for LFV, NAVIAIR, HungaroControl, Slovenia Control and UkSATSE. As it is the case at European system level, Figure 5.16 shows that the year 2009 significantly affects the comparison of unit support costs at ANSP level over the 2005-2009 period. In 2009, only eight ANSPs (ANS CR, M-NAV, NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa), PANSA, Avinor, BULATSA, Slovenia Control and Croatia Control) were in a position to reduce unit support costs. For 11 ANSPs, unit support costs increased by more than +10% (LVNL, LFV, UkSATSE, DFS, MUAC, Finavia, EANS, Aena, NATA Albania, NAVIAIR and MoldATSA). Support costs are made of non-ATCO in OPS employment costs, non-staff operating costs and capital-related costs. A number of factors have an impact on these costs, some of them are identified below.
70 It should be noted that, although ANS CR and Oro Navigacija reported the cost of capital in their ACE 2009 data submission, these costs were not charged to airspace users (respectively for terminal ANS, and for en-route and terminal ANS).
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009) 74 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Non-ATCO in OPS employment costs can be affected by:
• Outsourcing of non-core activities (such as maintenance of technical equipment, and professional training) could transfer costs from this category to non-staff costs.
• Research & development policies may involve ATM systems either being developed in-house, or purchased off-the-shelf. In principle, either solution could lead to the most cost-effective outcome, depending on circumstances; this would depend on whether there were, for example, significant economies of scale, or major transaction costs.
• Arrangements relating to the collective agreement and the pension scheme for non-ATCOs in OPS.
Non-staff operating costs can be affected by:
• The terms and conditions for renegotiation of contracts for outsourced activities.
• Enhancement of the cooperation with other ANSPs to achieve synergies in the context of a FAB (sharing training of ATCOs, joint maintenance, and other matters).
Capital-related costs can be affected by:
• The extent of the investment programme.
• Accounting life of the assets.
• The degree to which assets are owned or rented. There are trade-offs among all the components of support costs. For example, outsourcing maintenance activities will reduce non-ATCO in OPS employment costs but increase non-staff operating costs. Similarly, renting rather than owning an asset will reduce capital-related costs but increase non-staff operating costs. Each ANSP should seek opportunities for change and evaluate them rigorously, taking into account all elements of support costs. Table 5.2 shows the changes in the various components of support costs for individual ANSPs. The right-hand-part of Table 5.2 shows how the three components of support costs (employment costs for “support” staff, non-staff operating costs (including exceptional costs) and capital-related costs) have changed over time for individual ANSPs.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009) 75 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ANSPs Cha
nges
in s
uppo
rt
cost
s 20
08-2
009
Sta
ff c
osts
(ex
c. A
TC
Os
in O
PS
) 20
08-2
009
Non
-sta
ff o
pera
ting
cost
s 20
08-2
009
Cap
ital r
elat
ed c
osts
20
08-2
009
Exc
eptio
nal c
osts
200
8-20
09
NATA Albania 19.7% 14.3% 59.8% -8.1%
MoldATSA 17.5% 18.1% 36.4% 10.2%
LVNL 13.6% 36.3% -28.2% 0.1%
LFV 12.0% 27.3% 5.6% 2.0%
UkSATSE 11.8% 4.0% 23.5% 20.2% -31.9%
DFS 11.3% 5.3% 11.3% 16.7% 30.1%
DHMI 7.5% -1.2% 18.5% 4.6%
Finavia 6.6% 19.8% -12.3% 7.4%
MUAC 5.4% 8.6% -1.3% 0.5%
HungaroControl 5.3% 5.2% 8.1% 2.4%
MATS 4.9% -9.5% 10.7% 12.5%
LPS 4.0% -7.0% 4.9% 22.2%
DCAC Cyprus 4.0% 9.2% 4.7% 0.4%
NAVIAIR 4.0% -7.0% -9.0% 54.8%
ROMATSA 3.3% -7.7% 108.5% -7.5% -48.5%
Aena 2.6% 1.9% 3.9% 8.6% -29.1%
Croatia Control 2.1% -0.1% 19.8% -10.3%
Belgocontrol 1.6% 8.3% -8.7% -4.4% -27.5%
DSNA 1.1% -4.9% 20.1% -2.5%
ENAV 1.1% 1.0% -0.6% 4.4% -47.9%
LGS -1.3% -11.8% -15.6% 23.3%
BULATSA -1.5% -2.4% -2.0% -0.1%
Slovenia Control -2.7% 8.3% -20.5% 4.7% -37.6%
Skyguide -3.2% 2.6% 20.7% 3.8% -84.1%
ANS CR -3.4% 1.7% -7.2% -6.8%
Austro Control -4.4% -6.5% 0.0% -2.5%
IAA -5.8% -15.0% -1.8% 3.9%
NATS -6.0% 0.4% -9.8% 4.0% -46.1%
Avinor -6.3% -6.0% -5.8% -9.2%
EANS -6.9% -2.3% -18.2% -0.9%
PANSA -7.7% -0.4% -17.1% -19.8%
M-NAV -9.4% -12.2% 14.1% -14.7%
Oro Navigacija -11.7% -2.5% -18.1% -20.3%NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) -13.7% -17.4% 8.0% -17.5%
Total European System (34 ANSPs) 1.8% 0.7% 5.5% 4.5% -30.4%
Table 5.2: Breakdown of changes in support costs, 2008-2009 (real terms)
Support costs are generally fixed costs and are not expected to change proportionally with traffic volumes in the short to medium term. On the other hand, Table 5.2 shows that in 2009 support costs decreased in real terms for nearly half of the ANSPs included in the ACE data analysis. For most of these ANSPs, the decrease in support costs was not sufficient to compensate for the significant fall in traffic volumes and to avoid an increase of unit support costs. Nevertheless, this indicates a certain degree of reactivity and suggests that cost-containment measures were implemented by these ANSPs. The significant increase observed for ROMATSA non-staff operating costs (+109%) in Table 5.2 is partly due to provisions for restructuring costs relating to the relocation of staff in Bucharest ACC. Among the five largest ANSPs, between 2008 and 2009, support costs increased for DFS (+11.3%), Aena (+2.6%) and to a lower extent for DSNA and ENAV (+1.1%), while they decreased for NATS (-6.0%).
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009) 76 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
In 2009, non-ATCOs in OPS employment costs which are the largest component of support costs (46.1%) increased for DFS (+5.3%), Aena (+1.9%) and ENAV (+1.0%), remained fairly constant for NATS (+0.4%), while they decreased for DSNA (-4.9%).
For DFS and to a lower extent Aena, the increase in non-ATCOs in OPS employment costs was mainly due to an increase in the number of support staff (+8.5% and +7.6%, respectively) as indicated in Figure 5.17. The large reduction in the non-ATCO in OPS workforce for DSNA (-715 FTEs or -11.8%) is mainly relating to the fact that in 2009, ENAC staff (i.e. national school for civil aviation) is not anymore on DSNA payroll and has not been reported in DSNA data submission.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
20
052
006
20
072
008
20
09
20
052
006
20
072
008
20
09
20
052
006
20
072
008
20
09
20
052
006
20
072
008
20
09
20
052
006
20
072
008
20
09
Aena DFS DSNA ENAV NATS
FT
E
ATCOs in OPS Support staff
Figure 5.17: Changes in ATCOs in OPS and “support” staff for the five largest ANSPs
More details on changes in support costs for individual ANSPs are reported in Chapter 8 (Part IV of this report).
Forward-looking financial cost-effectiveness (2010-2014) 77 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
6 FORWARD-LOOKING FINANCIAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS (2010-2014)
6.1 Introduction
Besides the disclosure of 2009 data, the SID requires ANSPs to report five years forward-looking data on plans and projections of traffic demand, costs, staff, capital expenditure and ATC capacity. The objective of this chapter is to aggregate ANSP forward-looking plans and projections in order to assess the cost-effectiveness of the European ATM system as a whole over the 2010-2014 period. Additional details for each ANSP are provided in Part IV of this Report. Unfortunately, several ANSPs did not provide complete forward-looking data covering the 2010-2014 period, limiting the ability to compute the forward-looking gate-to-gate financial cost-effectiveness KPIs until 2014, and/or the factors affecting future economic performance, namely the planned capital expenditures (capex) and the planned staff and capacity data. The maps displayed in Figure 6.1 show the status of data submission to compute the gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour71.
Lower Airspace
Incomplete 2010-2014 data (En-Route)
Lower Airspace
Incomplete 2010-2014 data (Terminal)
Figure 6.1: Status of ANSPs planned costs and traffic data submission
The production of realistic and complete plans is an important element of ANSPs’ performance. Disclosure of complete and consistent forward looking plans is certainly an area where there is still room for improvement. In addition, EC Regulation 2096/2005 (20 December 2005) on Common Requirements for provision of ANS (which requires ANSPs to produce a Business Plan covering a minimum period of five years and comprising performance objectives in terms of cost-effectiveness) and the EC Regulation 1070/2009 on SES II (21 October 2009) in respect to the Performance Scheme, and its implementing rule (EC N°691/2010) should effectively contribute to enhance the level of maturity of ANSPs planning processes.
6.2 Forward-looking financial cost-effectiveness at European system level
This section provides information for the 31 ANSPs that consistently reported planned gate-to-gate forward-looking information until 2014 (see Figure 6.1), but also takes into account the planned en-route data provided by NATS. For this reason, the gate-to-gate unit
71 UkSATSE did not provide complete planned costs or output data for en-route and terminal ANS. NATS was not in a position to provide the terminal ANS-related data (see right-hand side of Figure 6.1) on the grounds that such information is “commercial in confidence” even if it remains at an aggregated level.
Forward-looking financial cost-effectiveness (2010-2014) 78 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ATM/CNS provision cost reported in Figure 6.2 for 2009 (i.e. €438 per composite flight-hour) slightly differs from the figure presented in Chapter 5 (i.e. €435 per composite flight-hour).
Figure 6.2 shows that, at European system level, gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to continuously decrease until 2014 (i.e. an average annual decrease of -2.3% over the 2009-2014 period). The projected decrease in unit costs is due to the fact that between 2009 and 2014 traffic volumes are planned to increase faster (+3.2% p.a.) than ATM/CNS provision costs (+0.9% p.a.). It is noteworthy that real ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to decrease by -2.2% in 2010 leading to a fall in unit costs (i.e. -4.2%). Then from 2011 onwards, unit ATM/CNS provision costs are expected to decrease at an average rate of -1.6% p.a. until 2014. Figure 6.3 compares the plans in terms of ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic prepared by ANSPs in November 2010 (ACE 2009) with the projections prepared in November 2008 (ACE 2007). The main reason for referring to November 2008 data is that this information was provided before ANSPs fully considered the magnitude of the financial crisis. Therefore this comparison better reflects ANSPs’ reactivity to the decrease in traffic volumes following the economic downturn. Figure 6.3 shows that over the 2009-2012 period, the November 2008 traffic forecast have been revised downwards in greater proportions than the costs. This implies that in ACE 2009 the unit ATM/CNS costs profile provided for the period 2010-2012 is more pessimistic than in ACE 2007. Figure 6.3 indicates that 2009 traffic was -8% lower than planned in ACE 2007, reflecting the impact of the economic downturn. Figure 6.3 also shows that actual ATM/CNS provision costs are -4% lower than planned in ACE 2007. This shows a certain degree of reactivity of the European ANS industry in response of the significant traffic decrease in 2009. However, the difference between planned and actual 2009 costs (-4%) was of a much lower magnitude than for the traffic (-8%) and was not sufficient to avoid an increase of the total ATM/CNS provision costs between 2008 and 2009 (+1.5%). In April 2009, CANSO indicated that several European ANSPs would implement short term and medium term cost-containment measures in order to reduce the impact of the economic downturn on airspace users. These measures certainly contributed to the lower 2009 ATM/CNS provision costs compared to ACE 2007 plans (a difference of some €320M). It should be noted that given short term rigidities to adjust costs downwards and unavoidable lead time, some of the measures that were implemented in 2009 may only have an impact in 2010 and onwards. Indeed, Figure
-4% -2% -2% -2% -1%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
98
106
114
122
130
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 438 420 410 403 396 391
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 98 100 102 103 104
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 102 107 111 114 117
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PEuropean system
-4% -7%-6% -7%
-8%-9%
-8%-9%
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
8 000
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
14
16
18
20
22
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs (
Mill
ion
s)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traff ic (ACE 2007) Planned traff ic (ACE 2009)
Figure 6.2: Forward-looking cost-effectiveness at European system level (2009-2014, real terms)
Figure 6.3: Changes in planned costs and traffic at European system level
(2009-2012, real terms)
Forward-looking financial cost-effectiveness (2010-2014) 79 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
6.3 shows that the planned costs for the year 2010 have been revised downwards by -7%, a more substantial revision than for the year 2009. More details on the comparison between ACE 2007 and ACE 2009 planned costs and traffic profiles for individual ANSPs are reported in Chapter 8 (Part IV of this report).
6.2.1 Changes in planned unit ATM/CNS provision costs at ANSP level
The overall trend in planned ATM/CNS unit cost at European level (see graph in Figure 6.2) is not uniform across Europe. Planned changes in real ATM/CNS unit costs at ANSP level for the period 2009-2014 are displayed in Figure 6.4 for the 36 ANSPs that reported planned unit ATM/CNS provision costs until 2014. Unit costs are planned to rise for seven ANSPs, which represents a more optimistic outlook compared with last year’s plan, when the real unit costs were planned to increase for 17 ANSPs. On the other hand, some ANSPs plan for significant unit costs increases for the 2009-2014 period. This is the case of EANS (+37%), HungaroControl (+27%) and DHMI (17%). Figure 6.4 indicates that 29 ANSPs plan reductions in unit costs between 2009 and 2014. This is particularly the case for Aena (-34%), M-NAV (-28%), ROMATSA and HCAA (-24%), and LVNL (-22%). All five largest ANSPs plan for a decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs between 2009 and 2014: AENA (-34%), DSNA (-9%), ENAV (-6%), NATS (-5%) and DFS (-1%). Changes in planned unit costs are further examined at ANSP level in Part IV of this Report, where more detailed projections are analysed.
6.3 Changes in fixed assets and capital expenditure (capex)
Figure 6.5 shows the proportion of fixed assets which are in operation and the average remaining accounting life of the asset base, for the ANSPs that consistently reported information on the net book value (NBV) of their fixed assets, between 2005 and 200972. The share of assets under construction remained close to 20% over the 2005-2009 period.
72 No data for ARMATS and HCAA are available for the 2005-2008 period. These two ANSPs are therefore excluded from Figure 6.5.
-9%
0%
-5%
17%
-34%
-6%-34%
-5%
-12%
11%
-24%
-4%
-21%
-1%
-4%
1%
-24%
-16%
-6%
-18%-18%-17%
27%
-3%
-7%
-9%
-11%
37%
2%
-13%
-6%
-16%
3% -11%
-28%
-1%
-22%
-14%
Lower Airspace
Changes in unit ATM/CNS provision costs (2009-2014)
< -15%
[-15% to -4%]
] -4% to 5% ]
] 5% to 15% ]
> 15%
Data not provided
Figure 6.4: ANSPs planned changes in gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs (2009-2014, real terms)
Forward-looking financial cost-effectiveness (2010-2014) 80 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
The value of the assets under construction in 2009 amounted to some €1 581M at European system level, a value which is above the 2009 capex (€1 275M) indicating that assets relating to previous years capex are still not in operation. Among the five largest ANSPs, ENAV and NATS are those with the largest share of assets under construction (36% and 35% respectively). In the context of the significant investment program related to SESAR, it will be important to identify the magnitude of these investments and their impact on ANSPs performance, given that capex is typically required to:
• improve safety;
• replace/upgrade ageing assets which are becoming obsolete;
• provide new ATC capacity and improve quality of service; and,
• bring cost-effectiveness and productivity improvements. At European system level, the average remaining accounting life of fixed assets is slightly above six years in 2009. This value is highly dependent on the depreciation policy: a more rapid depreciation of new investments and/or write-offs of previous investments tends to reduce the remaining accounting life of fixed assets.
Figure 6.6 shows the capital expenditure (capex) and depreciation costs at European system level, between 2005 and 2014 for the 33 ANSPs that consistently reported this information over this period73.
In 2009, capex amounted to some €1 275M. It is noteworthy that some 62% of this capex originated from the five largest ANSPs. Overall, the planned cumulative capex for the period 2010-2014 amounts to some €5 540M and represents some 69% of the 2009 total ANS revenues (see also Section 6.3.1). Capex are planned to exceed depreciation costs until 2014, suggesting a growing asset base over this period.
73 ARMATS, DCAC Cyprus, HCAA and SMATSA are excluded from Figure 6.6.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Ye
ars
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
Figure 6.5: Asset structure at European system level (2005-2009)
-6%-9%
-6%10%
-11%
10%3%-2%-11%
3%1%0%2%1%7%-8%
-2%-3%
0
250
500
750
1 000
1 250
1 500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Ca
pe
x to
de
pre
cia
tion
ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
-2%
-13%
1%7%
800
900
1 000
1 100
1 200
1 300
1 400
1 500
1 600
2009 2010 2011 2012
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
ca
pe
x (M
illio
ns
of E
uro
)
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Figure 6.6: Forward-looking capex and depreciation costs at European system level
(2005-2014, real terms)
Figure 6.7: Changes in planned capex at European system level (2009-2012, real
terms)
Forward-looking financial cost-effectiveness (2010-2014) 81 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Figure 6.7 compares the capex planned in ACE 2007 with the plans provided in ACE 2009 for the years 2009-2012. The actual 2009 capex have been -2% (or -€20M) below ACE 2007 plans. Figure 6.7 also indicates that the 2010 capex have been revised significantly downwards (-13% or -€150M), suggesting that several ANSPs swiftly revised their investment plans as the economic outlook was worsening.
6.3.1 Cumulative capex (2010-2014) to 2009 revenues ratio at ANSP level
The ratio between the cumulative planned capex over 2010-2014 to the actual 2009 revenues is 62% and represents a measure of the magnitude of planned investments. The cumulative capex (2010-2014) to 2009 revenues ratio is displayed in Figure 6.8. The ratio is higher than 100% for eight ANSPs: NATA Albania (144%), EANS (140%), LPS (137%), SMATSA (135%), HungaroControl (119%), Slovenia Control (114%), ENAV (114%) and PANSA (104%). This undoubtedly indicates substantial investments over the 2010-2014 period for these ANSPs, either as an extension of the present investment cycle (e.g. NATA Albania, SMATSA, ENAV and PANSA), or the start of a new investment cycle (e.g. LPS, HungaroControl and Slovenia Control). It is noteworthy that four ANSPs which are part of the FAB Central Europe (FAB CE) stand among the ANSPs with the highest cumulative capex to revenue ratio: LPS (137%), HungaroControl (119%), Slovenia Control (114%) and ANS CR (98%). In fact, all these ANSPs are planning, or have recently put into operation, significant investments, relating in particular to the construction of new ACC operational units and/or to major upgrades/replacement of ATM systems. Further information on FAB CE ANSPs planned capex is available on p.92 of the ACE 2008 Benchmarking Report. It is clear that all these individual initiatives to build new ACCs within a few 100-km radius are not going to alleviate the fragmentation of the European airspace and the related impact on cost-effectiveness and productivity performance of the different ANSPs74. Given that several ANSPs plan very substantial capital expenditures, and in order to better understand the specific investment cycles, it is particularly important that ANSPs provide some information on the nature and extent of the planned capex. Additional details on the capex profile for each ANSPs are provided in Part IV of this Report.
74 See also details provided in the Report “The impact of fragmentation in European ATM/CNS” (p.28, 45 and 65) of the EUROCONTROL Performance Review Commission, April 2006.
73%
67%
73%
73%
80%
43%
40%
47%
43%
114%
55%
93%
47%
104%20%
87%
91%
65%
85%
49%66% 135%
90%
98%
81% 119%
140%
63%
75%
137% 91%
56%
144%76%
114%
47%
47%
28%
Lower Airspace
Cumulative capex (2010-2014) to 2009 revenues ratio
] 0% to 50%]
] 50% to 100%]
] 100% to 150%]
> 150%
Data not provided
Figure 6.8: ANSPs cumulative capex (2010-2014) on 2009 revenues ratio
Forward-looking financial cost-effectiveness (2010-2014) 82 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
6.4 Changes in ATCOs in OPS and en-route ATC capacity
The chart shown in Figure 6.9 shows the forward-looking projections for ATCOs in OPS until 2014, with a breakdown into those that are operational in ACCs and those that are working in terminal operational units (APPs+TWRs). It should be noted that the apparent decreases for ACCs and APPs+TWRs ATCOs in 2010 (i.e. -13%) are due to the fact that (1) Aena and HCAA did not report the planned number of ACC and APP+TWR ATCOs; and (2) that NATS only provided planned data for ACCs ATCOs. At European system level, the total number of ATCOs in OPS is planned to increase by +3.7% between 2010 and 2014.
-1% 1% -0.5% 1%
-13% 3% -2% 2% 1%
2% 0.7% -1% 0%-17% 3% -2% 1% 1%
-4% 1% 0.0% 2%-11% 3% -1% 2% 1%
0
2 000
4 000
6 000
8 000
10 000
12 000
14 000
16 000
18 000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PN
um
be
r o
f AT
CO
s in
OP
STotal APPs+TWRs ACCs
Figure 6.9: Planned number of ATCOs in OPS at European system level (2005-2014)
Figure 6.10 shows the number of en-route sectors and corresponding sector-hours planned to be opened between 2010 and 2014. This information provides an insight into the planned level of ATC capacity until 2014. It should be noted that the apparent decrease in 2009 (i.e. -3% sector-hours and -1% sectors) and the changes planned for the years 2011-2014 are due to the fact that HCAA and M-NAV did not report complete information on the planned number of en-route sectors and/or sector-hours for the period 2010-2014.
3% 0% 0%
-3%-1% -1%
3%
2%
2%
3 500 000
3 600 000
3 700 000
3 800 000
3 900 000
4 000 000
4 100 000
4 200 000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P2011P2012P2013P2014P
En
-ro
ute
se
cto
r-h
ou
rs
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P2011P2012P2013P2014P
Nu
mb
er
of e
n-r
ou
te s
ect
ors
En-route sector-hours Number of en-route sectors
Figure 6.10: Planned number of en-route sectors and sector-hours at European system level (2005-
2014)
Additional details on the planned number of ATCOs in OPS and planned ATC capacity data are displayed for each ANSP in Part IV of this Report.
Part III: Economic cost-effectiveness 83 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
PART III: ECONOMIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Part III: Economic cost-effectiveness 84 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Economic cost-effectiveness 85 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
7 ECONOMIC COST-EFFECTIVENESS
7.1 Introduction
An assessment of the overall economic performance of ANSPs shall take into account both the financial cost-effectiveness, presented in Part II, and the quality of service provided, such as efficient routings and adequate levels of ATC capacity while ensuring ANS safety. There is to some extent a trade-off between financial cost-effectiveness and the quality of service provided.
Economic cost-effectiveness
Financial cost-effectiveness
Quality of service
Figure 7.1: Trade-off between cost-effectiveness and quality of service
Indeed, measures to expand capacity and reduce delays may impose financial costs on airspace users. Therefore, if sole emphasis is placed on financial cost-effectiveness, it could disincentivise such measures, even when the benefits of delays saved outweigh the financial costs to the ANSP.
7.2 The measures of quality of service
The quality of service provided by ANSPs impacts the efficiency of aircraft operations; inefficient routings or lack of adequate ATC capacity carry with them additional costs that need to be taken into consideration for a full economic assessment of ANSP performance. A number of factors affect aircraft operations and contribute to the quality of service that is provided to airspace users by an ANSP. These include:
• ATFM ground delays;
• airborne holding (although these are mostly a consequence of airport constraints);
• horizontal flight-efficiency and the resulting route length extension; and
• vertical flight-efficiency and the resulting deviation from optimal vertical flight profile. The last three factors have also an environmental impact in terms of additional green house gases emissions (CO2, N2O, etc.) and emissions affecting local air quality (NOx, CO, PM, etc.), hence external costs to society at large. As both delays and flight-efficiency have a cost, there are internal trade-offs between these measures of quality of service. Moreover, it is likely that these trade-offs are exacerbated in particularly dense and congested airspaces. The PRU is currently developing a methodology to compute flight-inefficiencies at ANSP level. It is therefore expected that in the future, ACE reports will include a horizontal flight-efficiency component as part of the economic cost-effectiveness indicator. This would contribute to better reflect the quality of service associated with ATM/CNS provision, although it is important to bear in mind that local flight-efficiency improvements within a given ANSP can be limited as they might depend on civil/military coordination issues and European wide improvements in route and airspace designs: two issues which are not necessary under the full control of an ANSP.
Economic cost-effectiveness 86 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
For the present report, however, this analysis is not sufficiently mature to permit inclusion of flight inefficiency within the quality of service. As a consequence of this limitation, the quality of service associated with ATM/CNS provision by ANSPs is, for the time being, assessed only in terms of ATFM ground delays, which can be measured consistently and expressed in monetary terms. In order for delays to be added to the measure of financial cost-effectiveness, a value must be assigned to the cost of delays. In the ACE 2002 Benchmarking Report, the cost of ATFM delays (on the ground – engine off) longer than 15 minutes was assessed at €71 per minute on average75, and that of delays less than 15 minutes at zero76. Unavoidably, there is some uncertainty in this estimate and, hence, corresponding cost estimates should be viewed with care. For the purpose of this report, the same assessment has been used but the figure has been adjusted to €82 to take inflation into account. This will enhance comparability of results over time.
7.3 The measure of economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness
The indicator of economic cost-effectiveness is defined as ATM/CNS provision costs plus the costs of ATFM ground delay, all expressed per composite flight-hour77. The conceptual framework is illustrated in Figure 7.2. The analysis of financial cost-effectiveness is based on the ATM/CNS costs provided by the ANSPs, and is presented in Part II of this report (Chapters 4-6). Table 7.1 shows how the economic cost-effectiveness indicator has been calculated: the costs of ATFM delays are added to the ATM/CNS costs of service provision to give the economic costs of service provision (see column 10). The indicator of economic cost-effectiveness is the economic cost per composite flight-hour. For a number of ANSPs ATFM delays figures are very low. For LGS, the CFMU does not record ATFM delays and therefore no estimates of delay are available. For the purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that delays in this ANSP are zero.
75 These costs mainly arise from crew costs, passengers’ compensation and passengers’ opportunity costs. 76 This was based on a report commissioned by the PRC on the cost of delay (cf. University of Westminster "Evaluating the true cost to airlines of one minute of airborne or ground delay" (2003). This report can be found on the PRC web site which is planned to be updated in the course of 2011. 77 As defined in Annex 2 of this ACE Benchmarking Report.
Costs of ATFM delays
Economic cost-effectiveness
indicator
EUROCONTROL/ PRU
Composite flight-hours
ATFM delay per unit output
Financial cost-effectiveness
indicator
Inputs
PerformanceIndicators
Outputs
ATM/CNS provision costs
Total ATM/CNS Costs (ANSP Level)
IFR airport movements
En-route flight-hours
Figure 7.2: Conceptual framework for the analysis of economic cost-effectiveness
Economic cost-effectiveness 87 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
(1) (2) (3) (4)=(2)+(3) (5) (6)=(3)x€82 (7) (8)=(1)/(7) (9)=(6)/(7) (10)=(8)+(9)
ANSPs Gat
e-t
o-ga
te A
TM
/CN
S
pro
visi
on c
osts
(in
€'0
00)
AT
FM
del
ays
< 1
5 m
in.
('00
0 m
inu
tes)
AT
FM
del
ays
> 1
5 m
in.
('00
0 m
inu
tes)
To
tal A
TF
M d
ela
ys (
'000
m
inu
tes)
% s
hare
in E
uro
pean
sy
stem
AT
FM
del
ays
Co
sts
of A
TF
M d
elay
s >
15
min
. (in
€'0
00)
Co
mp
osite
flig
ht-
hour
s (in
'0
00)
Fin
anci
al g
ate
-to
-gat
e co
st-
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Co
st o
f del
ay p
er
com
posi
te
flig
ht-h
our
Eco
nom
ic c
ost
per
com
posi
te fl
igh
t-ho
ur
Aena 1 187 505 426 1 483 1 909 12.6% 121 584 1 752 678 69 747ANS CR 107 636 53 154 207 1.4% 12 607 266 404 47 452ARMATS 6 284 0 0 0 0.0% 0 16 385 0 385Austro Control 165 934 309 830 1 139 7.5% 68 058 387 429 176 605Avinor 158 022 27 83 110 0.7% 6 776 461 343 15 357Belgocontrol 150 222 57 246 304 2.0% 20 208 203 738 99 837BULATSA 76 951 0 0 0 0.0% 0 186 414 0 414Croatia Control 64 323 71 209 280 1.8% 17 123 191 336 90 426DCAC Cyprus 40 717 87 545 632 4.2% 44 670 138 295 324 619DFS 887 594 649 2 570 3 219 21.2% 210 730 1 861 477 113 590DHMI 242 508 142 893 1 035 6.8% 73 232 896 271 82 352DSNA 1 157 658 249 977 1 226 8.1% 80 105 2 609 444 31 474EANS 9 826 0 0 0 0.0% 30 60 163 0 164ENAV 648 610 30 320 350 2.3% 26 257 1 332 487 20 506Finavia 57 118 3 11 14 0.1% 885 175 326 5 331HCAA 178 065 149 1 208 1 357 8.9% 99 091 526 339 188 527HungaroControl 74 035 10 29 39 0.3% 2 356 224 331 11 341IAA 106 922 3 20 22 0.1% 1 615 317 337 5 342LFV 166 213 8 31 39 0.3% 2 524 533 312 5 316LGS 20 134 0 0 0 0.0% 0 77 262 0 262LPS 46 367 5 13 19 0.1% 1 074 86 536 12 549LVNL 178 864 28 119 148 1.0% 9 790 262 684 37 721MATS 13 499 0 1 1 0.0% 102 49 275 2 278M-NAV 10 722 0 0 0 0.0% 0 24 440 0 440MoldATSA 6 630 0 0 0 0.0% 0 15 452 0 452MUAC 134 603 20 54 74 0.5% 4 447 532 253 8 261NATA Albania 16 462 5 14 19 0.1% 1 179 40 411 29 441NATS 686 714 173 943 1 116 7.4% 77 323 1 780 386 43 429NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) 134 269 10 38 48 0.3% 3 078 327 411 9 420NAVIAIR 112 009 12 39 51 0.3% 3 177 284 395 11 406Oro Navigacija 18 704 0 0 0 0.0% 0 51 364 0 364PANSA 117 984 229 701 931 6.1% 57 497 399 295 144 439ROMATSA 147 767 0 0 0 0.0% 0 308 480 0 480Skyguide 217 815 260 599 859 5.7% 49 118 446 488 110 598Slovenia Control 24 224 2 4 5 0.0% 298 52 470 6 476SMATSA 69 502 0 2 2 0.0% 157 224 310 1 310UkSATSE 137 114 0 12 12 0.1% 966 351 391 3 394
Total European System 7 579 526 3 019 12 147 15 166 100% 996 056 17 442 435 57 492
Table 7.1: Economic cost-effectiveness KPI, 2009
Table 7.1 also indicates the share of each ANSP in the European system ATFM delays (see column 5). In 2009, the five largest ANSPs which handle 54% of the European system traffic contribute to 52% of the system ATFM delays. DFS and Aena are the main contributors with 21% and 13% of the system ATFM delays while DSNA, NATS and ENAV contributed to 8.1%, 7.4% and 2.3%, respectively. It is noteworthy that several ANSPs with a relatively low share of traffic (i.e. less than 3% of European system traffic) contribute to more than 5% of the system ATFM delays. This is the case of Austro Control (7.5% of total system ATFM delays), HCAA (8.9%), PANSA (6.1%) and Skyguide (5.7%).
7.4 Comparison of economic cost-effectiveness (2009)
The overall economic cost-effectiveness indicator is not uniform across Europe. Figure 7.3 displays the comparison of the gate-to-gate economic cost per composite flight-hour between ANSPs78.
78 It should be noted that, although ANS CR and Oro Navigacija reported the cost of capital in their ACE 2009 data submission, these costs were not charged to airspace users (respectively for terminal ANS, and for en-route and terminal ANS).
Economic cost-effectiveness 88 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
163
837
747721
619 605598590549
527506 480
476 474452 452441 440439429426 420414406 394385
364357352342 341331316310
278262 261
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Be
lgo
cont
rol
Ae
na
LVN
L
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
Au
stro
Con
trol
Sky
guid
e
DF
S
LPS
HC
AA
EN
AV
RO
MA
TS
A
Slo
veni
a C
ontr
ol
DS
NA
AN
S C
R
Mol
dAT
SA
NA
TA
Alb
ania
M-N
AV
PA
NS
A
NA
TS
Cro
atia
Con
trol
NA
V P
ort
ugal
(F
IR L
isbo
a)
BU
LA
TS
A
NA
VIA
IR
UkS
AT
SE
AR
MA
TS
Oro
Nav
igac
ija
Avi
nor
DH
MI
IAA
Hun
gar
oCon
trol
Fin
avi
a
LFV
SM
AT
SA
MA
TS
LGS
MU
AC
EA
NS
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
Economic cost-effectiveness Unit cost of en-route ATFM delays Unit cost of airport ATFM delays
European system average for economic cost-effectiveness: €492
European system average for financial cost-effectiveness: €435
Figure 7.3: Economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness KPI, 2009
The economic cost-effectiveness indicator for the European system is €492 per composite flight-hour. The two dotted lines displayed in Figure 7.3 represent the bottom and top quartiles79 and provide an indication of the dispersion. There is a difference of some €154 between the bottom and top quartile, which is lower than in 2008. The economic cost-effectiveness KPI ranges from €837 (Belgocontrol) to €163 (EANS), a factor greater than five. It should be noted that the costs reported for MUAC do not include the costs of the CNS infrastructure which is made available free of charge by Belgocontrol, LVNL, and DFS. Across Europe, ATFM delays contributed 12% to the total economic cost in 2009. As expected following the significant decrease in traffic volume, this share is lower than in 2008 (i.e. 17%). On the other hand, Figure 7.3 indicates that some ANSPs experienced a significant lack of ATC capacity in 2009 (see red and yellow bars).
79 See footnote 46.
Note that this economic cost-effectiveness KPI is a factual indicator. A genuine measurement of cost inefficiencies would require full account to be taken of identified and measurableexogenous factors such as cost of living, traffic complexity, and traffic variability (as described in Chapter 3).
429474506
590
747
0100200300400500600700800
Aen
a
DF
S
EN
AV
DS
NA
NA
TS
Economic cost-effectiveness 89 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Figure 7.4 shows that in 2009, ATFM delays contributed more than 20% to the economic unit costs for six ANSPs (Austro Control, Croatia Control, DCAC Cyprus, DHMI, HCAA and PANSA), although for most of them 2009 ATFM delays were lower than in 2008. It is important to note that some of these ANSPs experienced a significant decrease in traffic in 2009 (Austro Control (-9%), PANSA (-7%) and to a lower extent DCAC Cyprus and HCAA (-2%)).
Lower Airspace
Share of ATFM delays in unit economic costs
<= 5 %
> 5 %
> 10 %
> 15 %
> 20 %
Data not provided
Figure 7.4: Share of ATFM delays in unit economic costs, 2009
This clearly indicates structural performance issues in terms of quality of service for these ANSPs. For PANSA, ATFM delays are mainly relating to the technical limitations of the current ATM system (which is planned to be replaced in 2012) and to a shortage of ATCOs. Among the five largest ANSPs, in 2009 ATFM delays represented more than 10% of the economic cost-effectiveness indicator for DFS (19%) and NATS80 (10%) despite the significant decrease in traffic experienced by these ANSPs in 2009 (i.e. -8% and -11%, respectively). For DFS, ATFM delays are mainly relating to the implementation of the VAFORIT system. As indicated above, ATFM delays (and the associated costs for the users) arise from both en-route and terminal service provision. The results should be interpreted with a degree of caution, especially in cases where ATFM delays largely arise in the terminal environment. Terminal-related ATFM delays, and associated costs, can arise from airport constraints, which are outside the direct control of the respective ANSP (such as compliance with environmental constraints or lack of airport infrastructure).
80 It should be noted that the total ATFM delays data used in this ACE Report for NATS differ from the en-route attributable delays on which NERL delay bonus/penalty system is based in the context of the economic regulation regime in place in the UK.
• First, the data provided in Table 7.1 and Figure 7.3 relate to gate-to-gate ATFM delays and not only en-route delays;
• Second, only ATFM delays greater than 15 minutes are considered to compute the economic cost-effectiveness KPI while NERL attributable delays include delay less than 15 minutes; and,
• Third, NERL attributable delays include delays relating to causes such as weather which are included in the total ATFM delays analysis in this Report.
In fact, a more detailed analysis shows that the discrepancy between NATS gate-to-gate ATFM delays greater than 15 minutes (as computed in this Report) and NERL en-route attributable delays are mainly due to the inclusion of airport ATFM delays in the ACE analysis.
Economic cost-effectiveness 90 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Figure 7.5 shows the breakdown of ATFM delays between en-route and terminal. Airport ATFM delays represent 44% of the total ATFM delays. More in detail, 51% of all airport ATFM delays are caused by weather and environment issues which may be difficult for the ANSP to influence. However, another 39% of airport delays result from aerodrome or ATC capacity problems, and this can rise up to 100% in individual ANSPs (see Figure 7.6 below). Figure 7.6 shows the distribution of delays by cause for those ANSPs with more than 100 000 minutes of ATFM delays greater than 15 minutes. The number of these ANSPs decreased from 19 to 15, between 2008 and 2009.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Air
po
rtE
n-r
ou
te
Air
po
rt
En
-ro
ute
Air
po
rt
En
-ro
ute
Air
po
rtE
n-r
ou
te
Air
po
rtE
n-r
ou
te
Air
po
rt
En
-ro
ute
Air
po
rtE
n-r
ou
te
Air
po
rtE
n-r
ou
te
Air
po
rtE
n-r
ou
te
Air
po
rt
En
-ro
ute
Air
po
rtE
n-r
ou
te
Air
po
rtE
n-r
ou
te
Air
po
rt
En
-ro
ute
Air
po
rt
En
-ro
ute
Air
po
rtE
n-r
ou
te
Aena ANS CR AustroControl
Belgo control
CroatiaControl
DCACCyprus
DFS DHMI DSNA ENAV HCAA LVNL NATS PANSA Skyguide
En-route Other
En-route Weather
En-route ATC capacity
Airport Other
Airport Weather
Airport ATC & Aerodromecapacity
Figure 7.6: Causes of en-route and airport ATFM delays, 2009
Figure 7.6 indicates that the airport ATFM delays for Aena, Austro Control, DCAC Cyprus, DHMI, HCAA and PANSA are mainly associated with aerodrome capacity issues (see light blue bar). On the other hand, the airport ATFM delays for ANS CR, Belgocontrol, DFS, DSNA, ENAV, LVNL, NATS and Skyguide are mainly due to bad weather conditions (see green bar). The issue of the extent to which certain delays, such as weather-related ATM delays and delays caused by environmental constraints due to noise management practices are outside the ANSP control deserves further investigation. The level of ATFM delays mainly depends on the extent to which the ATC capacity provided by an ANSP is in line with the traffic demand. In the medium-term, the level of capacity provided can be gradually increased through a variety of measures including the recruitment of additional ATCOs and capital investment (e.g. ATM systems with higher capabilities, etc.).
En-route ATFM delays56%
Airport ATFM delays44%
10%
51%
39%
Other
Aerodrome & ATC capacity
Weather and environment
Figure 7.5: Breakdown of ATFM delays, 2009
Economic cost-effectiveness 91 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
During the period 2005-2009 ANSPs invested €5.9 Billion with different investment cycles and magnitudes across ANSPs. Average ANSPs “capex to revenue” ratios – a measure of the magnitude of the investment - for the period 2005-2009 are shown in Figure 7.7. For 18 ANSPs, the “capex to revenue” ratio is higher than 15% indicating substantial investments on the period.
Lower Airspace
Cumulative capex to revenue ratio (2005-2009)
<= 5 %
> 5 %
> 10 %
> 15 %
> 20 %
Data not provided
Figure 7.7: ANSPs cumulative capex (2005-2009)
Following the traffic downturn in 2009 at European system level (-7.0%), the trade-offs between financial cost-effectiveness and quality of service will be less significant than normal in the short term. There is scope for improving quality of service without incurring significant additional capital expenditure since substantial investments were made during the period 2005-2008 (see Figure 7.7). In other words, there is clearly an opportunity to better match capacity and demand in the forthcoming years while at the same time improving financial cost-effectiveness.
7.5 Trends in economic cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
This section analyses the changes of the economic cost-effectiveness KPI between 2005 and 2009 at European system level. Note that (for the reasons given in Chapter 5) the indicators presented in this section are not directly comparable to those in previous ACE reports.
-2.7% +0.8% +0.8% +2.1%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 p
rice
s)
Unit costs of airport ATFM delays
Unit costs of en-route ATFM delays
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+1.5%+4.7% +5.7%
+1.8%
-0.3%
+9.2%+7.7%
+5.0%
+1.2% +1.5%
-7.0%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours Unit costs of ATFM delays
-33.0%
Figure 7.8: Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness KPI (2005-2009, real terms)
The left-hand side of Figure 7.8 shows that between 2005 and 2009, economic costs per composite flight-hour remained fairly constant at European system level (i.e. +1.0% in real terms). Following a decrease in 2006 (i.e. -2.7%), economic unit costs rose steadily during the following years to reach a value of some €492 per composite flight-hour in 2009 (as shown in Figure 7.3). Average consumer prices grew by some +9.6% between 2005 and 2009, this means that at system level the economic unit costs increased by +11% in nominal terms.
Economic cost-effectiveness 92 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
The right-hand side of Figure 7.8 indicates that in 2009 while traffic decreased by -7.0%, ATM/CNS provision costs rose by +1.5% resulting in a significant increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs (+9.2%). Despite a decrease in ATFM delays unit costs (-33.0%), this resulted in higher economic unit costs in 2009 (+2.1% in real terms). The changes in the economic cost per unit output at European level are not homogeneous among the 34 ANSPs that consistently reported ACE data since 2005. Between 2005 and 2009, economic costs per composite flight-hour fell for 18 ANSPs:
• For 8 ANSPs, this performance improvement results from a reduction in unit ATM/CNS provision costs;
• For 10 ANSPs, the main driver for the decrease in unit economic costs is the fall in ATFM delays.
It is important to note that differences in the investment cycle can affect the economic cost-effectiveness either through high levels of delay prior to a major ATM investment, or through high capital-related costs (depreciation, cost of capital) after the major ATM investment. For the purpose of illustration and building on the analysis of exogenous factors affecting performance (see Chapter 3), Figure 7.9 below shows:
• In the top chart, the changes in economic cost-effectiveness for both the 15 most “complex” ANSPs (those with an overall complexity score higher than 4 minutes of interaction per flight-hour); and
• In the bottom chart, the changes for the 22 less “complex” ANSPs (those with an overall complexity score lower than 4 minutes of interaction per flight-hour).
The top chart in Figure 7.9 suggests that:
• All these ANSPs experienced some ATFM delays throughout the 2005-2009 period (albeit these were insignificant for SMATSA) but eight out of these 15 ANSPs reduced economic unit costs.
• Following the sharp decrease in traffic, for most of these ANSPs ATFM delays were much lower in 2009 compared to previous years and contributed to the decrease in unit economic costs. However, it should be noted that ATFM delays increased for Aena between 2008 and 2009 (+23%) despite a -10% decrease in traffic volumes.
• Despite a significant increase compared to 2008, unit economic costs decreased between 2005 and 2009 for ENAV (-17%) and remained fairly constant for DSNA and NATS (-1%).
• In 2009, five ANSPs could reduce their unit economic costs (Austro Control (-6%), Skyguide (-6%), ANS CR (-6%), NATS (-4%) and MUAC (-12%). For most of these ANSPs, this reflects a significant improvement in the quality of service provided in 2009. For ANS CR, this performance improvement results from the combination of a fall in the unit costs of ATFM delays and a decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs in a context of traffic decrease (-3%).
The bottom chart in Figure 7.9 indicates that:
• 5 ANSPs experienced no ATFM delays throughout the 2005-2009 period, despite high traffic growth in many of these ANSPs.
• 10 ANSPs managed to improve their economic cost-effectiveness KPI between 2005 and 2009, mainly trough a decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs.
• The impact of the traffic downturn in 2009 was not of the same magnitude across all the ANSPs. This is particularly true for the 21 less “complex” ANSPs (ARMATS did not report any figure in 2008) for which on average traffic decreased by -3.8% in 2009 compared to -7.9% for the 15 most “complex” ANSPs. It should be also noted
Economic cost-effectiveness 93 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
that in 2009, traffic increased for NATA Albania (+7%), DHMI (+6%), MoldATSA (+6%), Croatia Control (+3%) and remained fairly constant for MATS (+0.4%).
• On the other hand, despite the traffic decrease experienced by DCAC Cyprus (-2%) and PANSA (-7%), and even if ATFM delays decreased compared to 2008, the quality of the service provided is still an issue for these ANSPs in 2009 (see also Section 7.4).
• It should be noted that significant improvements in terms of quality of service have been achieved in 2009 by Croatia Control, IAA, and NAVIAIR. The high ATFM delays observed for NAVIAIR in 2008 were relating to the transition to the new ATM system (DATMAS) in Kobenhavn ACC.
More details on the changes in economic cost-effectiveness for individual ANSPs are reported in Chapter 8 (Part IV) of this report.
Eco
nom
ic c
ost-
effe
ctiv
enes
s 94
A
CE
200
9 B
ench
mar
kin
g R
epor
t
0
10
0
20
0
30
0
40
0
50
0
60
0
70
0
80
0
90
0
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
Be
lgo
con
tro
lA
en
aL
VN
LA
ust
roC
on
tro
lS
kyg
uid
eD
FS
LP
SE
NA
VS
love
nia
Co
ntr
ol
DS
NA
AN
S C
RN
AT
SH
un
ga
roC
on
tro
lS
MA
TS
AM
UA
C
€ per composite flight-hour
AT
M/C
NS
pro
visi
on
cost
s p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-h
our
AT
FM
de
lay
cost
s p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-h
our
0
10
0
20
0
30
0
40
0
50
0
60
0
70
0
80
0
90
0
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
20052006200720082009
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
HC
AA
RO
MA
TSA
Mol
dATS
AN
ATA
Alb
ania
M-N
AV
PA
NS
AC
roat
iaC
ontr
olN
AV
Por
tuga
l(F
IR L
isbo
a)B
ULA
TSA
NA
VIA
IRU
kSA
TSE
AR
MA
TSA
vino
rD
HM
IO
roN
avig
acija
IAA
Fin
avia
LFV
MA
TSLG
SE
AN
S
€ per composite flight-hour
Fig
ure
7.9
: C
han
ges
in e
con
om
ic c
ost
-eff
ecti
ven
ess
for
the
15 m
ost
“co
mp
lex”
an
d t
he
22 le
ss “
com
ple
x” A
NS
Ps
(20
05-2
009)
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 95 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
PART IV: PERFORMANCE FOCUS AT ANSP LEVEL
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 96 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 97 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
8 PERFORMANCE FOCUS AT ANSP LEVEL
8.1 Objective of this chapter
This chapter comprises four pages for each ANSP. The first page examines the historical development of the key performance indicators defined in Chapter 4 and makes an assessment of historical and current cost-effectiveness performance. The second analyses productivity and quality of service performance at ACC level. The third page focuses on the ANSP asset structure and main capital investment projects. The fourth and final page summarises the projections and plans provided by each ANSP. This chapter should provide useful insights and information to NSAs for the drawing up of national/FAB performance plans during the first half of 2011. In particular, it includes benchmarking analysis with a set of comparators for each ANSP/State and an explicit link with the en-route determined costs as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation.
8.2 Page 1: Historical development of cost-effectiveness performance, 2005-2009
This page presents, for each ANSP, an assessment of its cost-effectiveness performance, and how it has developed over the five-year period 2005 to 2009. It examines the overall economic cost-effectiveness indicator and its two components (ATM/CNS costs per composite flight-hour, ATFM delay costs per composite flight-hour), and their evolution over the period (top left). It puts these in the context of the traffic growth observed in the ANSP’s airspace (top right). In this page, financial data are all expressed in real terms (2009 prices). Developments in the components of financial cost-effectiveness (ATCO-hour productivity, ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour, and support costs per composite flight-hour) are also examined (middle left), to help understand the underlying causes of changes in overall cost-effectiveness. Changes in support costs are further broken down into employment costs of staff other than ATCOs in OPS; non-staff operating costs; capital-related costs (depreciation and the cost of capital); and exceptional items, where present. The bottom set of graphs examine how the changes in the components over the whole period contribute to the change in the overall financial cost-effectiveness indicator. The left-hand graphs relate to ATCOs in OPS; the right-hand graphs to other elements of cost (“support costs”). The left-hand graphs show how the change in ATCO productivity combines with the change in unit ATCO employment costs to make a change in ATCO employment costs per unit output. The right-hand graphs show how the change in support costs combines with traffic growth to make a change in support costs per composite flight-hour. The relative contribution of these two effects to the change in the financial cost-effectiveness indicator depends on the relative weight of ATCO employment costs, on the one hand, and support costs, on the other, in the overall ATM/CNS provision cost. The middle right panel presents an assessment of each ANSP’s performance and its development over time, based on these indicators, viewed in the context of the traffic growth and other exogenous conditions (traffic complexity, traffic variability, and the economic conditions in the country where the ANSP is based). The assessment notes any material exceptional circumstances that the PRU has been made aware of, and any other major factors contributing to the evolution of performance. Each ANSP’s
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 98 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
performance is, where possible, compared to that of ANSPs of similar size or external conditions.
8.3 Page 2: The development of productivity and quality of service performance, 2005-2009 and 2010-2014
This page presents an assessment of the productivity and the quality of service at ACC level. The chart on the left-hand side in the first row comprises information of the main ACC’s operational characteristics, including the volume of flight-hours controlled in 2009, the average transit time, traffic complexity, variability and the average flight-level. The chart on the right-hand side presents the changes in flight-hours for all the ACC between 2005 and 2014. The graph on the left-hand side in the second row shows the ATCO productivity (expressed as flight-hour per ATCO-hour) in the past 5 years compared with the en-route ATFM delays per flight-hour, during the same period. The chart on the right-hand side presents the changes in ATCOs in OPS hours on duty and overtime hours. The chart in the left-hand side in the third row presents the changes in sector productivity and staffing per sector which are the main components of ATCO-hour productivity. The table on the right-hand side presents the plans for the ACC IFR flight-hours, ATCOs in OPS and sector-hours between 2009 and 2014. In the last row, the table on the left-hand side shows the actual en-route ATFM delays per flight-hour for 2009 and 2010 for each ACC. This table also comprises the reference values for SESII capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity planning process, for the first reference period (2012-2014). The chart on the right-hand side compares for each ACC the capacity that would be required to achieve the Provisional Council’s target for the summer and the ACC planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014).
8.4 Page 3: Asset structure and main capital investment projects
This page provides a description of the asset structure of the ANSPs and the investments made over the 2005-2014 period.
The presentation of financial time-series data Presentation and comparison of historical series of financial data from different countries poses problems, especially when different currencies are involved, and inflation rates differ. There is a danger that time-series comparisons can be distorted by transient variations in exchange rates which happened to be particularly the case in 2009 in the wake of the financial crisis. In this chapter, the focus is on the historical development of financial performance indicators in a given ANSP. For this reason, the following approach has been adopted for allowing for inflation and exchange rate variation. The financial elements of performance are assessed, for each year, in national currency. They are then converted to national currency in 2009 prices using national inflation rates. Finally, for comparison purposes in 2009, all national currencies are converted to euros using the 2009 exchange rate. This approach has the virtue that an ANSP’s performance time series is not distorted by transient changes in exchange rates over the period. It does mean, however, that the performance figures for any ANSP in a given year prior to 2009 are not the same as the figures in that year’s ACE report, and cannot legitimately be compared with another ANSP’s figures for the same year. Cross-sectional comparison using the figures in this report is only appropriate for 2009 data. This differs from the approach to inflation and exchange rates used in previous ACE reports. The historical inflation figures used in this analysis were obtained from the International Monetary Fund. For the projections, the ANSPs’ own assumptions concerning inflation rates were used. Details of the figures used are given in Annex 5 to this report.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 99 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
The top chart on the left breaks down the total net book value of fixed assets for each ANSP highlighting the shares of these assets that are under construction or in operation. This graph also shows the average remaining accounting life of the fixed assets, over the period. The productivity of the GBV of fixed assets at the year end is represented in the top right chart. This indicator has been computed for 2008 and 2009 only, since data were not available before. Moreover, the graph also displays the ratio between the depreciation in the year and the GBV of fixed assets at year end (i.e. average depreciation rate). The middle-left graph shows the historical and planned evolution of capital expenditure and depreciation, highlighting the ANSP’s investment cycles and their magnitude, across time. The ratio of these quantities (usually greater than one) is an indication of the rate at which the overall asset base is being expanded. The graph on the right-hand side compares the plans on capex made in ACE 2007 with those presented by the ANSP in ACE 2009, for the period 2010-2012. The table in the last row presents the information on the nature of the ANSP’s capex between 2006 and 2014, including a breakdown of the major capex projects by area (i.e. ATM, Communication, Surveillance, etc.). The table also indicates the dates of commissioning, major upgrades and replacement of the ATM systems for each ACC.
8.5 Page 4: The planned and projected development of cost-effectiveness performance, 2010-2014
This page presents the forward-looking projections of unit costs, traffic demand and costs at ANSP and State level. In other words, the objective is to make an explicit link between the ACE cost-effectiveness KPI and the en-route determined unit rate81 computed at State level. The top-left chart describes the development of the financial cost-effectiveness indicator (ATM/CNS costs per composite flight-hour) at ANSP level for the period 2009-2014. It should be noted that in this page all the financial data are expressed in real terms (2009 prices). The chart on the right-hand side compares ACE 2009 plans in terms of costs and traffic for the period 2009-2012 with projections made in November 2008 for the purposes of ACE 2007. The submission of forward-looking data in ACE 2007 took place before the ANSPs could fully consider the magnitude of the economic downturn on the traffic demand. Furthermore, several ANSPs announced in June 2009 that they would implement cost containment measures in order to smooth the impact of the economic crisis on the airspace users. It is therefore useful to compare costs planed in November 2008 (ACE 2007) with ACE 2009 forward-looking data to understand which ANSPs implemented genuine cost containment measures. The second section of the page focuses on State en-route cost-efficiency performance, examining the trend in en-route unit costs and determined unit rates for the period 2009-2014. The chart on the left-hand side compares the State cost-efficiency performance with comparators operating in relatively similar operational and economic environments. The last row shows on the right-hand side the share of comparators en-route ANS costs in the European system. The graph on the left-hand side shows the allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs (source ACE), over the 2009-2014 period.
81 Determined unit rate (DUR) as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation (EC 691/2010).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 100 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
8.6 Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level
To facilitate the reading of this section, the table below displays the page number of the historical and forward-looking analysis of ANSPs cost-effectiveness performance.
ANSP name Country Page Aena Spain 102 ANS CR Czech Republic 106 ARMATS Armenia 110 BULATSA Bulgaria 114 Austro Control Austria 118 Avinor Norway 122 Belgocontrol Belgium 126 Croatia Control Croatia 130 DCAC Cyprus Cyprus 134 DFS Germany 138 DHMİ Turkey 142 DSNA France 146 EANS Estonia 150 ENAV Italy 154 Finavia Finland 158 HCAA Greece 162 HungaroControl Hungary 166 IAA Ireland 170 LFV Sweden 174 LGS Latvia 178 LPS Slovak Republic 182 LVNL Netherlands 186 MATS Malta 190 M-NAV F.Y.R. Macedonia 194 MoldATSA Moldova 198 MUAC 202 NATA Albania Albania 206 NATS United Kingdom 210 NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) Portugal 214 NAVIAIR Denmark 218 Oro Navigacija Lithuania 222 PANSA Poland 226 ROMATSA Romania 230 Skyguide Switzerland 234 Slovenia Control Slovenia 238 SMATSA Serbia and Montenegro 242 UkSATSE Ukraine 246
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 101 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 102 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Aena (Spain) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: Spain is part of the Euro zone
Aena represents 15.7% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€621 €678€569 €577 €593
€747
€678€681€667€639
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+6%+10%
+3%
-2%
+7%
-1%
+4%
-10%
+23%
-2%
+28%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
-36%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.520.540.560.550.59
-4%-3%+2%-7%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€193€190€191€179€178
+1%+6% -0.3% +1%
0
40
80
120
160
200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour +14%
+7%+1%-6%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
In 2009, Aena is the biggest European ANSP in terms of costs (expressed in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs) and ranks 4th in terms of traffic (expressed in composite flight-hours). Among the five largest ANSPs, Aena traffic shows the least complexity.
Over the 2005-2009 period Aena traffic decreased overall by -1%: the strong traffic growth recorded between 2005 and 2007 was more than offset by a decrease in 2008 (-1%) and a sharp decline in 2009 (-10%). In addition, ATFM delays significantly increased in 2009 (adding +23% in delay unit cost), in a context of sharp traffic decrease.
Unit ATM/CNS provision costs rose by +19% over the 2005-2009 period to reach €678 per composite flight-hour, which is the highest unit cost and by far the highest increase of its peers group. In 2009 Aena has also the 2nd highest economic unit cost in Europe (from 3rd in 2008) and remains the highest in its group. The increased unit cost over the 2005-2009 period is explained by a combination of increases in ATCO employment costs (+8%) and decreases in ATCO productivity (-12%). Aena’s ATCO employment costs are the highest in Europe; +78% higher than the average of its peers. Aena is the only ANSP where ATCO productivity decreased over 2005-2009 compared to an average increase of +10% among its peers. At the same time, the support unit cost is close to the European average and below its peers’ average.
There is a significant unit cost difference (+49%) for Aena as compared to the average of its peers. In 2010, a specific law (Ley 9/2010) was adopted in Spain in order to address Aena’s performance issues, in particular the high level of ATCO employment costs and lower productivity relative to other ANSPs. This law mandates the Spanish unit rate to converge towards the average of the five largest States by 2013, amongst other requirements.
Overall, the analysis of Aena ACE data, when compared to its peers, indicates that Aena has scope to improve its performance, especially in the areas of ATCO productivity and level of ATCO employment costs. Furthermore, the provision of ATC capacity has not been adequate. This has negatively affected the quality of service provided by Aena.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
-12%
+22%+19%
+16% +15%
-1%
+8% "Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 56%
Weight 44%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 103 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Aena (Spain) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Barcelona 302 019 24 274 4.63 1.34
Canarias 152 204 34 241 1.38 1.14
Madrid 507 159 32 330 3.56 1.10
Palma 59 903 15 116 5.19 1.73
Sevilla 146 387 25 282 2.79 1.21
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 95
100
105
110
115
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Barcelona Canarias Madrid Palma Sevilla
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Barcelona Canarias Madrid Palma Sevilla
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
3.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
406 554 629
1669178617951761
1636
626 509
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Barcelona Canarias Madrid Palma Sevilla
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Barcelona 302 019 +1.8% 298 n.a. 95 648 +3.0%Canarias 152 204 +3.3% 137 n.a. 46 783 +5.3%Madrid 507 159 +3.4% 423 n.a. 156 552 +3.6%Palma 59 903 +2.5% 118 n.a. 36 709 +2.6%Sevilla 146 387 +3.0% 146 n.a. 42 604 +4.0%
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
ACC name
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Barcelona 0.10 1.84 0.23 0.17 0.13
Canarias 1.58 1.18 0.69 0.45 0.28
Madrid 0.75 1.42 0.34 0.31 0.22
Palma 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14
Sevilla 0.21 0.52 0.41 0.34 0.29
Spain 0.52 0.42 0.31
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
En-route ATFM delays per flight
ACC name
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
50
100
150
200
250
2009
A20
10P
2011
P20
12P
2013
P20
14P
2009
A20
10P
2011
P20
12P
2013
P20
14P
2009
A20
10P
2011
P20
12P
2013
P20
14P
2009
A20
10P
2011
P20
12P
2013
P20
14P
2009
A20
10P
2011
P20
12P
2013
P20
14P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Palma Sevilla
Barcelona
Canarias
Madrid
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, Aena’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 9.4% while the share of total European en-route ATFM delay was 14.8%: the 5th most penalizing ANSP in Europe.
Despite a sharp reduction of traffic, Aena–wide en-route ATFM delay per flight increased from 0.6 in 2008 to 0.8 minute in 2009, although the situation differs among the five ACCs:
• Barcelona and Sevilla ACCs have gradually reduced the en-route ATFM delays from the peak of 2006, while Palma ACC maintained a relatively low level of en-route ATFM delay until 2009.
• Madrid and Canarias ACCs showed an increasing trend in en-route ATFM delays over the 2005-2009 period, with a particularly acute problem in Canarias ACC in 2009.
The capacity shortfall could not be addressed despite a significant amount of overtime hours. The main reasons for this shortfall, and resulting increase in ATFM delay, were social tensions between ATC staff and management relating to the introduction of new contractual working arrangements, and the need for an airspace re-sectorisation in Madrid ACC.
ATCO productivity of all ACCs is generally lower than ACCs with similar operational characteristics, essentially due to higher staffing per sector.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The levels of traffic planned for 2014 are +6% higher than the peak in 2008, i.e. before the economic crisis. The actual en-route ATFM delays recorded by the ACCs significantly increased in 2010 (except Palma ACC). Resolution of persisting staffing issues is particularly important to ensure provision of adequate ATC capacity to meet the operational requirements of the European network between 2010 and 2014.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 104 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Aena (Spain) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009) Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
40
80
120
160
200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
-9%-8%-11%
+1%
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2006 (All ACCs)*
C:2006 (All ACCs)*
C:2006 (All ACCs)*
C:2000 (TMA) / 2002 (En-route)
(All ACCs)*
2006 C C C Sevilla
2007
2008 Madrid
2009 Canarias and Palma
2010
2011
2012 Canarias ACC
2013 Madrid ACC
All ACCs
All ACCs
€36.0M(2008 - 2014)
Building YearsATM COM NAV SUR
€483.1M (before 2009-beyond 2014)
€135.4M(before 2009-beyond 2014)
€74.1M(before 2009-beyond 2014)
€69.7M(before 2009-beyond 2014)
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement Comments on capital expenditures
Over the 2005-2009 period, Aena assets under construction have been consistently above 20% of the net book value of total fixed assets. This is an indication of significant capex during this period (some €150M p.a.). Despite this intensive investment cycle, the average remaining accounting life of Aena assets decreased since 2005 and reached 6 years in 2009. In 2008, for Aena some €922 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 1.1 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets). Following the sharp traffic downturn (-10%), the productivity of Aena fixed assets significantly decreased in 2009 to reach a value of 0.9 (a level similar to DFS but lower than NATS (1.1)).
Aena capex amounted to €160M in 2009, this is the same order of magnitude as the capex spent in 2008. An important driver for Aena 2009 capex was the upgrade of the FDP, RDP and HMI systems which took place in all the ACCs and in Barcelona and Madrid TWRs. Although Aena investment plans were revised substantially downwards (up to -11% in a year, for the period 2009-2012) compared to ACE 2007 projections, the cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 remain high at €150M per annum (around €740M which corresponds to 73% of 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues). Furthermore, Aena capex is planned to consistently exceed depreciation costs during the whole period, indicating a growing asset base.
The capex planned for the 2009-2014 period comprise the following major investment projects:
• Implementation of the ATM automation programme (i.e. €483.1M, started before 2009 and planned to end after 2014) including, inter alia, the upgrade of the FDP/RDP/HMI systems in 2009 and their replacement in 2013;
• Construction of the new Valencia TACC building (i.e. €36M, between 2008 and 2014);
• Implementation of the navigation aids programme (i.e. €74.1M, started before 2009 and planned to end after 2014) including, inter alia, the replacement of navaids;
• Implementation of a communication programme (i.e. €69.7M, started before 2009 and planned to end after 2014) including, inter alia, the implementation of IP communication systems and the evolution of REDAN; and,
• Implementation of the surveillance programme (i.e. €135.4M, started before 2009 and planned to end after 2014) including, inter alia, the purchase of Mode S radars.
Despite an intensive investment cycle between 2005 and 2009 (€150M p.a.) the average remaining accounting life of Aena assets remains relatively low (6 years in 2009). Although Aena projected capex were revised downwards compared to previous year forecast, a substantial investment programme is planned for 2010-2014 (€740M). It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan, nor what the quantified contribution to performance improvements is expected (e.g. improve ATCO productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 105 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Aena (Spain) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-3.9%-4.4%-4.6%-4.5%-21.6%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 678 532 508 484 463 445
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 80 79 78 77 76
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 102 105 109 112 116
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PAena
-17%-15%-15%
-1%
-5%-5%
-5%-5%0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
1 600
1 800
2 000
2 200
2 400
2 600
2 800
3 000
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
Aena projected a -21.6% reduction in its gate-to-gate real unit cost in 2010 (vs. 2009). Thereafter, costs are forecasted to decrease at an average of -4.4% over the 2010 to 2014 period. The projected reduction in 2010 reflects the expected impact on the Spanish cost-base of the specific law “Ley 9/2010” which was adopted in Spain on 15th April 2010 in order to address performance issues in Aena. The reduction in unit costs is further supported by moderate forecast traffic increases, at +3.1% per year on average over the 2009-2014 period.
The forecast changes in total costs for ACE 2009 result in a reduction in all years by comparison to ACE 2007, particularly in 2010-2012 (around -15%). However, and as a result of the crisis in 2008-2009, the traffic outlook is more pessimistic (-5% each year) in ACE2009 than it was in ACE 2007 for all years from 2010 to 2012.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Spain en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation 691/2010) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Spain planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Spain Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
92.2
76.771.1 69.2
66.4 64.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
En-
rout
e tr
affic
& c
osts
inde
x (2
009=
100)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-3.3% p.a.
50
60
70
80
90
100
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Spain Germany France Italy United Kingdom
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
Aena DFS DSNA ENAV NATS (2009)
UK11.0%
Italy9.6%
France17.8%
Germany13.8%
Spain14.5%
66.9%Remaining
States33.1%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Spain’s profile for en-route ANS DUR is similar to Aena’s profile for ATM/CNS gate-to-gate unit cost: an important initial decrease (-12% on average over 2010-2011), then a continuous decrease but at a slower pace (an average of -3.3% over 2012-2014).
While below the adopted EU-wide target (-3.5% over 2011-2014), the November 2010 forecast in Spain’s en-route DUR for 2012-2014 records the strongest effort as compared to its peers (-3.3% p.a.). Based on these forecasts, from the most expensive charging zone in 2009 (more than €92 - some 25% more than its peers) Spain would become the second least expensive of its peer group in 2014 (€64).
Despite an increase of 4% in 2010, Aena (and Spain) have 70% of ANS costs allocated to en-route. This is the lowest proportion of its peer group and it is planned to remain constant over 2010-2014.
In its November 2010 plans Spain indicates a definite willingness to reduce its costs (-30%) over the 2009-2014 period, with a strong effort in 2010 and 2011 (-23%). Moreover, all else being equal, Spain cost-efficiency performance is planned to improve faster than its peers over the 2009-2014 period, so that should all States perform according to these plans, by 2014 Spain would have the second lowest en-route DUR amongst its peers.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 106 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ANS CR (Czech Republic) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 26.41 CZK
ANS CR represents 1.4% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€407 €404€407 €437 €466
€452€481
€587€580€571
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+11% +12%
-8% -4%
+5% +6%+3%
-3%
-15%-13%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
-39% -36%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.930.950.930.960.94
-2%+3%-3%+2%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€75€78€100€87€77
+12%
+16%
-22% -4%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
-0.3%-9%+3%+7%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
ANS CR is a mid-ranked ANSP in Europe, with total ATM/CNS costs contributing nearly 1.4% of the ACE gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs.
From 2005 to 2008 traffic grew steadily at +5% p.a. on average. In 2009, it decreased by -3% as a result of the economic crisis and the bankruptcy of SkyEurope airlines’, a major customer of ANS CR. Overall, traffic increased by +11% over the period 2005-2009. ANS CR’s traffic complexity levels are relatively high, in the top quartile.
Unit costs of delays for ANS CR are the highest of its peer group although they have significantly reduced between 2005 and 2009 (-71%). The economic unit cost has decreased by -21% between 2005 and 2009, as a result of the reduction in delays and a slight decrease in the unit ATM/CNS provision costs over the same period (-1%).
After strong increases in ATM/CNS provision costs during 2005-2007, ANS CR managed to reduce the ATM/CNS provision costs in both 2008 and 2009. The reduction in the unit ATM/CNS provision costs over the 2005-2009 period is due to a decrease in both the unit ATCO employment costs (-2%) and the unit support costs (-0.2%). ANS CR’s reduction in gate-to-gate unit costs over the period was the largest of its peer group, and its 2009 unit cost was the second lowest in the group (to HungaroControl).
ANS CR’s unit employment costs are still the highest of its comparator group although these have decreased overall during the period. After significant increases in 2006 and 2007 employment costs per ATCO-hour fell in 2008 and 2009, mostly due to a significant decline in overtime (-42%). ATCO productivity has remained the highest of the group.
The 2006-2007 increase in unit support costs was matched with reductions in 2008 and 2009 (resulting in a -0.2% reduction over the whole period). A reduction in non-staff operating costs of -11% from 2008 to 2009 was achieved through the implementation of cost containment measures.
In 2009, ANS CR’s cost-effectiveness improved in spite of a decline in traffic. The high levels of ATFM delay costs are improving, although delay costs remain the highest of its peer group. ANS CR managed to reduce the ATM/CNS provision costs in both 2008 and 2009.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
-2%-1%
+10%
-0.2%-0.2%
+11%
-2% "Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 21%
Weight 79%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 107 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ANS CR (Czech Republic) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Praha 187 732 18 312 6.53 1.21
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Praha
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Praha
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
3.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
175 123 1991527
1600161815721627
178 97
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
2
3
4
5
6
7
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Praha
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
2
3
4
5
6
7
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Praha 187 732 +3.3% 87 +4.6% 33 452 +3.6%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Praha 0.29 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.15
Czech Republic 0.15 0.16 0.15
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Praha
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, ANS CR’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 1.6% in 2009, while the share in total European en-route ATFM delay was 2.0%: the 9th most penalizing ANSP in Europe.
Praha ACC has gradually reduced the en-route ATFM delays from the peak of 2006 (start of operations of the new ACC in Praha in 2007).
• After an increase in en-route ATFM delay between 2005 and 2006, Praha ACC showed a continuous improvement in performance between 2006 and 2010.
• ATCO productivity decreased between 2006 and 2007 but increased again between 2007 and 2009.
• In 2009, ATCO productivity of Praha ACC is lower than ACCs with similar operational characteristics, but higher than ACCs operated by comparable ANSPs, such as Budapest, Bratislava and Ljubljana, due to lower staffing per sector.
• In a context of lower traffic, overtime has significantly reduced in 2009.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +14% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. The actual en-route ATFM delays recorded by Praha ACC reduced in 2010. No significant problems are foreseen for Praha ACC between 2011 and 2014. It is expected that the main measures to support the deployment of additional ATC capacity will come from additional sectors and ATCOs. In 2014, preparation for the new ATM system (expected in 2015-2016) is due to start.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 108 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ANS CR (Czech Republic) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
10
20
30
40
50
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.7
1.4
2.1
2.8
3.5
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+15%+8%+2%
-8%
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009) Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:1994* C:2000* C:2006/2007* C:2007*
2006
2007 C
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€4.9M
€53.4M(2009-2016)
€5.3M €4.9M
ATM COM NAV SUR Building Years
C
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
ANS CR incurred a capital investment of €19M in 2009, which although less than the average for 2005-2008 (€25M), is an increase on the level of 2007 and 2008 capex. The 2009 capex is however -8% lower than what was planned in ACE 2007.
In 2009, for ANS CR some €1016 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 0.98 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets). This is the lowest productivity of fixed assets in the comparator group. Some 14% of the net book value of asset in 2009 were for assets in the course of construction, a similar level to 2008. ANS CR depreciation charge was €24M in 2009, a similar level to 2008. The average accounting life of fixed assets in operation has steadily reduced over the 2005-2009 period to below 5 years.
Compared to ACE 2007 plans, the capital expenditure projections for the period 2010-2012 have been revised upwards (up to +15% in 2012), indicating the postponement of some investments originally planned in 2009 to the following years. These capital projections remain above projected depreciation levels and maintain the capex to depreciation ratio of around 1.1 over the ACE 2009 projection period 2010-2014.
The projected capital programme 2010-14 (i.e. €111M) includes a number of important system replacement and upgrades of the ATM systems at ACC Praha, including:
Replacement of VCS (i.e. €4.2M, between 2009 and 2013);
Replacement of radio communication equipments (i.e. €5.3M, between 2011and 2013);
Purchase of primary radars (i.e. €4.9M, between 2011 and 2013);
Replacement of RDP and FDP systems in Praha ACC (i.e. €49M, between 2011 and 2016);
Upgrade of RDP and FDP systems (i.e. €38M, to be spent by 2010); and,
Re-construction of the training centre (i.e. €4.9M, between 2011 and 2013).
ANS CR’s investment plan for 2010-2014 shows growing capex compared to the previous years. The capex profile has also been revised upwards in the ACE 2009 submission. ANS CR’s growing asset base arises in a context of lowest productivity of fixed assets in the comparator group. It is not clear what is the expected quantified contribution of these investments to performance improvements (e.g. improve ATCO productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 109 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ANS CR (Czech Republic) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-0.6% -1.3% -1.5% +0.1% +0.1%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
140
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 404 402 396 391 391 391
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 102 103 104 107 111
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 102 105 107 111 114
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PANS CR
-8% -6% -6% -9%
-8% -8% -9% -10%
0
30
60
90
120
150
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
200
280
360
440
520
600
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
The gate-to-gate unit costs of ANS CR are forecast to marginally decrease (-0.6%) in 2010, decrease by just over -1% in 2011-2012 and remaining stable in 2013-2014. Over the whole 2009-2014 period, costs are foreseen to increase by +11% and composite flight-hours by +14%, resulting in an overall decrease in the unit costs by -3.3%, or -0.7% on average per annum.
Actual 2009 traffic was -8% lower than what was forecasted before the economic crisis at the end of 2008 (for ACE 2007). ANS CR succeeded in reducing the 2009 costs in an even higher proportion (-8%), showing a high responsiveness to the crisis. For years 2010 to 2012, both the forecast traffic and the forecast costs have been significantly revised downwards between ACE2007 and ACE2009, reflecting the impact of the 2009 crisis.
It should also be noted that in 2009, ANS CR decided not to charge any cost of capital for terminal ANS to airspace users; a measure which contributed to further reduce Czech Republic terminal chargeable cost-base.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Czech Republic en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Czech Republic planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Czech Republic Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
37.238.039.341.443.5
45.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
100
110
120
130
140
150
En-
rout
e tr
affic
& c
osts
inde
x (2
009=
100)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
p.a.-3.6%
30
40
50
60
70
80
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Czech Republic Hungary Slovak Republic Slovenia
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
ANS CR HungaroControl LPS Slovenia Control
Slovak Republic
0.7%
Slovenia0.4%
Hungary1.0%
Czech Republic
1.5%
3.6%Remaining
States96.4%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
The forecast en-route DUR for the Czech Republic (as per the data presented in November 2010) follows a different pattern to the gate-to-gate unit costs from the ACE 2009 submission. Over the whole 2009-2014 period, en-route DUR are forecast to increase by +3% (vs. +11% in ACE 2009 for ANS CR) and service units by +25% (vs. +14% in ACE 2009 data for ANS CR), suggesting revised figures in the November 2010 data compared to the ACE 2009 data (in particular, in terms of actual traffic increase in 2010 and a possible downwards revision of the costs).
The profile of the en-route DUR shows a decrease of -3.6% per annum on average in the 2012-2014 period, similar to the rate of decrease of the EU-wide targets of -3.5% per annum. If compared to 2009, the decreasing rate is similar, showing continuous improvement planned for the Czech Republic in terms of cost-efficiency. In 2009, the Czech Republic had the second-lowest en-route DUR in their group and should all comparators perform according to these plans, this position would be retained in 2014 although the gap with Hungary would be narrowed down to 7%.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 110 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ARMATS (Armenia) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 506.09 AMD
ARMATS represents 0.1% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€385
€385
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
NOT AVAILABLE
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.12
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
ARMATS is one of the smallest ANSPs in Europe, with gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs representing 0.1% of the European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs. Traffic complexity is amongst the lowest in Europe and traffic variability is intermediate.
Armenia has been a EUROCONTROL Member State since 1 March 2006. In January 2008, Armenia was not technically “integrated” into the Multilateral Route Charges System therefore ARMATS has only been reporting information for ACE 2009.
ARMATS 2009 ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour amounted to €385 in 2009. This is lower than ANSPs operating in relatively similar economic and operational conditions (M-NAV, NATA Albania and MoldATSA).
In 2009, ATFM delays do not appear to be a problem for ARMATS.
ARMATS ATCO-hour productivity (i.e. 0.12) is the lowest in Europe and well below the levels achieved by comparable ANSPs. This lower productivity is compensated by low employment costs per ATCO-hour (€6). On the other hand, support costs per composite flight-hour (€337), although comparable to those of M-NAV and lower than NATA Albania and MoldATSA, are some 15% higher than the European average. A level which is not commensurate with the underlying traffic demand and economic fundamentals.
ARMATS ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour are lower than relatively similar ANSPs. On the other hand, ATCO-hour productivity is by far the lowest in Europe and unit support costs are some 15% higher than the European average. This indicates substantial scope for performance improvement.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
NOT AVAILABLE
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 111 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ARMATS (Armenia) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Yerevan 8 429 12 313 0.66 1.16
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 90
100
110
120
130
140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Yerevan
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Yerevan
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
1440
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Yerevan
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Yerevan 8 429 +6.4% 34 -7.5% 8 760 0%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Yerevan 0.00 0.00 N/appl N/appl N/appl
Armenia N/appl N/appl N/appl
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL
capacity planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
10
20
30
40
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Yerevan
Comments on planned capacity profile
In 2009, ARMATS traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 0.1% and no en-route ATFM delay was recorded for Yerevan ACC.
• Historical ATCO productivity performance for Yerevan ACC was not available.
• In 2009, ATCO productivity at Yerevan ACC was very low when compared to ACCs with similar characteristics, due to a mix of particularly high staffing per sector and low productivity.
• Historical overtime levels for Yerevan ACC are not available. No overtime was recorded for Yerevan ACC in 2009.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +36% higher than 2009 levels (earliest available data). No change in en-route ATFM delay was recorded for Yerevan ACC in 2010; it remained at zero. No significant capacity problems are foreseen between 2011 and 2014 for Yerevan ACC.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 112 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ARMATS (Armenia) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0.0%
1.5%
3.0%
4.5%
6.0%
7.5%
9.0%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3.0
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
NOT AVAILABLE
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2000* C:2000* C:2000* C:2000*
2006
2007
2008
€0.5M 2009
2010
2011
2012
€0.3M(2013-2014)
2013 (2013-2014) (2013-2015) (2013-2016) (2013-2017)
€2.4M(2011-2015)
€0.2M
ATM COM NAV SUR Building
€1.5M
€0.1M
Years
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
In 2009, ARMATS assets under construction were only 2% of the net book value of total fixed assets and the average remaining accounting life of ARMATS assets was 7 years. Some €939 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 1.1 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets). An asset productivity level similar to MoldATSA (1.1) but lower than M-NAV (1.8).
ARMATS capex was around €1M in 2009. The cumulative capex planned for the period 2010-2014 amounts to €4M which corresponds to 56% of 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues. The capex planned for the 2010-2014 period relate to the following main investment projects:
• Modernisation of secondary en-route radar TRLK-11 (i.e. €1.5M, between 2010 and 2011);
• Modernisation of the P3D system (i.e. €0.6M, between 2014 and 2015);
• New DVOR/DME systems for Zvartnots airport (i.e. €0.7M, to be commissioned in 2015);
• Modernisation of the NDB Building (i.e. €0.1M, in 2010);
• Replacement of the ATM systems (FDP, RDP, HMI and VCS) and the ATC simulator in operation at Yerevan ACC (i.e. €2.4M, between 2011-2015); and,
• Modernisation of radar in Gymuri (i.e. €0.3M, between 2013 and 2014).
ARMATS planned for capex amounting to €4M is planned for the 2010-2014 period. It is expected that these investments, and in particular the upgrade of the ATM systems, contribute to improve ARMATS ATCO productivity in the future years.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 113 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ARMATS (Armenia) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+3.4%-9.6% +0.9% -0.6%
-4.9%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
140
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 385 398 360 363 361 343
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 102 105 113 118 118
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 99 112 120 126 132
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PARMATS
NOT AVAILABLE
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
After a +3.4% increase in 2010, ARMATS gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to decrease over the 2011-2014 period by -14%, mainly due to a fall of planned unit rates in 2011 (-9.6%), which reflects a growth in the composite flight-hours (+14%) faster than in the ATM/CNS provision costs (+3%). Overall, ARMATS unit costs are planned to decrease by -10.9% between 2009 and 2014 (i.e. -2.3% p.a.) since traffic is expected to rise faster (+32%) than the ATM/CNS provision costs (+18%).
En-route unit costs
The chart below shows planned changes in Armenia en-route unit costs over the period 2010-2014. The chart on the bottom of this page shows planned changes in allocation of en-route costs for ARMATS between 2009 and 2014.
Planned en-route unit costs for Armenia
26.028.1
22.721.7
19.8 18.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-7.0% p.a.
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
ARMATS
Comments on en-route unit costs (Nov. 2010 data)
Armenia’s planned en-route unit costs are planned to significantly decrease by -30% over the 2010-2014 period (-6.8% p.a.). After an increase in 2010 (+8.2%), en-route unit costs are planned to sharply decrease in 2011 (-19.2%) and then to reduce at a rate of -7% p.a. until 2014.
The overall decrease in Armenia en-route unit costs is due to the fact that over the 2009-2014 period, en-route costs are planned to remain fairly constant while traffic is expected to growth by +42%
The proportion of costs allocated to en-route is planned to gradually increase from some 50% in 2009 to some 60% in 2014, which remains amongst the lowest share across European ANSPs.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 114 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Austro Control (Austria) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: Austria is part of the Euro zone
Austro Control represents 2.2% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€400 €429€404 €414 €393
€605€645
€560€539€523
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+7%+3%
+6%
-2%
+9%
+4%+4%
-9%
-28%
+4%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays+34% +47%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.951.010.970.920.91
-7%+4%+5%
+1%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€149€143€138€125€112
+11%
+10% +4%+4%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+5%+3%-10%-1%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
Austro Control is a medium-sized ANSP, with costs amounting to around 2% of the ACE gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs.
From 2005 to 2008 traffic grew steadily at +6% per year on average. In 2009, it decreased by -9% however, as a result of the economic crisis and the bankruptcy of SkyEurope airlines. Overall, traffic increased by +7% over the period 2005-2009.
Austro Control’s traffic complexity levels are relatively high, in the top quartile.
The economic unit cost has increased by +16% over the period 2005-2009, as a result increases in both the financial unit costs (+6%) and especially the delay unit costs (+48%). In 2009, among its peer group, Austro Control had both the highest delay unit costs (€176, corresponding to 29% of the economic unit costs), and the highest economic unit costs (€605).
Austro Control’s ATM/CNS provision costs have increased by +14% between 2005 and 2009 (i.e. +3.3% on average per year), mainly due to increases in ATCO employment costs (+36%). In 2009, employment costs per ATCO-hour have become the highest in the comparator group. ATCO-hour productivity improved in the same period but at a much slower rate than costs, and decreased in 2009 in a context of sharp traffic decline.
Support costs have remained fairly constant overall, although improvements in unit costs during the early years of the period have been almost cancelled by later increases. The main drivers for these increases are non-ATCO employment costs and capital-related costs.
Austro Control’s economic cost-effectiveness has deteriorated over the period 2005-2009. First, the provision of ATC capacity has not been adequate. This has negatively affected the quality of service provided by Austro Control. Second, the significant increases in ATCO employment costs were not matched by a productivity increase. As a result, in 2009 Austro Control has the highest unit economic costs of its peer group.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+4%
+27%
+6%
-3%
+4% +7%
+33%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 34%
Weight 66%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 115 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Austro Control (Austria) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Vienna 206 766 17 323 6.98 1.24
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 90
100
110
120
130
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Vienna
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Vienna
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
177137 134
1459158915451548
1480
430322
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Vienna
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Vienna 206 766 +4.0% 116 +6.2% 50 942 +2.4%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Vienna 1.19 1.53 0.30 0.24 0.23
Austria 0.30 0.24 0.23
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Vienna
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, Austro Control’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 2.1% while the share of total European en-route ATFM delay was 9.7%: the 4th highest penalizing ANSP in Europe.
Despite a sharp reduction of traffic, en-route ATFM delay per flight generated by Vienna ACC remained very high in 2009:
• After continuous increase in en-route ATFM delay between 2005 and 2008, Vienna ACC showed a slight improvement in 2009, mainly due to the significant drop in traffic as a result of the economic crisis.
• The ATC capacity shortfall could not be addressed despite high levels of overtime. The main reason for this shortfall, and resulting ATFM delays, is considerable staffing issues.
• In 2009, ATCO productivity of Vienna ACC tends to be higher than ACCs with similar operational characteristics, mostly due to higher sector productivity.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +11% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. The actual en-route ATFM delays recorded by Vienna ACC significantly increased in 2010 despite a traffic level which remained almost constant compared to 2009 and despite recruitment efforts (including seconding ATCOs from a different ANSP). Resolution of persisting staffing issues is particularly important to ensure provision of adequate ATC capacity to meet the operational requirements of the European network by 2014. In addition, effective implementation of a number of major projects will be required, including ATM system upgrades (COOPANS) by 2013, and actions to enhance airspace structures, sectorisation and procedures.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 116 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Austro Control (Austria) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
10
20
30
40
50
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+14%
-2%-23%
-34%
10
20
30
40
50
60
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:1986* C:1986* C:1986* C:1996*
2006
2007
2008
€5.7M €1.6M €4.8M 2009
2010
2011
€10M 2012
2013
Building
€70.7M(2009-2014)
ATM COM NAV SUR Years
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
Over the 2005-2008 period, Austro Control has shown a decreasing trend in annual capital expenditure from €40M in 2005 to €17M in 2008. The trend reverses back to growth in 2009 (+16% at €19M). Annual capex plans over 2010-2014 show peaks for 2010 and 2011 (above €40M per year) and a return to 2006-2009 levels (around €20M per year) in 2012-2014.
The actual 2009 capex is -34% lower than planned in ACE 2007 (-23% in 2010 and +14% in 2012), probably reflecting the postponement of some investments.
The 2009 capex covered a number of relatively small ATM system upgrades related to surveillance, communication, navigation and MET. Around 5% of the net book value of asset in 2009 were for assets in the course of construction.
The projected capital programme 2010-14 (€150M) includes:
• Expansion of the multilateration network for approach and en-route traffic (i.e. €4.2M, to be commissioned in 2013);
• Replacement of the VCSs in Klagenfurt (2010), Innsbruck (2011) and Salzburg (2012);
• New TWR in Salzburg (i.e. €10M, planned to be completed in 2012); and,
• Upgrades of the ATM system as part of COOPANS (Austro Control joined the association in March 2010) (i.e. €68M, between 2010 and 2014).
Austro Control’s productivity of fixed assets was relatively low in 2008 (some €1007 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour, or a productivity of fixed assets of 1.0 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets) and decreased further in 2009 (0.9) following a sharp traffic downturn (-9%). Given the capex programme and the growing asset base in the next years, the capital intensity is expected to increase further (and all else equal the productivity of fixed assets is expected to decrease).
Despite a relatively low productivity of its fixed assets, Austro Control is still planning significant capex over the next years, even if these plans have recently been considerably revised downwards. It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan, nor what the quantified contribution to performance improvements is expected (e.g. improve ATCO productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 117 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Austro Control (Austria) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+1.6% -1.7% -1.1% -1.2%-5.1%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
140
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 429 436 429 424 419 398
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 102 108 112 115 114
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 101 108 113 118 123
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PAustro Control
+6% +8% +11% +12%
-9% -12%-8% -7%
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
The forecast gate-to-gate unit costs of Austro Control show an overall decrease of -7.4% between 2009 and 2014. Gate-to-gate unit costs show a +1.6% increase in 2010 (with a small traffic growth of +1%) followed by gradual slight annual decreases in 2011-2013 (costs increases broadly following traffic growth) and a more marked decrease in 2014 (with costs stable but traffic continues to grow).
Actual traffic in 2009 was lower (-9%) than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data). However, actual costs ended up +6% higher than planned. The 2010-2012 outlook from ACE 2009 data is more pessimistic than ACE 2007 data since it shows an upwards cost revision and a downwards traffic revision, overall the period.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Austria en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Austria planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Austria Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
59.863.264.665.467.465.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-2.9% p.a.
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Austria Denmark Switzerland
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
Austro Control NAVIAIR Skyguide
Austria2.5%
Switzerland2.0%
Denmark1.6%
6.2%Remaining
States93.8%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
The forecast change in Austria’s en-route DUR (as per the data presented in November 2010) is consistent with the trend in Austro Control gate-to-gate unit cost and shows a decrease of -8.1% between 2009 and 2014.
The current profile shows an increase of the en-route DUR in 2010 (+3.7%) followed by a forecast decrease of -3.1% in 2011 and of -2.9% per annum over the period 2012-2014. This rate is less than the EU-wide targets of -3.5% per annum. The overall decrease between 2009 and 2014 is also lower than that of the EU-wide target (-8.1% vs. -15%).
In almost all years the Austrian en-route DURs are planned to be the lowest among the peer group, although a combination of the increase in 2010 and substantial reductions in Denmark’s costs between 2009 and 2010 means that the gap between Austria and Denmark in terms of en-route DUR is forecast to reduce significantly in future years. The proportion of costs allocated to en-route is relatively high compared to its peer group, and remains fairly constant over the period.
The planned reduction in Austria’s en-route DUR is modest over the 2009-2014 period (-8.1% or -1.6% annual average) and the annual average decrease between 2011 and 2014 (-2.9%) is lower than the annual decrease of the EU-wide targets (-3.5%).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 118 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
AVINOR (Norway) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 8.73 NOK
AVINOR represents 2.1% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€340 €343€277 €309 €382
€357€354
€406
€328€308
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+15%
+28%
-9% -3%
+4%+2%+3%
-4%
+3%
+25%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
-37% -42%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.780.760.730.700.60
+2%+4%+4%+18%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€85€78€96€72€50
+44%
+32%
-19%
+9%
0
20
40
60
80
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+6%
+22% -5% -2%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
In 2009, Avinor represents respectively 2.1% of total costs (ranking 12th ANSP) and accounting for 2.6% of composite flight-hours traffic in Europe (ranking 10th). The complexity and variability of its traffic is relatively low.
Traffic levels increased moderately over 2006-2008 before decreasing -4% in 2009.
Avinor shows a substantial +24% increase in unit costs over the 2005-2009 period. Whilst none of Avinor’s peers has shown efficiency improvements over this time period, with an average annual increase of +5.4% p.a., Avinor’s are the highest compared to its peer group. Although not substantial, ATFM delays have been recurrent throughout the period and represent 4% of the economic unit cost in 2009.
ATCO productivity has improved over the time period at an average of +7% per year. This is the most significant improvement of its peers and puts Avinor second among its peers group.
A proposed restructuring programme, “Take-Off-05” resulted in a large number of ATCO resignations in 2005 and 2006, and costly new wage settlements were necessary to restore the required staffing levels, leading to a peak in ATCO employment costs in 2007. Unit employment costs fell in 2008 (-19%), reflecting allocation changes for training costs and for non-ANS activities, and rose by +9% in 2009. Over the 2005-2009 period, the unit employment costs increased by +70% making it the highest of its comparator group in 2009.
Support unit costs increased +20% over the period, mainly due to an increase in employment costs of support staff between 2005 and 2009.
Unit costs for Avinor increased significantly over the period, for the main part due to a substantial increase in ATCO employment costs which was not matched by a productivity increase.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+30% +31%+24%
+20%+27%
+5%
+70%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 32%
Weight 68%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 119 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
AVINOR (Norway) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Bodo 61 145 19 184 0.96 1.13
Oslo 106 061 20 192 3.39 1.13
Stavanger 63 891 19 188 1.06 1.12
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 80
90
100
110
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Bodo Oslo Stavanger
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Oslo Bodo Stavanger
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
132 130175
166816921787
16621649160 140
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Oslo Bodo Stavanger
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Bodo 61 145 +3.0% 43 +11.5% 37 230 0%Oslo 106 061 +3.0% 99 +3.2% 60 567 0%Stavanger 63 891 +3.0% 32 +8.4% 17 800 0%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Bodo 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02
Oslo 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Stavanger 0.34 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.09
Norway 0.04 0.04 0.05
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Oslo
Bodo Stavanger
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, AVINOR’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 2.3% while the share of total European en-route ATFM delay was 0.8%.
Despite the traffic decline in 2009, Avinor-wide en-route ATFM delay per flight increased from 0.05 to 0.14 minute in 2009, although the situation differs among the three ACCs:
• Stavanger ACC was the only Norwegian ACC which had a noticeable amount of en-route ATFM delay in 2009, mainly due to staffing restrictions. The ATC capacity shortfall could not be addressed despite considerable overtime.
• Virtually no en-route ATFM delays were recorded for Bodo and Oslo ACCs in 2009, a much better performance than in years prior to 2008.
• In 2009, ATCO productivity of Avinor’s ACCs ranges from 0.6 for Olso to 1.2 for Stavanger. Compared to ACCs with similar operational characteristics, Olso ACC has lower productivity, while Stavanger and Bodo have higher productivity.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +11% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. The actual en-route ATFM delays recorded by Stavanger ACC significantly reduced in 2010 and there were virtually no delays for Bodo and Oslo ACCs. No significant problems are foreseen for Avinor’s ACCs between 2011 and 2014.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 120 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
AVINOR (Norway) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
NOT AVAILABLE
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
4
8
12
16
20
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
-67%-64% -61%
0
10
20
30
40
50
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:1996 (Oslo); 2004 (Stav.);2008 (Bodo)*
C:1996 (Oslo); 2004 (Stav.); 2008 (Bodo)*
C:2004 (Stav.)* C:2007 (Bodo)*
2006
2007 Bodo
2008
2009
2010
€1.1M 2011
2012
2013
€35.5M(2004-2011)
NAV SURCOM
€1.4M
ATM Years
€36.2M
Building
Stavanger
Olso
Bodo and OlsoC
C
C
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
The share of AVINOR’s assets under construction has been significantly increasing since 2007 to reach 49% in 2008 and 48% in 2009, a record value among European ANSPs. The cumulative capex between 2005 and 2008 amounted to some €43M. AVINOR’s average remaining accounting life of fixed assets has steadily decreased between 2005 and 2008, to resume in 2009 a value similar to 2006 (some 6 years). Avinor did not provide sufficient information to compute the asset productivity in 2009.
The cumulative capex over the 2010-2014 period amounts to some €68M, the second highest investment plan among its comparators although its ratio on the 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues (40%) is the lowest of this group. The planned capex between 2010 and 2014, an average of €14M a year, is higher than the average between 2005 and 2008 (€11M a year) and it plans to increase each year. Compared to ACE 2007 plans, AVINOR’s capex between 2010 and 2012 has been revised significantly downwards (around -65% each year), reflecting the postponement of important investments including those related to the relocation of part of the operation of Oslo ACC to Stavanger ACC. The depreciation costs are planned to increase over the 2010-2014 period, but less than the capex, resulting in capex to depreciation ratio systematically higher than 1, which suggests an increasing asset base.
The capex planned for the 2009-2014 period comprise the following investment projects, including a number of important system upgrade and replacement projects many of which started in 2006 and 2007, with the largest being:
• NORAP (MSSR and PSR radars) (i.e. €36.2M, between 2006 and 2012);
• OASE (Oslo ATCC System enhancement) (i.e. € 18.7M, between 2007 and 2011);
• ASAP (Advanced Sectorisation and Automation Project, Oslo) which aims to redesign airspace and route structure in the Oslo area (i.e. €4.3M, between 2006 and 2011);
• Replacement UPS Oslo (i.e. €1.1M, planned to be committed in 2011); and,
• PANDA (Procedures for Air Navigation, Design and Aeronautical charting system) (i.e. €1.4M, between 2006 and 2009).
AVINOR capital expenditure plans (2010-2014) indicates the intensification of the current investment cycle. It is important that AVINOR will be able to translate these investments in concrete ATC capacity performance improvements in the future.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 121 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
AVINOR (Norway) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-0.6%-1.8%0%0%+2.1%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
140
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 343 350 350 350 344 342
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 106 108 110 109 110
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 104 106 107 109 111
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PAvinor
-18% -15% -14% -16%
-8%-6%-6% -7%
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
Avinor foresees stable gate-to-gate unit costs over 2009-2014 (-0.3%, over the period). This reflects an increase in traffic of +11%, offset by a +10% increase in ATM/CNS provision costs over the period.
When comparing 2009-2012 plans from the ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, actual traffic in 2009 was lower by -7% than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data) while actual costs ended up -16% lower than planned, an indication of reactivity to the traffic decrease through cost-containment measures. For the 2010-2012 outlook AVINOR reported downward revisions for both forecast costs (-14% to -18%) and forecast traffic (around -7% each year).
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Norway en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Norway planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Norway Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
58.258.559.559.461.862.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
100
103
106
109
112
115
118
121
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA/CAA SUs En-route costs
p.a.-0.7%
30
40
50
60
70
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Norway Sweden Finland Poland
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
Avinor LFV Finavia PANSA
Finland0.5%
Poland1.7%
Sweden2.6%
Norway1.5%
Remaining States93.7%
6.3%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Whereas AVINOR foresees a stability in gate–to-gate unit costs, Norway November forecasts present minor reductions in its en-route DUR over the 2009-2014 period (-1.4% annual average), with a mere -0.7% p.a. on average over 2012-2014. According to these plans, Norway would end up in 2014 with the highest DUR amongst its peers group.
In this peer group there is a wide variance in the cost allocation to en-route (from less than 50% in Finavia in 2009 to more than 80% in LFV). This cost-allocation is planned to significantly change in the coming years (e.g. in Finavia). Such changes can impact on the trends and levels of the en-route DURs and will need to be monitored during the period.
Norway’s planned reductions of the en-route DURs are relatively modest (-1.4% per annum over the 2009-2014 and -0.7% p.a. over 2011-2014). This is much lower than its peers and, all else being equal, Norway would retain the highest en-route DURs amongst its comparator group in 2012, 2013 and 2014.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 122 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Belgocontrol (Belgium) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: Belgium is part of the Euro zone
Belgocontrol represents 2.0% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€687 €738€753 €749 €691
€837€793
€752€820€802
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+5%
-4%
+2% +1%+4%
+3%+6%
-6% -6%
-14%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays+44% +73%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.680.690.690.650.64
-3%+1%+6%+1%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€127€124€127€123€124
-0.2% +3% -2% +2%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+8%+0.3%-9%
-0.2%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
Belgocontrol is a medium-sized ANSP with costs amounting to around 2% of the European total. Belgocontrol’s responsibilities are confined to lower airspace, with Belgian upper airspace controlled by MUAC. Traffic complexity is the highest in Europe.
Composite flight-hours have increased by +7% over the period 2005-2009; a combination of increases in each year of 2006-2008 and a -6% reduction in 2009. Although moderate over the period, the overall increase of +7% contrasts with the traffic stagnation experienced by LVNL.
Between 2005 and 2009, unit ATM/CNS provision costs fell by -2% and Belgocontrol has consistently shown the highest unit ATM/CNS provision costs in Europe. ATFM delays per composite flight-hour have increased, outweighing decreases in ATM/CNS provision costs overall. The implementation of new ATM systems (FDPS platform) temporary reduced ATC capacity in 2008, and ATFM delays continued to represent a substantial share of Belgocontrol economic cost in 2009, due to higher weather related delays at Brussels airport and lack of ATC capacity in the area control centre.
ATCO productivity rose by an annual average of +1.3%, but it remains -25% below that of its neighbour LVNL, which also has solely lower airspace responsibility and had lower traffic growth over the period.
Employment costs per ATCO-hour were the second highest in Europe in 2005. Annual increases have been contained to less than +1% on average enabling Belgocontrol to step back to the sixth position in 2009.
Support costs per composite flight-hour in 2005-2006 were affected by exceptional write-offs (recorded as capital-related costs) caused by a rethink of the CANAC project. The subsequent reduction in 2007 arose as CANAC internal development was halted in favour of buying an off-the-shelf system. In 2008-2009, the commissioning of a new ATM system (CANAC 2) required staff training and overtime, which contributed to increases in support staff costs.
Belgocontrol unit ATM/CNS provision costs remain the highest in Europe despite marginal improvements over the 2005-2009 period. ATCO productivity remains well below that of LVNL, indicating scope for performance improvement. Despite investments ATFM delay costs are not improving and remain higher than LVNL.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+5%
-2% -2% -2%
+5% +7%+3%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 26%
Weight 74%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 123 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Belgocontrol (Belgium) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Brussels 81 617 9 159 13.01 1.17
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 90
95
100
105
110
115
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Brussels
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Brussels
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
13771460
134212961256
6721
174 127
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Brussels
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Brussels 81 617 n.a. 86 +1.6% 29 792 +2.6%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Brussels 0.24 0.21 0.25 0.27 0.21
Belgium 0.25 0.27 0.21
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Brussels
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, Belgocontrol’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 0.8% while the share of total European en-route ATFM delay was 1.4%: the 10th highest penalizing ANSP in Europe.
Despite a sharp reduction of traffic, en-route ATFM delay per flight generated by Brussels ACC increased in 2009:
• En-route ATFM delays increased between 2007-2009 (partly due to “other ATC” related reasons).
• The ATC capacity shortfall could not be addressed despite relatively high levels of overtime. Overtime also coincides with the preparation for the entry in operation of CANAC 2 (new ATM system commissioned at the end of 2009).
• Despite having one of the highest complexity scores in Europe, ATCO productivity increased continuously between 2005 and 2008 and then decreased in 2009 as a result of reduced traffic levels following the economic crisis. ATCO productivity of Brussels ACC tends to be in the average of ACCs with similar operational characteristics, but lower than Amsterdam ACC, mostly due to higher staffing per sector.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +6% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. The actual en-route ATFM delays recorded by Brussels ACC reduced in 2010. No problems are currently foreseen for Brussels ACC between 2011 and 2014. If current plans are fully implemented, sufficient ATC capacity should be made available to meet the expected traffic growth and the operational requirements of the European network.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 124 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Belgocontrol (Belgium) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.8
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+506%
+59%
-22%
-33%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2009* C:2003* C:2009* C:2008/09*
2006
2007
2008
2009 C C
2010
2011
2012
€15M (2013-2017)
2013
€36.7M(2003-2010)
NAV Building YearsSURCOMATM
C
€20.6M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
Belgocontrol’s share of assets under construction fell to their lowest level in 2009 (1%). After several years of sustained investments (€125M between 2005 and 2009, or some €25M a year) the commissioning of the CANAC 2 project (new ATM system and new ACC OPS room) at the end of 2009 marks the end of an investment cycle. The average remaining accounting life of the fixed assets has been rising since 2006, and was above ten years in 2009. In 2008, some €1967 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 0.51 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets). Despite a traffic downturn of -6%, the productivity of Belgocontrol fixed assets slightly increased in 2009 (0.55), due to a proportional decreased in the GBV of assets in operation. It remains however the lowest of ANSPs in the ACE sample.
Belgocontrol capex amounted to €16M in 2009, which is below the average annual capex spent between 2005 and 2009. The main drivers of Belgocontrol 2009 capex related to VCS-b replacement, implementation of CANAC 2, PSR Mode S radars, and radar replacement at Charleroi airport. Investments made in 2009 were -33% below ACE 2007 projections and in 2010 the figure has been revised downwards by -22%, while in 2011 and 2012, the planned capex has been significantly revised upwards (up to +506% in 2012). The cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 is significantly less than in the five preceding years and amount to €57M (28% of the 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues). Following the entry in operation of CANAC 2 in 2010, and the forthcoming capex reductions, Belgocontrol capex to depreciation ratio is planned to fall from 0.9 in 2010 to 0.3 in 2014. Annual depreciation costs are planned, on average, to remain close to their previous years’ levels.
The capex planned for the period 2010-2014 include the following major investment projects:
• Further CANAC 2 related capex ATM systems (i.e. €31.5M, between 2007 and 2010);
• Purchase of PSR/Mode S radars (i.e. €5.2M, between 2009 and 2011);
• VOR/DME replacement (i.e. €15M, between 2013 and 2017); and,
• Radar replacement at Charleroi airport (i.e. €5.1M between 2009 and 2011).
Belgocontrol has achieved major capex programmes in the last five years, and the average remaining accounting life of fixed assets reached ten years in 2009. Lower capex but higher depreciation costs are planned over the period 2010-2014. It is expected that the recent capex will enable improvements in both ATCO productivity and quality of service, two areas of potential improvement for Belgocontrol.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 125 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Belgocontrol (Belgium) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-2.7% -3.4% -1.4% -3.5% -3.4%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 738 718 694 684 660 638
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 97 98 98 96 94
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 100 104 106 107 109
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PBelgocontrol
-5% -8% -9% -6%
-6%-5%-7%-5%
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
Belgocontrol gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs are expected to fall by -14% between 2009 and 2014, an annual average decrease of -2.9%. The ATM/CNS costs are planned to fall by -1.2% per year on average, and traffic is forecasted to rise by +1.7% a year.
When comparing 2009-2012 plans from the ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, actual traffic in 2009 was lower by -5% than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data) while actual costs ended up -6% lower than planned, an indication of reactivity to the traffic decrease. For the 2010-2012 outlook Belgocontrol reported downward revisions for both forecast costs (between -5% and -9%) and forecast traffic (around -5%-6% each year) which implies a better profile in terms of reduction in unit costs.
Compared to ACE 2007, both traffic and costs profiles have been shifted downwards in fairly similar proportions.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Belgium en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Belgium planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Belgium Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
66.869.071.470.374.1
82.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSAMUAC SUs En-route costs
-1.7% p.a.
50
60
70
80
90
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Belgium Netherlands
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
Belgocontrol LVNL
Netherlands2.9%
Belgium2.7%
5.6%Remaining
States94.4%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Over the period 2011-2014, Belgium’s en-route DUR is projected to fall by -1.7% per year on average, well below the objective adopted at EU-wide level (-3.5% p.a. for 2011-2014). Substantial reductions are planned to be achieved in 2010 and 2011, and when calculated over the period 2009-2014, the projected reductions in the DUR amounts to -4.1% a year (compared to a -2.9% decrease for Belgocontrol gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs).
Belgium and The Netherlands plan to achieve similar reductions in the en-route DURs between 2009 and 2014 (-4.1% and -4.0% p.a., respectively), keeping the gap between the two DURs about the same over the period, so that by 2014 the Belgian DUR remains some +10% higher. It is noteworthy, however, that planned reduction in the Belgium en-route DUR reflects a major reallocation of costs from the en-route to the terminal cost base in 2010, while the reductions planned by The Netherlands are not subject to changes in cost allocation and mainly reflect large reductions in support staff costs. Clearly such cost allocation changes can impact on the trends and levels of the en-route DURs and will need to be monitored during the period.
Belgium projected reduction in its en-route DUR for 2011-2014 (-1.7% p.a.) is well below the objective adopted at EU-wide level (-3.5% p.a.). The greater reductions planned in 2010-2011 mainly reflect changes in cost allocation method favouring the en-route cost base, and are not sufficient to reduce the gap in the en-route DUR with The Netherlands (+10%), should the latter perform as forecast.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 126 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
BULATSA (Bulgaria) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 1.96 BGN
BULATSA represents 1.0% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€416 €414€648 €552 €455
€414€417€455
€552
€648
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-9% -8%
-3% -1%
+12%
+6%+7%
-1%
-15%
-5%
5%
15%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.650.630.570.500.45
+3%+12%
+13%
+12%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€51€48€49€51€48
+5% -3% -2%+4%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
-1%-8%-19%
-16%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
BULATSA is a medium-sized ANSP, with costs amounting to 1.0% of the European total gate-to-gate costs. Traffic complexity is relatively low and seasonality of traffic among the highest in the European system.
After increasing for three years at an average annual rate of +8%, the traffic saw a small decrease of -1% in 2009.
The cumulative +25% increase in traffic between 2005 and 2009 and the decrease by -20% of the gate-to-gate costs over the period results in an impressive fall of the unit gate-to-gate provision costs (-36%) - an annual average reduction of -10.6% over the period, significantly faster than BULATSA’s peers. In absolute terms, however, BULATSA is second only to ROMATSA in having the highest unit gate-to-gate costs of its peer group in 2009. A new Sofia ACC was commissioned in 2004 and further upgrades to the FPD/RDP systems were commissioned in 2008. All area control sectors have also been merged in Sofia ACC in 2008 (Varna remaining an APP/TWR operational unit). Since 2004, its ATC capacity has been sufficient to serve its traffic without delays.
The unit cost reduction between 2005 and 2009 has been driven by significant growth in productivity, averaging +9.9% a year, the highest of BULATSA’s peers. However, it is still ranked in the middle of its peer group. Productivity growth is mainly linked to the transfer of area control sectors from Varna ACC to Sofia ACC. Savings in employment costs per ATCO-hour in 2007 and 2008 have been offset by a +4.4% rise in 2009, due to increased ATCO employment costs and reduced number of ATCOs in 2009.
Support costs have decreased by -22% over the period. This resulted in a significant decrease of the unit support costs (-38%) between 2005 and 2009, the largest among its peers. Despite significant reductions, unit support costs are the second highest of its comparator group. This is due to unit capital-related costs being the highest of BULATSA’s peers group and unit non-ATCO employment costs being second highest, to HCAA.
Over 2005-2009 BULATSA has managed to significantly reduce its cost base and improve its cost-effectiveness. Despite this improvement, its unit costs remain high compared to the majority of its peer group: the high unit support costs indicate scope for performance improvement.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+46%
-28%
-36% -38%
-22%
+5%
+25%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 18%
Weight 82%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 127 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
BULATSA (Bulgaria) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Sofia 149 519 20 348 2.47 1.48
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Sofia
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
Sofia Varna
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
0.18
0.21
0.24
0.27
0.30
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
13051305130813081308
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
2
3
4
5
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
Sofia Varna
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
2
3
4
5
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Sofia 149 519 +2.6% 99 +1.6% 36 996 0%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Sofia 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.14 0.12
Bulgaria 0.11 0.14 0.12
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Sofia
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, BULATSA’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 1.2% and no en-route ATFM delays were recorded for Sofia ACC. Varna ACC was consolidated into Sofia ACC as of 2008.
• Sofia ACC ATCO productivity continuously increased between 2005 and 2008, but in a context of sluggish traffic, productivity declined in 2009.
• In 2009, ATCO productivity of Sofia ACC is higher than ACCs with similar operational characteristics, due to a mix of lower staffing per sector and higher sector productivity. These two drivers have globally improved since 2005.
• There is no overtime in Sofia ACC throughout the 2005-2009 period.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +13% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Sofia ACC did not record en-route ATFM delays in 2010. No significant problems are foreseen between 2011 and 2014 for Sofia ACC.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 128 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
BULATSA (Bulgaria) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
NOT AVAILABLE
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2005* C:2005* C:2005* C:2003*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
ATM COM NAV
€18.5M(2002-2012)
SUR Years
€5.8M€9.1M
Building
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
BULATSA assets under construction have been consistently below 10% of total fixed assets since 2006 and the average remaining accounting life of the fixed assets has been continuously declining since 2005, although remaining high at 8 years. This reflects the significant investments made prior to 2004 and between 2005 and 2009 (€44M). In 2008, for BULATSA some €1056 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of 0.95 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets). The situation remained stable in 2009 (0.95), a level significantly lower than MATS (2.2) and ROMATSA (1.4). BULATSA’s depreciation costs represents some 7% of the GBV of fixed assets in 2009, a value similar to 2008.
BULATSA’s capex amounted to €3M in 2009, significantly below the average capex annually spent between 2005 and 2007 (€9M) and 2008 (€14M), the latter including the upgrade of the SATCAS system (FDP, RDP and HMI) in Sofia ACC. The FDP, RDP and HMI systems are planned to be replaced in 2010 (the VCS will be replaced in 2013). The depreciation costs in 2009 are in line with 2008 value (some €13M), resulting in a drop of the capex to depreciation ratio, from 1.0 in 2008 to 0.2 in 2009. The cumulative capex planned between 2010 and 2014 amounts to some €43M (49% of the 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues). The planned capex (representing some €9M a year) is in line with the capex spent between 2005 and 2009 (€44M) and it is mainly concentrated in 2011-2013. The planned cumulative capex between 2010 and 2014 mainly related to the following projects:
• Extension and upgrade of the SACTAS system (i.e. €9.1M, between 2008 and 2010);
• New tower at Sofia airport and its adjacent structure (i.e. €11M, between 2008 and 2012);
• Replacement of en-route MSSRs (i.e. €4M, between 2009 and 2010); and,
• A-SMGCS at Sofia airport (i.e. €1.8M, between 2009 and 2010).
The investments made between 2005 and 2009 (€9M p.a.) vis-à-vis the high depreciation costs (an average of €14M per year) over the same period and the relatively low capex in 2009, resulted in a steadily decreasing average remaining accounting life of BULATSA assets. The situation is expected to invert over the 2010-2014 period since significant capex is planned, particularly in 2011, reflecting the replacement of the ATM system. The capital intensity remains fairly high as indicated by a low productivity of fixed assets compared to its peer group.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 129 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
BULATSA (Bulgaria) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-1.6%-6.3% -3.6% -4.3% -3.4%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
140
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 414 407 382 368 352 340
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 102 97 96 94 93
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 103 106 108 111 113
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PBULATSA
-2%
+4% +5% +12%
-0.1% -1% -3% -4%
0
20
40
60
80
100
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
150
200
250
300
350
400
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are expected to significantly decrease between 2009 and 2014 by -18%, an average annual decrease of -4%. This results from a steady increase in traffic over the period (+13%, an average, or +2.5% p.a.) and a -7% decrease in the ATM/CNS provision costs.
When comparing 2009-2014 plans from the ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, actual traffic in 2009 is in line with what was planned before the economic crisis, while the costs are -2% lower. For the 2010-2012 outlook BULATSA increasingly reviewed downwards the traffic (-1 in 2010 to -4% in 2012) and upwards the costs (+4 in 2010 to +12 in 2012), thus presenting a more pessimistic outlook.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Bulgaria en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Bulgaria planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Bulgaria Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
38.339.8
41.643.444.943.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
90
95
100
105
110
115
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
p.a.-4.0%
10
20
30
40
50
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Cyprus Greece Malta Bulgaria Romania
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
DCAC Cyprus HCAA MATS BULATSA ROMATSA
Malta0.2%
Romania2.1%
Bulgaria1.2%
Cyprus0.7%
Greece2.9%
7.1%Remaining
States92.9%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Bulgaria plans to reduce its en-route ANS costs per SU by -12%, between 2009 and 2014, at an average annual rate of -2.5%. However, the forecasted decrease over the period is not homogeneous, since the planned en-route DUR decreases by only -0.1% p.a. between 2009 and 2011, while Bulgaria’s DUR falls by a substantial -4.0% p.a., between 2011 and 2014, the second highest planned improvement among its comparators (after Malta). The main drivers of the DUR decrease are the reductions of the ANSP costs (-4.0% p.a., between 2011-2014) and the growth of service units (+2.5% p.a. between 2011 and 2014). Whilst Bulgaria’s rate of reduction compares favourably to its peers group between 2009 and 2014, it still shows the highest en-route DUR in 2014, should all comparators perform according to the plans. If PPP indices are taken into account (€0.90 in 2009), Bulgaria’s en-route DUR in 2014 remains the highest but these are now +24% higher than the second highest (Romania) (i.e. compared to +13% when costs are expressed in €2009).
Planned allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs (87%) puts BULATSA as the highest of the comparator group, with the exception of 2010, when allocation is similar to ROMATSA’s.
Bulgaria’s planned to reduce by -12% its en-route ANS costs per SU between 2009 and 2014. The majority of the reductions are concentrated between 2011 and 2014, when Bulgaria plans to annually reduce its DUR by -4.0% on average. Should all comparators perform according to the plans, despite reductions in the 2011-20014 en-route DURs Bulgaria still has the highest en-route DUR of its peer group.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 130 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Croatia Control (Croatia) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 7.34 HRK
Croatia Control represents 0.8% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€334 €336€367 €379 €350
€426
€628
€445
€559
€654
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+3%+6%
-1%
+4%
+14%
+4%
-0.3%
+3%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
-37% -47%
+207%
-69%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.630.680.670.630.54
-7%+1%+7%
+16%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€62€64€60€62€55
+12% -3%+7% -3%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
-1%-8%-7%
+6%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
Croatia Control is a small European ANSP, with costs amounting to 0.8% of the European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs. Croatia Control is responsible for ANS in a substantial portion of the airspace of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The traffic complexity in Croatian airspace is intermediate and its seasonality is very high.
After a +14% increase in 2007, traffic growth slowed markedly in 2008 (+4%) and 2009 (+3%). Overall, the number of composite flight-hours controlled by Croatia Control increased by +22% between 2005 and 2009.
Unit ATM/CNS provision costs decreased by -8% since 2005 to reach €336 per composite flight-hour in 2009. This is +9% higher than SMATSA (€310) which operates in relatively similar economic and operational conditions.
ATFM delays have been a problem for Croatia Control over the 2005-2009 period. Zagreb ACC was an old facility and found it difficult to service the increasing traffic. Although a new ACC with new ATM systems and increased ATC capacity was put in operation at the end of 2005, Zagreb ACC has been on the list of most en-route ATFM delay generating ACCs since 2005. Even if the unit costs of ATFM delays reduced by -69% in 2009, Croatia Control was the 8th most penalising ANSP in Europe.
Over the 2005-2009 period, ATCO-hour productivity significantly rose in 2006 (+16%) and 2007 (+7%), remained fairly constant in 2008 (+1%) and significantly decreased in 2009 (-7%). In 2009, Croatia Control ATCO-hour productivity (0.63) was lower than that of SMATSA (0.74). Employment costs per ATCO-hour rose by an annual average of +3.0%, and are in 2009 +40% higher than that of SMATSA. Support costs have risen over the 2005-2009 period (+9%) but less than traffic (+22%), contributing to the overall decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs.
Whilst its unit ATM/CNS provision costs reduced over the 2005-2009 period, in terms of unit economic costs Croatia Control remains significantly more expensive than SMATSA for which ATFM delays were not a problem in 2009. Furthermore, despite a +16% increase over the period, ATCO productivity remains in 2009 below that of SMATSA while ATCO employment costs are +40% higher, indicating scope for future performance improvements.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+16%
-2%-8% -11%
+9%
+22%
+13%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 27%
Weight 73%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 131 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Croatia Control (Croatia) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Zagreb 148 089 23 341 3.59 1.48
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 80
90
100
110
120
130
140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Zagreb
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Zagreb
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
192 9288
13801320
1381 1341 1372
4048
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Zagreb
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Zagreb 148 089 +6.2% 83 +7.8% 31 230 +8.1%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Zagreb 0.72 1.10 0.31 0.28 0.21
Croatia 0.31 0.28 0.21
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL
capacity planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Zagreb
Comments on planned capacity profile
In 2009, Croatia Control’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 1.2% while its share of total European en-route ATFM delay was 3.0%.
In the context of increasing traffic, annual average en route ATFM delay fell from 2.0 minutes per flight in 2008 to 0.7 minutes per flight in 2009. In June 2009, sudden staffing issues limiting the availability of planned sector configurations prevented a more significant reduction from 2008 levels.
• ATCO productivity increased until 2007 before decreasing for the remainder of the period, returning to 2005 levels in 2009 despite the increasing traffic.
• In 2009, ATCO productivity at Zagreb ACC is generally higher than ACCs with similar characteristics, despite the significant drop in sector productivity on 2008.
• Overtime for Zagreb ACC has reduced significantly since the 2005 high.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +39% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Zagreb ACC recorded an increase in its en-route ATFM delay in 2010. Zagreb ACC is currently addressing some of its staffing issues and significant work is also ongoing to address sector capacities, sector configurations, and opening schemes based on planned staff availability. If these actions are successfully implemented, Zagreb ACC performance could show significant improvement. Current plans for 2010 – 2014, however, do not meet the required capacity that is anticipated for Zagreb ACC.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 132 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Croatia Control (Croatia) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
5
10
15
20
25
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+68%
+58%
-73%-85%
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2005* C:2005* C:2005* C:2005*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
NAV Building YearsSURATM COM
€2.4M(2011-2014)
€53.5M(2009-2014)
€3.2M (2004-2009)
€4.8M
€0.7M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
Over the 2005-2009 period, Croatia Control assets under construction have been consistently below 5% of the net book value of total fixed assets. Despite the fact that the new Zagreb ACC was commissioned in 2005, the average remaining accounting life of Croatia Control assets significantly decreased from 16 years in 2005 to 8 years in 2006. This is the result of significant depreciation in 2006 (+74% compared to 2005). In 2009, for Croatia Control some €619 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour - a productivity of fixed assets of 1.6 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets, which is a lower asset productivity than SMATSA (2.0).
Croatia Control capex amounted to €2.2M in 2009, this is lower than the average capex spent annually between 2005 and 2008 (€4.5M). Croatia Control 2009 capex is significantly lower than planned in ACE 2007 and the 2010 capex has been revised downwards indicating that investment projects originally planned for 2009 and 2010 have been postponed to future years. The cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 remain substantial at around €46M which corresponds to 66% of 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues. Furthermore, Croatia Control capex is planned to exceed depreciation costs in 2011-2013, indicating a growing asset base. The capex planned for the 2009-2014 period comprises the following major investment projects:
• CroATMS upgrade as part of COOPANS (i.e. €41.8M, between 2011 and 2014) and extension (to Pula, Sadar, Split and Dubrovnik) (i.e. €4.8M, in 2011);
• VCCS modernisation and replacement (i.e. €6.0, between 2012 and 2014);
• Replacement and upgrade of the NAV system (i.e. €4.8M, between 2008 and 2012); and,
• Reconstruction of the old ACC building (i.e. €2.4M, between 2011 and 2014).
Despite significant investments and the entry in operation of the new Zagreb ACC end of 2005, the average remaining accounting life of Croatia Control assets sharply decreased from 16 years in 2005 to 8 years in 2006. This mainly resulted from a significant depreciation of fixed assets in 2006 (+74% compared to 2005). A substantial investment programme is planned for 2010-2014 as part of joining COOPANS (€46M). It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan, nor what the quantified contribution to performance improvements is expected (e.g. improve ATCO productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 133 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Croatia Control (Croatia) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-6.5% -4.2% +3.5% -5.8% -5.4%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
140
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 336 314 301 312 294 278
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 103 107 112 114 111
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 110 119 121 130 135
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PCroatia Control
-7% -8% -7% -5%
-0.5%
+2%
-3%
-9%
0
20
40
60
80
100
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
140
180
220
260
300
340
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are expected to significantly decrease between 2009 and 2014 by -17%, an average annual decrease of -4%. This results from a +35% increase in traffic and a +11% increase of the ATM/CNS provision costs, over the period, mostly concentrated between 2009 and 2012.
When comparing 2009-2014 plans from the ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, actual traffic in 2009 is -9% lower than planned before the economic crisis, while the costs are -5% lower. For the 2010-2012 outlook Croatia Control reviewed downwards its costs projections (around -7% each year), more than the traffic (variable between -3% in 2010 and +2% in 2011), foreseeing a more optimistic outlook.
En-route unit costs
The chart below shows planned changes in Croatia en-route unit costs over the period 2010-2014. The chart on the bottom of this page shows planned changes in allocation of en-route costs for Croatia Control between 2009 and 2014.
Planned en-route unit costs for Croatia
18.319.821.722.728.1
26.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
90
100
110
120
130
140
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-3.2% p.a.
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
Croatia Control
Comments on en-route unit costs (Nov. 2010 data)
Between 2009 and 2014, Croatia en-route unit costs are planned to decrease by -22% (-4.8% p.a.).
After a significant decrease in 2010 (-12%), en-route unit costs are planned to slightly reduce until 2013 (-1.2% p.a.) and then substantially fall by -8% in 2014. The overall decrease in Croatia en-route unit costs is due to the fact that over the 2009-2014 period, en-route costs are planned to remain fairly constant while traffic is expected to growth by +26% .
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 134 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DCAC Cyprus (Cyprus) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: Cyprus is part of the Euro zone
DCAC Cyprus represents 0.5% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€273 €295€320 €321 €305
€619€652
€517
€419€433
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+4% +4%
-1%
+5%+10% +11%
+4%
-2%
-15%-14%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays+116% +79%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.760.890.860.840.92
-15%
+4%+1%-8%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€44€45€45€42€47
-10%+6% +2% -2%
0
10
20
30
40
50
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+7%-12%-7%
+1%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
DCAC Cyprus is one of the smallest European ANSPs, with costs amounting to around 0.5% of the European total. Traffic complexity is relatively low, while traffic variability is lower than that of its neighbour HCAA.
Traffic increased rapidly from 2005 until 2008, with growth rates above +10% in both 2007 and 2008 partially offset by a -2.4% decline in 2009.
The decrease of -8% in unit ATM/CNS costs over 2005-2009 has been more than offset by a spectacular rise in the unit cost of ATFM delays (+186%). In 2009, these represented 52% of DCAC Cyprus unit economic costs, and at €324 per composite flight-hour were by far the highest in Europe. Delays have been a recurrent issue over the period and Nicosia ACC has been continuously on the list of most en-route ATFM delay generating ACCs since 2005. The 2009 unit economic costs are the 4th highest in Europe despite the unit financial costs are only the 28th. Therefore delays remained an issue in 2009, illustrating the need for all parties concerned to properly address and act upon ATC capacity issues.
DCAC Cyprus has difficulty in adjusting to higher traffic levels. A new ACC, originally planned to be implemented in 2006 has been postponed to 2010 and will include a new ATM system (LEFCO) which is expected to provide the required ATC capacity. However, staff shortage and a reasonably expected transition period has led to a further worsening of the situation in 2010.
Employment costs per ATCO-hour have decreased by a cumulative -5% over the period and its ATCO-hour productivity significantly decreased by -17%, although remaining the highest among its peers. This resulted in a significant increase of ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour (+15%).
Unit support costs fell by -12% over the period, since support costs increased (+8%) but less than traffic volumes (+23%). This overall improvement has been slowed down in 2009, with a +7% increase of unit support costs, driven by higher staff costs and operating costs (training expenses and leasing expenses of the new ACC building).
DCAC Cyprus’ provision of ATC capacity has not been adequate over the 2005-2009 period. This has negatively affected the quality of service provided by DCAC Cyprus, so that in 2009 it is one of the worst performing in Europe. Consistency in data reporting should also improve.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009
-17%
+15%
-8%-12%
+8%
+23%
-5%"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 17%
Weight 83%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 135 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DCAC Cyprus (Cyprus) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Nicosia 113 809 26 318 2.58 1.28
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Nicosia
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Nicosia
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.6
4.2
4.8
5.4
6.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
2791
24602338
24092161
640 785926 859 1186
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
4
5
6
7
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Nicosia
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
4
5
6
7
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Nicosia 113 809 +4.2% 46 +0.4% 19 710 +2.0%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Nicosia 2.34 3.56 0.93 0.59 0.30
Cyprus 0.93 0.59 0.30
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Nicosia
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, Cyprus’ traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 0.9% while the share of total European en-route ATFM delay was 7.0%: the 1st most penalizing ANSP.
Despite a reduction of traffic (-2%), en-route ATFM delay per flight generated by Nicosia ACC remained extremely high in 2009 (2.34 minutes):
• After continuous increase in en-route ATFM delay in 2007 and 2008, Nicosia ACC showed only a slight improvement in 2009.
• The ATC capacity shortfall could not be addressed despite very high levels of overtime. The main reasons for this shortfall, and resulting ATFM delays, is considerable staffing issues but also non optimal sector capacities, sector configuration and opening schemes.
• ATCO productivity remained relatively stable during the period. In 2009, ATCO productivity of Nicosia ACC is above the average observed for ACCs with similar operational characteristics. However, the large changes in sector productivity and staffing per sector, as well as the amount of reported hours on duty raise an issue of data quality and consistency.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +20% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. The actual en-route ATFM delays recorded by Nicosia ACC significantly increased in 2010. Resolution of persisting staffing issues is particularly important to ensure provision of adequate ATC capacity to meet the operational requirements of the European network by 2014. In addition, effective implementation of a number of major projects will be required, in particular actions to enhance airspace structures, sectorisation and procedures.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 136 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DCAC Cyprus (Cyprus) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
NOT AVAILABLE
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2000* C:2000* C:2000* C:1998*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€19.7M (2003-2011)
€3M
€11.1M
ATM COM NAV SUR Building Years
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
With the exception of 2008, DCAC Cyprus recorded no assets under construction between 2005 and 2009.
In 2009, for DCAC Cyprus some €531 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour - a productivity of fixed assets of 1.9 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets, which is higher than ROMATSA (1.4) and BULATSA (0.95), but lower than MATS (2.2).
DCAC Cyprus capex amounted to some €3M in 2009, a lower amount than in 2008 (€5M). Between 2010 and 2014 some €29M of capex are planned (65% of DCAC gate-to-gate ANS revenues in 2009) at an average rate of €6M per year, masking a drop in 2010 and 2014, when only €2.5M are foreseen.
The capex planned for the 2009-2014 period comprised the following major investment projects:
• New ACC building in Nicosia (i.e. €11M, between 2006 and 2010);
• New ATM system LEFCO, consisting in the implementation of a new strip-less ATC system in the new ACC building in Nicosia and new equipment (i.e. €19.0M, between 2003 and 2011). This involve the replacement of FDP, RDP, HMI for Nicosia ACC in 2011; and,
• Replacement of VHF/UHF radios (i.e. €3.0M, between 2009 and 2011).
DCAC Cyprus annual capex between 2010 and 2014 (€5M) is higher than the actual 2009 capex (€3M). The modernisation of the ATC system and a number of important system replacements are being introduced to improve capacity and the quality of service, however it is not yet clear whether these are sufficient to address the significant delay issues experienced in Cyprus.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 137 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DCAC Cyprus (Cyprus) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-1.8% -1.6% +2.2% +1.2% +0.6%
0
100
200
300
400
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
105
120
135
150
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 295 290 285 292 295 297
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 105 108 113 118 123
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 107 112 114 118 122
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PDCAC Cyprus
-2% -2% -1% -1%
-10% -8% -8% -10%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
100
130
160
190
220
250
280
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs are expected to increase by +0.6% between 2009 and 2014, an average annual increase of +0.1%. This results from the fact that both the projected costs and traffic increase at a similar pace over the period (i.e. +23% and +22% respectively).
When comparing 2009-2012 plans from the ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, actual traffic in 2009 was lower by -10% than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data) while actual costs ended up -1% lower than planned, an indication of some reactivity to the traffic decrease. For the 2010-2012 outlook DCAC Cyprus reported a downward revisions for the traffic forecast (around -8%,-10%) and similar costs, which implies a deterioration of the trend in unit costs with the ACE 2009 data.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Cyprus en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Cyprus planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Cyprus Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
30.731.031.331.233.134.4
0
10
20
30
40
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
100
110
120
130
140
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
p.a.-0.5%
10
20
30
40
50
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Cyprus Greece Malta Bulgaria Romania
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
DCAC Cyprus HCAA MATS BULATSA ROMATSA
Malta0.2%
Romania2.1%
Bulgaria1.2%
Cyprus0.7%
Greece2.9%
7.1%Remaining
States92.9%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Cyprus’s en-route DURs are planned to decrease by -11% (-2.2% p.a.) between 2009 and 2014, a better performance than planned for the gate-to-gate ATM/CNS unit costs (+0.1% p.a.). However, similarly to Malta and Greece, the reduction planned over the period is not homogeneous, since planned en-route DURs decrease by -4.8% p.a. between 2009 and 2011, while the en-route DUR decrease by a more contained -0.5% p.a., between 2011 and 2014.
The bulk of Cyprus en-route ANS costs is composed of ANSP costs, so the annual average reduction in unit ANSP costs over 2011-2014 (-0.4%) is the key driver in the overall en-route DUR profile. Cyprus’ planned reduction of its en-route DURs is significantly below the European-wide target of -3.5% as well as the least ambitious among its peers group. Its en-route DURs are planned to remain the second lowest in the peers group, but still +72% higher compared to Malta, provided they all perform according to the plans.
The proportion of costs allocated to en-route by DCAC Cyprus is relatively high (85%), and is planned to further increase over the period to reach 86% in 2014.
The planned reduction in Cyprus’s en-route DUR is -11% over the 2009-2014 period (-2.2% p.a.). The reduction mostly occurs between 2009 and 2011(-9.0%) supported by strong growth in traffic (+6.3% p.a.). The DURs are planned to reduce less rapidly (-0.5% p.a.) between 2011 and 2014, significantly lower than the EU-wide target of -3.5%. Cyprus is forecast to remain the ANSP with the second lowest en-route DUR amongst its peer group, but still +72% higher compared to Malta.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 138 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DFS (Germany) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: Germany is part of the Euro zone
DFS represents 11.7% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€426€439€470 €477€410
€527 €502 €501€532
€590
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-3%
+1%
-2%
+8%+4%
+2%+4%
-8% -7%
+17%
+11%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays+65%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.961.030.920.870.83
-7%+12%
+6%+5%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€140€139€128€114€111
+2%
+13%+8% +1%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+20%
-4%-7%
-8%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
DFS is one of the largest European ANSPs, with total ATM/CNS costs contributing 12% of the European total. Its traffic complexity is high; amongst the other four largest ANSPs, only NATS is slightly higher.
Composite flight-hours have increased by only +2.2% over the period 2005-2009; a combination of increases in each year of 2006-2008 and a sharp -7.5% reduction in 2009. Even so, this is the highest traffic growth recorded across the five largest ANSPs, comparable to that of DSNA (+1.7%).
DFS unit ATM/CNS provision costs rose by +16% in 2009, cancelling out previous years’ improvements. In fact, DFS total ATM/CNS costs rose by +8% in 2009 due to large increases in all categories of costs. Furthermore, ATFM delays have been recurrent over the period. In 2009, despite the -7.5% decline in traffic, they contribute to almost 20% of DFS total economic costs, which is by a long way the highest proportion among the other four largest ANSPs.
ATCO-hour productivity rose through most of the initial years of the period before significantly decreasing (-7%) in 2009. Improvements resulted from both traffic growth and DFS ability to reduce ATCO-hours through optimisation of roster practices and increased flexibility. In 2009, DFS had the fifth highest productivity in Europe, with only NATS ranking ahead of DFS amongst the other four largest ANSPS.
Employments costs rose faster than productivity over the period 2005-2009, and in 2009, DFS employment costs per ATCO-hour were the second highest among its comparators (€140), standing between NATS (€103) and AENA (€193).
Between 2005 and 2008 DFS had considerable success in managing down total unit support costs, by -18%. However, an increase of +20% in 2009 brought the unit support costs back to their 2005 levels. In 2009, the number of staff employed increased and all categories of support costs increased, particularly capital-related costs and exceptional costs (relating to the recognition of pension liabilities, spread over 15 years from 2007 onwards).
DFS ATCO employments costs are amongst the highest in Europe and have increased faster than the productivity. Support costs rose in very significant proportions at a time of traffic decline, cancelling out the reductions achieved since 2005. Furthermore, the provision of ATC capacity has not been adequate. This has negatively affected the quality of service provided by DFS.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+16%
+9%
+1%
-1%
+1% +2%
+26%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 31%
Weight 69%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 139 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DFS (Germany) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Bremen 165 982 17 132 5.47 1.14
Langen 369 301 18 147 13.51 1.11
Munchen 370 903 16 225 10.67 1.14
Rhein 427 029 19 344 10.74 1.17
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Bremen Langen Munchen Rhein
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Bremen Langen Munchen Rhein
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
rATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
1121112412191254
1316
7
514834 60
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Bremen Langen Munchen Rhein
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Bremen 165 982 +2.3% 267 +1.3% 112 991 +2.3%Langen 369 301 +2.3% 432 +3.2% 212 582 +2.3%Munchen 370 903 -2.8% 309 +4.2% 155 295 -2.8%Rhein 427 029 +7.1% 337 +1.3% 128 595 +7.1%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Bremen 0.25 0.31 0.04 0.06 0.10
Langen 0.63 1.07 0.23 0.22 0.17
Munchen 0.17 0.22 0.12 0.21 0.21
Rhein 0.60 1.38 0.34 0.23 0.20
Germany 0.35 0.32 0.29
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity provided
Bremen
Langen
Munchen Rhein
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, DFS’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 9.8% while the share of total European en-route ATFM delay was 22.2%: the 6th most penalizing ANSP in Europe.
Despite a sharp reduction of traffic, DFS–wide en-route ATFM delay per flight remained stable between 2008 and 2009 at 0.7 minute, although the situation differs among the four ACCs:
• Munchen and especially Rhein ACCs reduced the en-route ATFM delays from the peak of 2008.
• Bremen and especially Langen ACCs showed an increasing trend in en-route ATFM delays since 2005, with a noticeable ATC capacity shortfall in Langen ACC in 2009. A large share of the increase in en-route ATFM delay (ATC capacity and ATC staffing) is considered to be temporary as it is related to the implementation of the VAFORIT system in Rhein ACC (which also partly affects Langen ACC).
• From 2005 to 2009, reduced contractual hours coupled with increased training requirements has resulted in a reduction of ATCO-hours on duty (-9% over the period). Overtime hours in German ACCs remained relatively moderate and stable during the 2005-2009 period.
With the exception of 2009, all ACCs show a continuous increase in ATCO productivity between 2005 and 2008. ATCO productivity Langen and Rhein ACCs tends to be higher than the average observed for ACCs with similar operational characteristics, while ATCO productivity in Munchen and Bremen are slightly below the average.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +10% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. The actual en-route ATFM delays recorded by the ACCs significantly increased in 2010, in particular for Langen and Rhein ACCs. Resolution of staff shortage and effective implementation of the new ATM system are particularly important to ensure provision of adequate ATC capacity to meet the operational requirements of the European network between 2010 and 2014.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 140 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DFS (Germany) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
-22%-23%
-12%
-2%
50
70
90
110
130
150
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009) Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:1981 (Karl.); 1999 (Langen);
2003 (Munchen);2004 (Bremen)*
C:1981 (Karl.); 1999 (Langen); 2003 (Munchen)2004 (Bremen)*
C:1981 (Karl.); 1999 (Langen); 2003 (Munchen)2004 (Bremen)*
C:1999 (Munchen);2002 (Langen);2003 (Bremen);
2005 (Karl.)*
2006 Karlsruhe
2007
2008Bremen, Langen and
MunchenBremen, Langen and
Munchen
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€288.5M (1998-2017) €4.9M
SUR
Karlsruhe
ATM COM NAV
€76M(2007-2018)
Building Years
€57.3M (2002-2011)
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement Comments on capital expenditures
DFS share of assets under construction fell to their lowest levels in 2007-2008, but then rose to 7% in 2009. Cumulative investments over the period 2005-2009 amounted to €415M (an average annual capex of €83M), with a peak of €115M in 2009. The average remaining accounting life of the fixed assets remained fairly stable, at around 6 years. In 2008, some €917 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 1.1 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets). Following the sharp traffic downturn (-8%), the productivity of DFS fixed assets significantly decreased in 2009 to reach 0.93, a value close to that of Aena (0.91) but lower than NATS (1.1).
The main drivers of DFS 2009 capex were the development of P1/VAFORIT for Rhein ACC; the iTEC Centre Automation System project, new control towers at Berlin and Frankfurt airports, both planned to enter in operation in 2011 and A-SMGCS. Capex in 2009 is -2% lower than planned in ACE 2007. Compared to ACE 2007 projections, the capex planned between 2010 and 2012 has been reviewed downwards by some -€60M (-12% in 2010 to -22% in 2012). The cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 is about the same as in the five preceding years and amount to €412M (47% of the 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues), with a peak in 2010, mainly relating to the ATM systems in Rhein. Furthermore, DFS capex to depreciation ratio is planned to stand slightly below 1 throughout the planning period, indicating a slightly declining asset base.
The capex planned for the period 2010-2014 include the following major investment projects:
• P1/VAFORIT ATM system for Rhein (i.e. €155M, between 1998 and 2011);
• iTEC Centre Automation System (i.e. €69M, between 2001 and 2013) to be commissioned between 2016-2024 depending on ACCs;
• New control tower at Berlin Brandenburg International, planned to enter in operation in 2011 (i.e. €31M, between 2005 and 2011);
• New control tower at Frankfurt airport, planned to enter in operation in 2011 (i.e. €26M, between 2002 and 2011);
• RASUM 8.33kHz for lower airspace (i.e. €76M, between 2007 and 2018); and,
• Upgrade of system infrastructure in Langen and München ACCs (i.e. €65M, between 2010 and 2017).
Despite investments made between 2005 and 2009 (€415M), the average remaining accounting life of DFS assets remains relatively low (6 years in 2009). A similar investment effort is planned for the period 2010-2014, with a capex to depreciation ratio planned to stand slightly below 1 throughout the planning period. It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan, nor what the quantified contribution to performance improvements is expected (e.g. improve ATCO productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 141 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DFS (Germany) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-3.0% -0.9% +0.2% +1.4% +1.5%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 477 463 459 460 466 473
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 102 108 112 116 120
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 105 112 116 119 121
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PDFS
-5% -7% -10% -8%
-3% -1%
-4% -7%
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
1 500
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 500
4 000
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
Gate-to-gate unit costs are projected to fall by -0.8% between 2009 and 2014, an average annual decrease of -0.2%, as costs are planned to rise slightly less than traffic until 2014. This planned decrease in unit costs is the least significant among the other large ANSPs.
When comparing 2009-2012 plans from the ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, actual traffic in 2009 was lower by -7% than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data) while actual costs ended up -8% lower than planned, an indication of reactivity to the traffic decrease. For the 2010-2012 outlook DFS reported downward revisions for both forecast costs and forecast traffic, although costs at a faster pace, implying a better profile in terms of unit costs.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Germany en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Germany planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Germany Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
72.6 69.5 68.6 67.8 66.8 66.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
En-
rout
e tr
affic
& c
osts
inde
x (2
009=
100)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSAMUAC SUs En-route costs
p.a.-1.2%
50
60
70
80
90
100
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Spain Germany France Italy United Kingdom
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
Aena DFS DSNA ENAV NATS (2009)
UK11.0%
Italy9.6%
France17.8%
Germany13.8%
Spain14.5%
66.9%Remaining
States33.1%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Between 2009 and 2014, the German en-route DUR is planned to fall by -1.9% per year on average (this is faster than the -0.8% average annual decrease for DFS gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs). Starting from 2011, the reduction in the DUR is -1.2%, well below the objective adopted at EU-wide level of -3.5% per year on average.
In comparison to the other four largest States, the en-route DUR of Germany was close to the average of the group in 2009. However, the planned DUR reduction of -1.9% a year by 2014 is lower than that planned by Spain (-7.0%), Italy (-2.6%) and France (-2.1%). By 2014, Germany would have the second highest en-route DUR (slightly below the UK), would all the States perform according to these plans.
In 2009, the proportion of en-route costs as a percentage of total gate-to-gate costs for DFS is relatively similar to DSNA and ENAV and NATS. DFS does not plan any significant change to cost allocation during the period 2009-2014. Among DFS comparators, only Aena plans to allocate a greater share of costs to the en-route cost base from 2010 onwards.
Between 2009 and 2014, the German DUR is planned to fall by -1.9% a year on average, significantly less than the EU-wide objective and also less than planned by Spain, Italy and France. Would all the States perform according to these plans, by 2014 Germany would have the second highest en-route DUR (slightly below the UK).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 142 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DHMI (Turkey) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 2.16 TRL
DHMI represents 3.2% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€263 €271€323 €326 €276
€352€329
€297
€350
€431
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+11%
-8%
+4%+9%+8%
+6%+10% +10%
-15%
+24%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays+218%
-77%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.630.650.670.680.63
-4%-2%-2%+8%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€23€21€20€21€18
+16% -3%+5%
+9%
0
5
10
15
20
25
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+1%-6%-17%
+0.2%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
DHMI is a medium-sized European ANSP, with costs amounting to 3.2% of the European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs. Traffic complexity and variability are intermediate in the Turkish airspace.
Composite flight-hours have significantly increased over the 2005-2009 period (+38%) while ATM/CNS provision costs increased by +15%. As a result, DHMI unit ATM/CNS provision costs decreased by -16% between 2005 and 2009 (-4.3% p.a.). In 2009, DHMI’s unit ATM/CNS provision costs (€271) are significantly lower than peers ANSPs like ROMATSA and BULATSA. In fact, from a position in 2002-2003 where its unit ATM/CNS provision costs were about the median in Europe, DHMI unit costs are now in the bottom quartile and more in line with the underlying economic and traffic demand fundamentals.
After two years of decline from very high levels in 2005, ATFM delays have increased considerably in 2008 and 2009. As a result the unit economic costs in 2009 are similar to the 2006 level. The increases in ATFM delays demonstrates the need for an effective and timely implementation of the modernization and rationalization project (SMART) which has started in 2005 and is planned to be fully implemented at the end of 2010.
After a +8% increase in 2006, ATCO-hour productivity has decreased steadily to reach 0.63 in 2009, a level similar to 2005. In the meantime, employment costs per ATCO-hour have significantly risen at an average annual rate of +6.6%. In 2009 these remain however significantly lower than those reported by BULATSA and ROMATSA.
The cumulative -21% reduction in unit support costs over the period has been driven by significant decreases in 2007 (-17%) and 2008 (-6%) in a context of strong traffic increases. The reduction in non-staff operating costs in 2007 resulted from the implementation of specific cost-containment measures.
In a context of significant traffic increase (+38%), DHMI could reduce unit ATM/CNS provision costs by -16% over the 2005-2009 period. ATCO employments costs are catching up in contrasts to ATCO productivity. In 2009 ATFM delays continue to be a growing and significant issue, indicating the need for an effective and timely implementation of the SMART project which is planned to be fully implemented at the end of 2010.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+30%
-16%-21%
+9%
-0.4%
+38%+29%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 11%
Weight 89%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 143 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DHMI (Turkey) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Ankara 446 966 46 339 2.81 1.28
Istanbul 236 166 23 290 3.01 1.33
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Istanbul Ankara
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Ankara Istanbul
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
1658
1848177017701830
202202202
202
202
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Ankara Istanbul
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Ankara 446 966 +7.2% 204 +10.0% 83 220 +20.9%Istanbul 236 166 +7.2% 182 +4.7% 96 360 n.a.
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Ankara 0.07 0.09 N/appl N/appl N/appl
Istanbul 0.01 0.02 N/appl N/appl N/appl
Turkey N/appl N/appl N/appl
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL
capacity planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Ankara
Istanbul
Comments on planned capacity profile
In 2009, DHMI’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 5.3% while the share of total European en-route ATFM delay was 0.6%.
In 2009 annual average en-route ATFM delay at both Ankara and Istanbul ACCs was low.
• ATCO productivity at Ankara ACC has been decreasing slowly from 2006 highs, in the context of increasing traffic. ATCO productivity at Istanbul ACC was reasonably stable over the period.
• In 2009, ATCO productivity at Istanbul ACC tends to be lower than ACCs with similar operational characteristics.
• Overtime for DHMI ATCOs is significant and has not changed in value throughout the period.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +50% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Both Istanbul and Ankara ACCs recorded increases in en-route ATFM delay in 2010 however delay levels remained low. Significant capacity enhancement measures are currently being implemented, including the transfer of traffic above F235 to Ankara ACC from Istanbul ACC. No capacity problems are foreseen in Turkey between 2011 and 2014.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 144 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DHMI (Turkey) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009) Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.6
4.2
4.8
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
-30%-17%
+12%
+163%
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2008(All ACCs)*
C:2008(All ACCs)*
C:2008(All ACCs)*
C:2008(All ACCs)*
2006
2007
2008 C C C C
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€45.2M
Building YearsCOM NAV SUR
All ACCs€56.2M
ATM
€65.9M(2009-2014)
€15M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
Over the 2005-2009 period, DHMI assets under construction have been consistently above 17% of the net book value of total fixed assets. This is an indication of significant capex during this period (some €68M p.a.). As a result of this intensive investment cycle, the average remaining accounting life of DHMI assets increased from 7 years in 2005 to 13 years in 2009. In 2009, DHMI required some €879 of fixed assets per composite flight-hour - a productivity of fixed assets of 1.1 composite flight-hour per €1,000 of fixed assets. This is lower than ROMATSA (1.4) but higher than BULATSA (0.95).
DHMI capex amounted to €141M in 2009 which is some +163% higher than planned in ACE 2007. The 2009 capex corresponds to a peak in the investment cycle since some €50M were expensed annually between 2005 and 2008. Important drivers for DHMI 2009 capex were the replacement of the FDP, RDP and HMI systems (planned to be completed for all the ACCs in 2011) and the construction of new operational units buildings for Ankara ACC/APP, Adnan Menderes APP, Dalaman APP and Atatürk APP. DHMI’s planned capex were revised substantially downwards over the 2011-2012 period compared to ACE 2007 plans. Given the magnitude of the 2009 capex, this would indicate that some investments originally planned for 2011-2012 were brought forward in 2009. The cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 is high at around €230M which corresponds to 73% of 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues. The capex planned for the 2009-2014 period mainly relate to the SMART modernisation programme and in particular to the following investment projects:
• Purchase of new Radar Data Processing and Flight Data Processing systems, new Human Machine Interface and Controller Working Positions (i.e. €41M, between 2009 and 2011);
• Purchase of 2 calibration aircrafts (i.e. €26M, in 2009) and 2 helicopters (i.e. €14.3M, between 2009 and 2011);
• Radar replacement programme (i.e. €37M, between 2009 and 2013);
• Central Ankara ACC and ATC Complexes (i.e. €14M, between 2011 and 2013);
• Implementation of Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems i.e. A-SMGCS, (i.e. €8.2M, between 2008 and 2011);
• Air navigation communication and terminal systems periodic modernisation (i.e. €15M, between 2011 and 2013); and,
• ATC building and training complex (i.e. €33.1M, between 2011 and 2013, planned to be implemented in 2014).
As a result of intensive investment between 2005 and 2009 (€68M p.a.) the average remaining accounting life of DHMI assets has increased significantly to 13 years in 2009. Although DHMI projected capex were revised downwards compared to previous year forecast, a substantial investment programme is planned for 2010-2014 (€230M, or €46M p.a.). It is expected that these investments contribute to improve DHMI ATCO productivity and the quality of service in the future years.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 145 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DHMI (Turkey) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+7.5%+11.8% +0.4% -1.8% -1.5%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
60
100
140
180
220
260
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 271 291 325 326 321 316
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 112 137 149 157 165
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 104 114 124 132 141
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PDHMI
+23%+23%
+9%+7%
-2%-4%
-8%-4%
0
70
140
210
280
350
420
490
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
600
800
1 000
1 200
1 400
1 600
1 800
2 000
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
DHMI gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to increase by +17% over the 2009-2014 period (i.e. +3.1% p.a.) since ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to rise faster (+65%) than traffic volumes (+41%). The rise of the planned ATM/CNS provision costs is due to substantial increases in all the cost categories but in particular to the staff costs which are planned to almost double between 2009 and 2014.
When comparing 2009-2012 plans from the ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, actual traffic in 2009 was lower by -4% than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data) while actual costs ended up +7% higher than planned. For the 2010-2012 outlook, DHMI reported a downwards revision for its forecast traffic but a significant upwards revision of its forecast costs (up to +23% in 2011 and 2012). As the result, the unit cost profile in ACE 2009 provides a more pessimistic outlook than in ACE 2007 plans.
En-route unit costs
The chart below shows planned changes in Turkey en-route unit costs over the period 2010-2014. The chart on the bottom of this page shows planned changes in allocation of en-route costs for DHMI between 2009 and 2014.
Planned en-route unit costs for Turkey
18.319.821.722.728.1
26.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-0.1%p.a.
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs
75%
76%
77%
78%
79%
80%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
DHMI
Comments on en-route unit costs (Nov. 2010 data)
Between 2009 and 2014, Turkey en-route unit costs are planned to remain fairly constant. After a decrease in 2010 (-5.5%), en-route unit costs are planned to increase in 2011 (+5.8%) and then remain fairly constant until 2014. The overall planned profile of Turkey en-route unit costs is due to the fact that between 2009 and 2014, en-route costs are planned to increase at the same rate of SUs (+43%).
Turkey en-route unit costs profile significantly contrasts with the planned changes in DHMI gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs which are expected to significantly increase over the same period. One of the main drivers for this difference is that gate-to-gate costs are planned to increase faster (+65%) than en-route costs (+43%), indicating potential inconsistencies in reporting planned costs data. DHMI does not plan any significant change to cost allocation during the period 2009-2014.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 146 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DSNA (France) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: France is part of the Euro zone
DSNA represents 15.3% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€402 €444€409 €385 €399
€474€453€455€456
€477
0
100
200
300
400
500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-2%
+9%
+3%+5%
+0.4%
-0.4%
+4%
-7%-10%
-20%
+4%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
-40%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.750.810.790.750.74
-8%+2%+5%
+3%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€92€86€81€71€68
+4%
+14%+5%
+7%
0
20
40
60
80
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+9%-0.02%+2%-8%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
DSNA was the largest ANSP in Europe in 2009, with costs contributing 15% of the European total. Relative to the other four largest ANSPs, DSNA’s traffic shows similar complexity to that of ENAV, but considerably less than DFS and NATS.
Composite flight-hours have increased by only +1.7% over the period 2005-2009; a combination of increases in 2006 and 2007, flat traffic in 2008, and sharp traffic decline in 2009.
After a -6% reduction in unit ATM/CNS costs in 2006, unit costs have been consistently rising since then, mainly as a result of a +9% increase in ATM/CNS costs in 2007 (new labour agreement), and the sharp fall in traffic in 2009 (-7%). ATFM delays have been significantly reduced from their relatively high levels in 2006. In 2009, the costs of ATFM delays fell to 6% of the total economic cost for DSNA, a level close to ENAV, the best achieving ANSP for this indicator. As a result, unit economic costs in 2009 are similar to levels achieved in 2005: reductions in ATFM delays balance the increases in unit ATM/CNS provision costs.
In 2009, DSNA ATCO-hour productivity (0.75) was similar to that of ENAV, but significantly below the productivity of DFS (0.96) and NATS (1.01). Over the period, ATCO-hour productivity rose by only +2%, while the employment costs per ATCO-hour rose by +34%. Despite these increases, DSNA employment costs per ATCO-hour were lower than in any of the other four largest ANSPs.
In 2009, the unit support costs rose by +9%, outweighing previous years’ improvements. This increase results both from the -7% drop in traffic and from a +1% increase in DSNA total support costs. The increase in the unit non-staff operating costs in 2009 is mainly driven by a cost reallocation (ENAC staff) from staff costs to non-staff operating costs in ACE 2009.
DSNA unit economic costs in 2009 are similar to levels achieved in 2005: reductions in ATFM delays balance the increases in unit ATM/CNS provision costs. ATCO-employment costs were fast rising during the period without genuine improvements in productivity which remained well below that of some of its peers. In 2009, in a context of sharp traffic decline DSNA successfully reduced ATFM delays.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+2%
+32%
+8%+2% +3% +2%
+34%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 25%
Weight 75%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 147 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DSNA (France) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Bordeaux 399 564 30 335 5.75 1.24
Brest 408 834 31 347 5.48 1.23
Marseille 355 375 22 315 5.69 1.28
Paris 290 160 14 243 6.75 1.13
Reims 215 737 17 324 7.76 1.16
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b
95
100
105
110
115
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Brest Bordeaux Marseille Reims Paris
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Bordeaux Brest Marseille Paris Reims
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
1344 1344 1328 1303 1305
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Bordeaux Brest Marseille Paris Reims
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Bordeaux 399 564 +2.5% 265 -1.6% 114 734 +2.8%Brest 408 834 +2.5% 244 -1.7% 99 455 +2.5%Marseille 355 375 +2.5% 306 -2.0% 125 484 +2.5%Paris 290 160 +2.5% 366 -3.8% 127 403 +2.5%Reims 215 737 +2.5% 196 +3.1% 75 894 +2.5%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Bordeaux 0.03 1.09 0.21 0.18 0.13
Brest 0.08 2.28 0.16 0.12 0.08
Marseille 0.06 2.96 0.17 0.15 0.10
Paris 0.20 0.82 0.23 0.23 0.20
Reims 0.12 0.30 0.19 0.17 0.14
France 0.34 0.30 0.24
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2009
A20
10P
2011
P20
12P
2013
P20
14P
2009
A20
10P
2011
P20
12P
2013
P20
14P
2009
A20
10P
2011
P20
12P
2013
P20
14P
2009
A20
10P
2011
P20
12P
2013
P20
14P
2009
A20
10P
2011
P20
12P
2013
P20
14P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Bordeaux
Brest
Marseille AC Paris
Reims
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, DSNA’s traffic share in terms of flight-hours controlled in Europe was 15.7% while the share of total European en-route ATFM delay was 5.6%: the 12th most penalizing ANSP in Europe.
In a context of sharp traffic decline, DSNA-wide en-route ATFM delay per flight decreased from circa 0.5 in 2008 to 0.2 minute in 2009, with a broad improvement across all the five ACCs:
• Bordeaux and Brest ACCs managed to continuously reduce en-route ATFM delays between 2005 and 2009.
• Marseille ACC recorded minor levels of ATFM delay per flight throughout the 2005-2009 period.
• Paris and Reims ACC showed a higher level of en-route ATFM delay during the same period; a part of which was related to “ATC other” reasons.
• There are no overtime hours in French ACCs.
ATCO productivity in Brest and Bordeaux ACCs tends to be higher than the average observed for ACCs with similar operational characteristics (slightly higher staffing per sector is more than compensated by higher sector productivity), while Paris and Reims ACC show lower productivity than the comparable ACCs.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +5% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. The actual en-route ATFM delays recorded by the French ACCs drastically increased in 2010 (2.5 minutes), in particular for Bordeaux, Brest and Paris ACCs. The reasons for this ATC capacity shortfall were staffing and social issues, leading to a considerable number of ATC strikes throughout the year. A sustainable solution for the staffing issues is required to ensure provision of adequate ATC capacity to meet the operational requirements of the European network between 2010 and 2014.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 148 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DSNA (France) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
50
100
150
200
250
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+1%
-5%-4%
-15%
100
120
140
160
180
200
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:1982* C:1982* C:2000*
C:2000 (Marseille); 2000/2003 (Brest); 2002/2005 (Reims); 2002/2006 (Paris); 2003 (Bordeaux)*
2006 C
2007 All ACCs
2008
2009 All ACCs
2010
2011
2012
2013
€540M(2003-2017)
€80M(2005-2012)
€45M(2003-2012)
ATM COM NAV SUR Building Years
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement Comments on capital expenditures
DSNA assets under construction have been consistently above 15% of the net book value of total fixed assets since 2006, and up to 20% in 2009, reflecting substantial investments in the previous years (i.e. €160M p.a. between 2005 and 2008). Despite these investments, the average remaining accounting life of DSNA assets remained just above 5 years in 2009, although starting from a low level of 3 years in 2005 and has increased each year over this period. In 2009, for DSNA, some €865 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 1.2 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets), the highest among the largest ANSPs.
DSNA capex amounted to €145M in 2009, slightly below the annual average amount spent between 2005 and 2008 (i.e. €160M). Actual capex is -15% lower than planned in ACE 2007. Although DSNA investment plans were revised downwards in 2010 (-4%) and 2011 (-5%) compared to ACE 2007 projections, the cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 remain high. DSNA has planned some €174M per annum (around €868M, which corresponds to 67% of 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues). This is higher than annually spent in the previous five years (i.e. €157M). Furthermore, DSNA capex is planned to consistently exceed depreciation costs during the whole period, indicating a growing asset base.
The capex planned for the 2009-2014 period comprise the following major investment projects:
4-FLIGHT programme (i.e. €500M, between 2003 and 2016), which includes COFLIGHT (i.e. €156M, between 2003 and 2014) and the implementation of a MTCD (medium term conflict detection) system (ERATO project) in Reims, Brest, Marseille and Bordeaux ACCs (i.e. €86M, between 2002 and 2013);
CSSIP ground-to-ground communication over IP system (i.e. €80M, between 2005 and 2012);
Purchase of Mode S radars (i.e. €45M, between 2003 and 2012);
Development of ATM system for the future TWR in Nantes/Notre Dame des Landes (i.e. €40 M, between 2012 and 2017); and,
Implementation of MAESTRO (arrival Manager) in Nice and Lyon (i.e. €1M, planned to be implemented in Nice by end of 2011 and Lyon by end of 2012).
Despite an intensive investment cycle between 2005 and 2009 (€157M p.a.) the average remaining accounting life of DSNA assets remains relatively low (5 years in 2009). Although DSNA projected capex were mainly revised downwards compared to ACE 2007 forecast, a substantial investment programme is planned for 2010-2014 (€868M). It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan, nor what the quantified contribution to performance improvements is expected (e.g. improve ATCO productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 149 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DSNA (France) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+0.8% -2.8% -2.3% -3.3% -2.1%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
80
90
100
110
120
130
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 444 447 435 425 411 402
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 101 101 102 101 102
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 100 103 106 109 113
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PDSNA
-10% -10% -9% -7%
-12%-12%-13%-10%
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
2 000
2 500
3 000
3 500
4 000
4 500
5 000
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
Gate-to-gate unit costs are projected to fall by -9.3% between 2009 and 2014, an average annual decrease of -1.9%, as costs are planned to rise by only +2%, compared to +13% for the traffic forecast.
Actual traffic in 2009 was lower by -10% than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data) while actual costs ended up -7% lower than planned, an indication of reactivity to the traffic decrease with the implementation of cost-containment measures in direct operating costs and capital-related costs. For the years 2010-2012, costs have been revised downwards compared to ACE 2007 plans (some -9%, -10%) while traffic volumes were revised downwards in greater proportions (-12% to -13%). As the result, the unit cost profile in ACE 2009 provides a more pessimistic outlook than in ACE 2007 plans
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in France en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares France planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for France Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
59.861.163.464.5
67.066.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
En-
rout
e tr
affic
& c
osts
inde
x (2
009=
100)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
p.a.-2.5%
50
60
70
80
90
100
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Spain Germany France Italy United Kingdom
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
Aena DFS DSNA ENAV NATS (2009)
UK11.0%
Italy9.6%
France17.8%
Germany13.8%
Spain14.5%
66.9%Remaining
States33.1%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Between 2009 and 2014, the French en-route DUR is planned to fall by -2.1% per year on average (this is fairly consistent with the -1.9% average annual decrease for DSNA gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs). Starting from 2011, the reduction in the DUR is -2.5%, which is below the objective adopted at EU-wide level of -3.5% per year on average.
In comparison to the other four largest ANSPs, the en-route DUR of France was below the average of the group in 2009. The planned reduction of -2.1% a year by 2014 is lower than those planned by Spain (-7.0%) and Italy (-2.6%). Would all the States perform according to these plans, by 2014 the French DUR would remains below that of the other four largest States.
The proportion of en-route costs as a percentage of total gate-to-gate costs for DSNA is among the highest in the group of comparators, between ENAV and DFS. DSNA does not plan any significant change to cost allocation during the period 2009-2014. Among DSNA comparators, only Aena plans to allocate a greater share of costs to the en-route cost base from 2010 onwards.
Between 2009 and 2014, the French en-route DUR is planned to fall by -2.1% per year on average, less than the EU-wide objective (-3.5% per year) and also less than planned DUR reduction by Spain and Italy. Would all the States perform according to these plans, by 2014 France would have the lowest DUR.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 150 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
EANS (Estonia) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 15.65 EEK
EANS represents 0.1% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€151 €163€184 €173 €162
€164€153
€162€173
€184
0
40
80
120
160
200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+5% +6% +4%
-9%
+14%
-16%
+11% +12%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
-81%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.971.151.201.211.16
-16%
-4%-1%+5%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€40€47€44€50€42
+19%
-13%+6%
-14%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+10%-12%
-5%-11%
0
40
80
120
160
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
In 2009, EANS represents 0.1% of total costs (ranking 35th) and serves 60 000 flight-hours (0.3% of composite flight-hours traffic in Europe - ranking 30Th). Traffic complexity and variability is very low.
After three years of rapid traffic growth (annual average +12% over 2005-2008), EANS experienced a severe traffic decline of -16% in 2009. Nevertheless, the cumulative growth over 2005-2009 is +20%. EANS’ peer comparators all experienced similar traffic growth over the period.
Over 2005-2009, EANS consistently records the lowest unit ATM/CNS provision costs of its peer group. Cumulatively over the five year period, total costs have grown by +6%, in a context of +20% of traffic growth, without any significant capacity/delay issue. As a result gate-to-gate unit costs have decreased annually by -3% on average over 2005-2009.
Just like LGS, Oro Navigacija (until 2007) and NATS (NERL), EANS does not operate under the full cost recovery regime and has a commercial objective of minimising its costs (and can retain profit).
EANS had historically the highest ATCO productivity in Europe for an ANSP that deals with both upper and lower airspace. This position was lost in 2008 following the introduction of a planning controller position in EANS East sector. Despite a decrease of -16% between 2005 and 2009, EANS ATCO productivity remains the highest amongst its peer group.
Over the 2005-2009 period, EANS maintained constant support costs (-1%), while absorbing +20% traffic growth. This results in a reduction of its unit support cost of -17% so that in 2009, EANS continued to show the lowest unit support costs of its peer group.
EANS has the lowest unit costs in 2009 (€163), a position that it has maintained throughout the 2005-2009 period. EANS has amongst the highest ATCO productivity in Europe and the lowest unit support costs. It has no capacity issues.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
-16%
+14%
-11%-17%
-1%
+20%
-5%"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 24%
Weight 76%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 151 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
EANS (Estonia) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Tallinn 49 008 20 310 1.90 1.14
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Tallinn
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Tallinn
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
16801676166715971560
60 1135510 10
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
1
2
3
4
5
6
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Tallinn
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
1
2
3
4
5
6
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Tallinn 49 008 +3.4% 18 0% 10 710 0%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Tallinn 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.16 0.22
Estonia 0.11 0.16 0.22
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Tallinn
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, EANS’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 0.4% and virtually no en-route ATFM delays were recorded for Tallinn ACC.
• In a context of severe traffic drop (-13% in terms of flight-hours) Tallinn ACC ATCO productivity decreased in 2009, but remains higher than ACCs with similar operational characteristics operated by comparators ANSPs, due to a mix of lower staffing per sector and higher sector productivity.
• There is very modest amount of overtime in Tallinn ACC in 2009.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +14% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Tallinn ACC recorded only a negligible amount of en-route ATFM delays in 2010. No problems are currently foreseen for Tallinn ACC between 2011 and 2014. To ensure the required delivery of future ATC capacity, EANS is reviewing the existing sectorisation.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 152 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
EANS (Estonia) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+294%
-12%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2002* C:2002* C:2002* C:1998*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€1M€0.5M
€9.3M
COM NAV SUR YearsATM Building
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
EANS share of assets under construction is 14% of the total net book value of fixed assets in 2009. The average remaining accounting life has slightly declined over the period, to reach 5.5 years in 2009. The ratio of depreciation costs on the GBV of fixed assets is around 7% in 2009. In 2009, EANS required €464 of fixed assets per composite flight-hour (a productivity of 2.2 composite flight-hour per €1000) of fixed assets. This is the highest productivity among its comparators, but slightly lower than it was in 2008 (2.7).
In 2009, EANS capex amounted to €2M, in line with the average annual amount spent between 2005 and 2008 and -12% lower than planned in ACE 2007 for the year 2009. The cumulative capex planned over the 2010-2014 period amounts to €19M, which is higher than the cumulative capex in the previous five years (€9M) and represent some 140% of EANS 2009 gate-to-gate revenues, signalling the possible start of a new investment cycle (as also indicated by a capex to depreciation ratio higher than 1 between 2010 and 2014). The planned capex show a peak in 2011, reflecting the replacement of the major ATM system in Tallin ACC and it is planned to decrease in the following years, although remaining at a higher level than the capex spent before 2009. The capex planned for the period 2009-2014 comprise the following major investment projects:
• Replacement of EUROCAT ATM system in Tallinn ACC, including new ATCO HMI (i.e. €8M, between 2009 and 2013);
• New Tallinn TWR ATM system (i.e. €1M, between 2009 and 2010);
• New Voice Communication System (i.e. €0.3M, contract planned in 2009, signed in February 2010 and to be completed in 6 months);
• Implementation of P-RNAV (i.e. €1M, between 2010 and 2012);
• Electronic Aeronautical Information Publication (eAIP) (i.e. €0.2M); and,
• Implementation of Aeronautical Message Handling System (AMHS) (i.e. €0.5M, between 2011 and 2012).
EANS is entering a new investment cycle including the replacement of all its major ATM systems within 2011. The challenge for EANS will be to maintain its high productivity of fixed assets even after the increase of asset base which is expected in the next years.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 153 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
EANS (Estonia) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+8.5% +3.5%+6.8%
+6.6%+7.2%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
115
140
165
190
215
240
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 163 177 183 196 209 224
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 113 124 140 158 180
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 104 110 117 124 131
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PEANS
+7%
-2% -8%
-15%
-5% -8% -10% -11%
0
4
8
12
16
20
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
50
70
90
110
130
150
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
Traffic growth is steadily expected over 2010-2014 at an average annual rate of +6%. EANS plans to significantly increase its costs (+80%) for serving +31% more traffic over five years (2009-2014). As a result, EANS unit ATM/CNS costs were planned to increase by some +6.5% a year over this period. Actual traffic in 2009 was lower by -11% than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data) while actual costs ended up -15% lower than planned, an indication of reactivity to the traffic decrease with the implementation of cost-containment measures.
Compared to ACE 2007, planned costs were revised downwards for 2010 (-8%) and 2011 (-2%) and upwards in 2012 (+7%, possibly reflecting a catching up effect from the postponement of some costs in previous years), while traffic volumes were revised downwards overall the period (up to -10% in 2010). As the result, the unit cost profile in ACE 2009 provides a more pessimistic outlook.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Estonia en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Estonia planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Estonia Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
24.223.324.5
21.6
25.524.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
4.0% p.a.
10
20
30
40
50
60
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Latvia Estonia Lithuania
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
EANS LGS Oro Navigacija
Estonia0.26%
Latvia0.24%
Lithuania0.27%
0.8%Remaining
States99.2%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Whereas EANS gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs were planned to increase by some +6.5% a year over 2009-20014, Estonia November 2010 plans present a different picture with an average annual decrease of its en-route DUR of -0.4% over the same period, which is below the objective adopted at EU-wide level of -3.5% per year on average.
This evolution is not steady and a significant DUR reduction in 2011 (-15.5%) would be followed by an increase of +13.7% in 2012. Over 2012-2014 an average annual increase of the DUR of +4.0% is planned. This increase is mainly driven by cost increases (+6.4% p.a.) while service units would grow by +2.3% over 2012-2014 on average. Would all the States perform according to the plans, by 2014 the Estonian DUR would remains below that of its peer States, although it should be noted that contrary to Latvia and Lithuania, Estonia does not incur EUROCONTROL costs.
It is important to note that EANS has changed its cost-allocation policy with effect from 2010 onwards, moving from 79% to 91% of costs allocated to en-route services, now the highest of its peer group. Such changes can impact on the trends and levels of the en-route DURs, and will need to be monitored in time.
Between 2009 and 2014, the Estonian DUR is planned to fall by -0.4% a year on average, significantly less than the EU-wide objective (-3.5%). After a significant cost reallocation in 2010, EANS has the highest proportion of costs allocated to en-route amongst its peer comparators. Would all the States perform according to the plans, by 2014 Estonia would maintain the lowest DUR among its peers (and over Europe), although Estonia does not incur EUROCONTROL costs.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 154 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ENAV (Italy) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: Italy is part of the Euro zone
ENAV represents 8.6% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€448 €487€515 €477 €451
€506€489€530
€566€610
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-5%
+2%
-2%
+1%
+7%
-1%
+3%
-7%
-12%
-6%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
-48% -52%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.750.810.840.730.66
-8%-3%+14%
+11%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€97€98€102€100€89
+13% +1%-4% -1%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+9%-1%-3%-11%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
ENAV is one of the largest ANSPs in Europe, with total ATM/CNS costs contributing nearly 9% of the European total. ENAV controls a mixture of areas of high and relatively low traffic complexity.
Composite flight-hours have increased by only +1% over the period 2005-2009; a combination of increases in 2006-2007, a small drop in 2008 (due to difficulties of the main carrier in 2008), and a sharp traffic decline in 2009.
Despite only modest traffic growth, there was a substantial fall in the unit economic costs of -17% over the 2005-2009. The main driver for this decrease has been the significant and continuous reductions of the unit ATFM cost of delays over the period (-79%). On the other hand, the unit gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs increased in 2009 (+8.6%), offsetting ENAV’s improvements in the previous 3 years (-13%). As a result ENAV ranks as 3rd highest unit economic costs among the five largest ANSPs, after Aena and DFS, while its unit ATM/CNS provision costs are the 2nd highest.
Employment costs per ATCO-hour rose by +9% but are decreasing since 2007. Alongside a cumulative +13% increase in productivity, this allowed ENAV a -4% reduction in ATCO employment costs per unit of output. For the second consecutive year, the productivity fell in 2009 (-8.1%), offsetting the improvements achieved in 2007. It is understood that this is partly due to the traffic fall in 2009, but also to the increased number of working hours, led by the new collective agreement.
Unit support costs were reduced by -6% over the period, as a result of lower support costs and increased traffic. Reductions in non-staff operating costs and exceptional costs contributed to this decrease, while unit capital-related costs rose by +1%. In 2009 this trend inverted and the unit support costs rose by +8.8%, mainly due to a lower traffic. However, despite the overall containment of unit support costs over the period shows the best effort among its comparators, these remain the highest among the five largest ANSPs in 2009.
With modest traffic growth, ENAV managed to reduce its unit economic costs by -17% over the 2005-2009, mainly through a significant and continuous improvement of the quality of service. Despite this improvement, ENAV unit ATM/CNS provision costs are the second highest among its peers, mainly due to higher unit support costs and lower productivity.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+13%
-4% -5% -6% -5%
+1%
+9%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 27%
Weight 73%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 155 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ENAV (Italy) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Brindisi 107 246 22 315 2.44 1.38
Milano 173 033 17 171 8.67 1.17
Padova 183 015 18 295 6.73 1.31
Roma 509 740 32 282 4.81 1.27
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 95
100
105
110
115
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Brindisi Milano Padova Roma
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Brindisi Milano Padova Roma
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
186 211 16414231450145615021519
76 46
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Brindisi Milano Padova Roma
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Brindisi 107 246 +2.9% 100 +1.2% 19 038 +1.6%Milano 173 033 +2.3% 231 -0.5% 125 195 +1.2%Padova 183 015 +2.8% 180 +3.4% 56 248 +1.4%Roma 509 740 +2.9% 324 +1.8% 124 672 +1.6%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Brindisi 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03
Milano 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.09 0.09
Padova 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.10 0.10
Roma 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.06
Italy 0.14 0.14 0.12
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Brindisi
MilanoPadova
Roma
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, ENAV’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 7.6% and virtually no en-route ATFM delays were recorded by the four ACCs.
• Milano, Padova and Roma ACC considerably reduced en-route ATFM delay between 2005 and 2007, and since then maintained a level of very low en-route ATFM delays.
• Brindisi ACC showed no en-route ATFM delay between 2005 and 2009.
• Overtime hours at Italian ACCs have gradually declined since 2005. In 2009 they remain fairly moderate.
ATCO productivity in all Italian ACCs increased between 2005 and 2007, and decreased in 2008 and 2009, in a context of sharp traffic decline. ATCO productivity of Roma and Brindisi ACCs tends to be higher or in line with the average observed for ACCs with similar operational characteristics, while Milano and Padova ACCs show lower productivity that the average of the comparable ACCs, essentially due to higher staffing per sector and lower sector productivity.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is +7% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Italian ACCs recorded only a negligible amount of en-route ATFM delays in 2010. No problems are currently foreseen for Italian ACCs between 2011 and 2014. To ensure the required delivery of future ATC capacity, ENAV is planning several measures at local level or as part of the Blue Med FAB initiative.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 156 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ENAV (Italy) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009) Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
50
100
150
200
250
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+36%
+26%
+5%
+28%
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:1999 (All ACCs)*
C:1999 (All ACCs)*
C:1999 (All ACCs)*
C:2000 (Roma);2001 (Padova);2005 (Brind.);2005 (Milano)*
2006 Roma
2007
2008Brindisi, Milano and
Padova
2009 Roma
2010
2011
2012
2013
€284.3M (until 2014)
NAV SURCOM
€37M
ATM
€63M
Building Years
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
ENAV’s share of assets under construction has increased since 2007, to reach 36% in 2009, the highest proportion among the five largest ANSPs. This reflects the substantial investments made between 2005 and 2009 (some €964M or on average €193 p.a.), substantially higher than what was invested by its peers in the same period (+17% with respect to its closest, NATS). Despite the investments, increasing depreciation costs since 2006 have lowered the average remaining accounting life of ENAV’s assets to 6 years. The ratio of depreciation cost on the GBV of fixed assets was around 6% in 2009. In 2009, ENAV required some €1602 of fixed assets per composite flight-hour (a productivity of 0.6 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets) – the lowest asset productivity amongst its comparators.
ENAV‘s capex peaked in 2009 to an astonishing amount of €225M. This amount is +28% higher than planned in ACE 2007. Compared to ACE 2007 plans, ENAV’s 2009 capex for the 2010-2012 has been revised upwards (up to +36% in 2012). The cumulative capex over the 2010-2014 period is still very large as it amounts to €759M (114% of the gate-to-gate ANS revenues in 2009). The capex planned for the 2009-2014 period comprises the following major investment projects:
• Modernisation of Palermo airport system – First functional lot (Block A and Block B) (i.e. €64M, between 2009 and 2014);
• Realisation of a security integrated system (i.e. €26M, between 2008 and 2011);
• Renewal of the radar surveillance system (i.e. €48M, between 2007 and 2012);
• Realisation of a telecommunication network (E-net) (i.e. €37M, between 2006 and 2011);
• Upgrading of airport surveillance with multilateration equipment in Venice and Bergamo (i.e. €15M, between 2009 and 2012); and,
• Development of an integrated platform for the management of ATM procedures and aeronautical data (program 4-FLIGHT) (i.e. €220M, co-financed by EC, planned entry in operation in 2012-2013).
Despite intensive investments between 2005 and 2009 (some €964M or on average €193 p.a.) the average remaining accounting life of ENAV assets has remained around 6 years throughout the period. The cumulative capex over the 2010-2014 period is still very large as it amounts to €759M (114% of the gate-to-gate ANS revenues in 2009), an amount similar to AENA. It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan, nor what the quantified contribution to performance improvements is expected (e.g. improve ATCO productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 157 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ENAV (Italy) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-3.0% -0.8% -1.1% -0.1% -0.8%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 487 472 468 463 462 459
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 100 102 103 105 106
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 103 107 109 111 113
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PENAV
+0.02%+0.1%
-1% -1%
-10% -9% -9% -10%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
1 000
1 250
1 500
1 750
2 000
2 250
2 500
2 750
3 000
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs are expected to fall by -5.7% between 2009 and 2014, an average annual decrease of -1.2%, since the planned increase in costs (+6%) is lower than the forecast traffic growth (+13%). The planned improvement in cost-effectiveness mainly arises in 2010 (-3%). From 2011 onwards, the unit costs are planned to decrease by -0.7% a year.
Actual traffic in 2009 was lower by -10% than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data). However, actual costs ended up -1% lower than planned before. The 2010-2012 outlook from ACE 2009 data is more pessimistic than ACE 2007 data since it shows a sharp downwards traffic revision, while gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs have been revised downwards by a minor amount.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Italy en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Italy planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Italy Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
64.965.867.067.670.7
73.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
En-
rout
e tr
affic
& c
osts
inde
x (2
009=
100)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
p.a.-1.4%
50
60
70
80
90
100
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Spain Germany France Italy United Kingdom
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
Aena DFS DSNA ENAV NATS (2009)
UK11.0%
Italy9.6%
France17.8%
Germany13.8%
Spain14.5%
66.9%Remaining
States33.1%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Italy’s plans a decrease of -12% for its en-route DUR between 2009 and 2014, an average of -2.6% a year, which is more significant than the planned reductions for ENAV’s gate-to-gate ATM/CNS unit costs during the same period (-1.2% a year). Italy’s planned reduction of its en-route DUR between 2011 and 2014 amounts to -1.4% p.a., which is well below the objective adopted at EU-wide level of -3.5% per year on average.
The en-route DUR of Italy in 2009 is very close to the average of the peer group. The planned reduction of -2.6% a year by 2014 is lower than that planned by Spain (-7.0%) but higher than those planned by the other peers in the group. Would all the States perform according to these plans, by 2014 the Italy DUR would remain similar to the average of the largest States.
ENAV has the highest allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs among its comparators over the 2009-2014 period, with a share of around 82%. It should however be noted that ENAV gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs do not include the costs of ATC services provided at regional airports. If these costs were taken into account, the share of en-route costs in ENAV gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs would be around 71% in 2009. It should also be noted that ENAV ATM/CNS provision costs include costs relating to ATC services provided by the Italian Air Force (ITAF).
The planned reduction in Italy’s en-route DUR over the 2009-2014 period amounts to an average of -2.6% a year. Over the 2011 and 2014 period it amounts to -1.4% p.a., which is well below the objective adopted at EU-wide level of -3.5% per year on average. Would all the States perform according to these plans, by 2014 the Italy DUR would remain similar to the average of the largest States.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 158 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Finavia (Finland) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: Finland is part of the Euro zone
Finavia represents 0.8% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€299 €326€305 €301 €308
€331€306
€315€306€321
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-1%
+2% +2%
-1%
+0.03%+3%
+1%
-7%
+10%
+24%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
-62% -35%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.610.630.720.690.68
-3%-14%
+4%+2%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€63€65€77€76€75
+2% +1%
-16% -3%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+14%-4%+6%
-3%
0
60
120
180
240
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
In 2009, Finavia represents some 0.8% of the European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs, and serves 1% of the European traffic (expressed in composite flight-hours). The relative complexity and variability of Finavia controlled traffic are quite low. Traffic decreased by -4% over the 2005-2009 period (-1% p.a. on average). This overall figure masks minor positive traffic growth over 2005 -2008 and a significant drop of -7% in 2009 due to the economic crisis.
Over 2005-2008, Finavia showed relatively similar levels of unit ATM/CNS costs. 2009 however saw an increase in cost (+2%) together with a decline in traffic (-7%), resulting in a +9% increase in unit cost. As a result, Finavia’s unit cost increased by +2% p.a. on average over 2005-2009.
Finavia experienced some delays over the past five years; however these remain very small. As a result, the unit economic costs are the second lowest of its comparator group, slightly above LFV Sweden.
Over the 2005-2009 period, ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour have reduced (-15%), along with a reduction of the productivity (-10%), however, some of these changes are mainly due to a significant reduction in the number of hours reported as “not on duty”, possibly reflecting inconsistency in data. ATCO employment costs and productivity performance are the lowest amongst their peers.
Over the 2005-2009 period unit support costs increased by +14%, with a significant increase in 2009 (+14%), primarily driven by a significant increase in non-ATCO employment costs (+20%) and in capital-related costs (+7%) while in the meantime traffic volumes decreased by -7%.
In 2009, Finavia’s unit economic costs are the second lowest of its comparator group, slightly above LFV Sweden. A recent increase in employment costs has contributed significantly to increase the support costs. ATCO productivity is the lowest amongst its peers. ATFM Delays remain negligible.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
-10%-6%
+7%+14%
+10%
-4%
-15%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 35%
Weight 65%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 159 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Finavia (Finland) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Rovaniemi 8 992 16 239 0.63 1.31
Tampere 61 804 23 256 1.38 1.18
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Tampere Rovaniemi
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Tampere Rovaniemi
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
13051223 1196
1372 1340
2319
41
3342
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
0
1
2
3
4
5
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Tampere Rovaniemi
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
0
1
2
3
4
5
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Rovaniemi 8 992 Closed 8 Closed 8 760 ClosedTampere 61 804 +4.0% 53 +0.4% 16 060 +12.4%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Tampere 0.04 0.03 0.10 0.13 0.16
Rovaniemi 0.00 0.00 Closed Closed Closed
Finland 0.10 0.13 0.16
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Tampere
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, Finavia’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 0.8% and only a negligible amount of en-route ATFM delays were reported in 2009 for one of the two Finish ACCs (Tampere ACC).
• Despite a sharp traffic drop, ATCO productivity of the two Finish ACCs remained at the level of 2008.
• Overtime hours at Finish ACCs remained fairly moderate in 2009.
Compared to ACCs with similar operational characteristics, Finish ACCs tend to have a similar level of productivity. The decommissioning of Rovaniemi ACC at the end of 2010 and consolidation provides scope for further productivity improvements.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +13% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Finish ACCs recorded only a negligible amount of en-route ATFM delays in 2010. No problems are currently foreseen for Tampere ACC between 2011 and 2014.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 160 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Finavia (Finland) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+171%
-1%-92%
+217%
0
5
10
15
20
25
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2000/09 (Tamp.);2009 (Rovan.)*
C:2000 (Tamp.);2009 (Rovan.)*
C:2000 (Tamp.);2009 (Rovan.)*
C:2009 (All ACCs)*
2006
2007
2008
2009 C C C C
2010
2011
2012
2013
€11.5M(2007-2014)
€3.7M(2011-2014)
COM NAV SUR Years
€24.8M
ATM Building
Tampere
€5.9M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement Comments on capital expenditures
Finavia reports no assets under construction in 2009, since these have been all written-off, following the transformation of Finavia into a State-owned company. As a result the interpretation of some of the 2009 values becomes problematic. The massive decrease of the asset base in 2009 and the consequent drop of the average remaining accounting life from 9 years in 2008 to 3 years in 2009 is a result of the transformation and does not reflect part of the investments made between 2005 and 2009 (totalling €61M). Increased depreciation costs in 2009 with respect to 2008 result in a higher average depreciation rate (6%), although the lowest values among its peers. In 2009, Finavia required €586 of fixed assets per composite flight-hour (a productivity of 1.7 composite flight-hours per €1000 of fixed assets). This is a higher productivity than in 2008 (1.45), but the lowest amongst Finavia’s comparator group.
In 2009, Finavia’s capex amounted to €20M, which is twice the average annual value spent between 2005 and 2008 (€10M). The cumulative capex planned between 2010 and 2014 amounts to €47M (93% of the 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues), and is significantly lower than the spending in the previous 5 years (€61M). Planned capex over this period is significantly volatile, from €0.5M in 2010 to €14.3M in 2012. Compared to the plans made in ACE 2007, the planned capex has been significantly revised upwards in 2009 (+217%), while in 2010 it has been reviewed downwards by -92%, possibly the result of some capex being brought forward into 2009. Over the 2009-2012 period, the planned capex have been revised +58% upwards each year, with respect to the ACE 2007 projections. A capex to depreciation ratio higher than 1 from 2011 onwards (except for year 2010), though sharply declining, suggests an increasing asset base. The capex planned between 2009 and 2014 relates to the following major investment projects:
• Replacement of Tampere ACC ATM systems (i.e. €12M, between 2009 and 2013, including €2.4M in 2009) and at the medium sized airports (i.e. €11.9M, between 2006 and 2009);
• Replacement/purchase of R-NAV and DME equipment (i.e. €3.7M, between 2011 and 2014);
• Replacement of MSSRs (i.e. €3M, between 2013 and 2014);
• Implementation and Upgrade of A-SMGCS at Helsinki Vantaa airport (i.e. €1.0M, between 2007 and 2009);
• Investments to WAM technology (i.e. €7.5M, between 2011 and 2013); and,
• Renewal of CNS systems and buildings at medium sized airports (i.e. €4.9M, between 2006 and 2009).
Finavia is entering a new investment cycle which will replace all its major ATM systems. It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan, nor what the quantified contribution to performance improvements is expected (e.g. improve ATCO productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 161 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Finavia (Finland) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-13.0% -5.2% +0.2% -2.0% -2.7%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 326 284 269 270 264 257
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 89 89 93 95 96
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 102 108 112 117 122
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PFinavia
-14% -16% -16% -2%
+2%+1%
-3% -3%0
20
40
60
80
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
150
200
250
300
350
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
Finavia plans to reduce its gate-to-gate unit costs by -21.2% between 2009 and 2014 (i.e. -4.7% p.a. on average), with a significant decrease arising in 2010 (-13.0%) resulting from gate-to-gate costs significantly decreasing (-11%) and the planned traffic slightly increasing (+2.0%). Over 2011-2014, the gate-to-gate unit costs are planned to decrease by -1.5% p.a. on average.
When comparing 2009-2012 plans from the ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, actual traffic in 2009 was lower by -3% than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data) while actual costs ended up -2% lower than planned, an indication of reactivity to the traffic decrease. For the 2010-2012 outlook Finavia reported downward revisions for forecast costs (-15.0% on average p.a.) but forecast traffic values in line with the planned figures reported in ACE 2007, which implies a better profile in terms of unit costs.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Finland en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Finland planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Finland Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
47.248.650.149.6
41.041.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
95
105
115
125
135
145
155
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
p.a.-1.7%
30
40
50
60
70
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Norway Sweden Finland Poland
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
Avinor LFV Finavia PANSA
Finland0.5%
Poland1.7%
Sweden2.6%
Norway1.5%
Remaining States93.7%
6.3%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Finland November 2010 plans foresee an increase of +14% for its en-route DUR between 2009 and 2014, an average of +2.7% a year, which is mostly the result of a significant increase in 2011 (+21%). This significantly contrasts with Finavia’s plans to reduce between 2009 and 2014 its gate-to-gate unit costs by -4.7% p.a. on average. This apparent inconsistency is due to a significant reallocation of costs in 2011 (see below). Between 2011 and 2014 Finland plans to reduce its en-route DUR by -1.7% p.a., which is well below the objective adopted at EU-wide level of -3.5% per year on average.
Finland has recently reviewed its cost-allocation policy quite radically. As a result, with effect from 2011 onwards, 64% of costs will be allocated to en-route services, compared to 43% in 2009. Despite the change in cost-allocation Finavia’ s share of en-route costs is well below LFV and PANSA, but is now higher than Avinor. Such changes can impact on the trends and levels of the en-route DURs and will need to be monitored during the period. By 2014, Finland would have the second lowest en-route DUR amongst its peers (but +45% compared to Poland), would all the States perform according to these plans.
Finland en-route DUR plans to increase by +2.7% p.a. over 2009-2014, arising mainly from a drastic increase of its en-route DUR in 2011 (+21%). This mainly reflects a change in the cost allocation policy (move from 43% to 64% of costs allocated to en-route). Over 2011-2014, Finland en-route DUR plans to decrease by -1.7% p.a. which is well below the objective adopted at EU-wide level of -3.5% per year on average. Would all the States perform according to these plans, by 2014 Finland would have the second lowest en-route DUR amongst its peers.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 162 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
HCAA (Greece) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: Greece is part of the Euro zone
HCAA represents 2.3% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€353€408€306 €339€351
€340
€466 €460
€544 €527
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-7% -9% -5%
+7%
-8%-2% -2%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
+86% +80%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.670.690.690.65
-2%-1%+7%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€76€77€76€77
-1% +2% -1%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
-5%-2%-16%
+50%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
HCAA is a medium-sized ANSP, with costs amounting to 2.4% of the European system gate-to-gate total.
Traffic decreased by -0.8% between 2005 and 2009 (expressed in composite flight-hours) and by -1.6% between 2008 and 2009 Traffic complexity in Greek airspace is relatively low, while the seasonality of its traffic is among the highest.
The cost of ATFM delay in 2009 is 5 times its value in 2005, although in 2009 it decreased for the first time in the last 5 years. The cost of delay represented 36% of overall economic cost in 2009. HCAA has the 3rd highest delay costs in Europe (DCAC Cyprus in its comparator group being the highest penalizing ANSP in Europe).
Between 2005 and 2009, gate-to-gate ATM/CNS unit costs increased by a significant +11%. Furthermore, HCAA did not report reliable data on terminal navigation costs during 2004-05, so the significant cost increase in 2006 is mostly due to the inclusion of an estimation of all ATM/CNS terminal costs. It is also understood that the full costs of Terminal ANS were not reported in HCAA 2008 submission, but only an initial estimate for Athens Airport explaining to a large extent the observed fall in unit ATM/CNS provision costs. It appears that since the cost accounting system is not operational and since there are no TNC at Greek airports (the first and presently only one will be Athens Airport in 2010), HCAA has serious difficulties with reporting accurate and reliable economic information in relation to the provision of ATM/CNS services.
HCAA did not report reliable data on ATCO-hours in 2005, so for some indicators, this year is missing. ATCO-hour productivity has shown considerable improvement over the period: +4% between 2006 and 2009. However, ATCO-hour,productivity fell by -2% between 2008 and 2009 mainly driven by a decrease of traffic (-2%). The employment costs per ATCO-hour have reduced over the same period by a cumulative -1.3%. Support costs increased by +16% over the 2005-2009 period, and in 2009 are the highest among HCAA’s peers in the comparators group. It should be noted the observed variations are likely to be influenced by inconsistency in data reporting over the 2005-2009 period.
HCAA provision of ATC capacity has not been adequate over the 2005-2009 period. This has negatively affected the quality of service provided by HCAA, so that in 2009 it is the 3rd worst performing in Europe. Improvements in reporting consistency are required for meaningful analysis and transparency.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2009)
+4%
-5%
-17%-22% -25%
-3% -1%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 31%
Weight 69%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2006-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 163 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
HCAA (Greece) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Athinai+Makedonia 397 831 39 311 2.08 1.48
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Athinai + Makedonia
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Athinai + Makedonia
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
1654 1654
1470 1470284 284
5050
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Athinai + Makedonia
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Athinai+Makedonia 397 831 +2.6% 235 n.a. 59 400 n.a.
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Athinai 1.20 1.10 0.29 0.24 0.20
Makedonia 0.70 0.40 0.28 0.26 0.21
Greece 0.37 0.32 0.26
*For the purposes of the ACE Benchmarking Athinai and Makedonia OPS units are considered as one ACC
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Athinai+Makedonia
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, HCAA’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 3.5% while the share of total European en-route ATFM delay was 8.0%: the 3rd highest penalizing ANSP in Europe.
• After continuous increase in en-route ATFM delay between 2005 and 2008, en-route ATFM delay per flight for HCAA declined from circa 1.5 in 2008 to 1.1 minutes in 2009. This aroused in a context of lower traffic in 2009. The main reason for this ATC capacity shortfall, and resulting ATFM delays, is considerable staffing and social issues.
• In 2008, overtime hours were reduced to an average value of 50 hours per ATCO per year and remained fairly constant over 2009.
• ATCO productivity slightly increased between 2006-2008, but decreased in 2009 in a context of declining traffic. In 2009, ATCO productivity of the Hellenic ACC tends to be higher than ACCs with similar operational characteristics, mostly due to higher sector productivity which offsets a high staffing per sector. However, there is a general issue of data quality and consistency which limits meaningful analysis of capacity and productivity indicators.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about 11% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. The actual en-route ATFM delays recorded by the Hellenic ACC slightly decreased in 2010 and remain an issue. Resolution of persisting staffing issues is particularly important to ensure provision of adequate ATC capacity to meet the operational requirements of the European network by 2014.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 164 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
HCAA (Greece) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
5
10
15
20
25
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
NOT AVAILABLE
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
NOT AVAILABLE
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2000* C:2000* C:2000* C:1997*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€3.1M €3.8M
SURATM
€25.5M(2006-2014)
BuildingCOM NAV Years
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
HCAA does not use a cost-accounting system which allows for providing balance sheet data.
HCAA capex amounted to some €15M in 2009, remaining stable at 2008 values. Furthermore, HCAA’s depreciation charge decreased significantly by -41% passing from €14.5M in 2008 to €8.6M in 2009. It should be noted the observed variations are likely to be influenced by inconsistency in data reporting over the 2005-2009 period.
HCAA did not provide information on the planned capex for the period 2010-2014. The main investments projects in 2009 for HCAA were:
• Upgrade of major airports FDP system (PATROCLOS) (i.e. €2.3M, between 2009 and 2011);
• PEGASUS AIS system (i.e. €7M, between 2006 and 2011);
• Purchase of VCS/RCS systems for Athinai and Tessaloniki/Makedonia airports (i.e. €8.5M, between 2011 and 2014) and 4 main airports (i.e. €2.4M, between 2011 and 2014);
• Upgrade of FDP/RDP systems (PALLAS) (i.e. €1.5M between 2008 and 2009, and €3.8M between 2011 and 2014);
• Purchase of 17 distance-measuring equipment (DME) (i.e. €3.1M, between 2009 and 2011); and,
• Purchase of a surface radar (SMR/A-SMGCS) at Athinai Eleftherios Venixelos and Thessaloniki/Makedonia airports (i.e. €3.8M, between 2009 and 2011).
The majority of HCAA investments relates to system updates and surveillance assets. Improvements in reporting consistency and completeness are required for meaningful analysis and transparency.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 165 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
HCAA (Greece) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-15.2%-3.4%
-4.8% -1.2% -1.4%
0
100
200
300
400
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
80
90
100
110
120
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 339 287 277 264 261 257
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 90 89 88 87 86
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 106 109 114 114 114
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PHCAA
-13% -13% -14%
-14%
400
500
600
700
800
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
400
500
600
700
800
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
HCAA plans to reduce its gate-to-gate unit costs by -24.1% between 2009 and 2014 (i.e. -5.4% p.a. on average), with a significant decrease arising in 2010 (-15.2%). Over 2011-2014, the gate-to-gate unit costs are planned to decrease by -2.5% p.a. on average.
When comparing 2009-2012 plans from the ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, actual traffic in 2009 was lower by -13% than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data). For the 2010-2012 outlook HCAA reported downward revisions for forecast traffic (-14.0% on average p.a.).
HCAA did not provide sufficient information in ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 to compare planned costs over the 2010-2012 period.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Greece en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Greece planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Greece Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
43.3
36.034.3 33.1 32.4 32.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
70
80
90
100
110
120
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
p.a.-2.3%
10
20
30
40
50
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Cyprus Greece Malta Bulgaria Romania
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
DCAC Cyprus HCAA MATS BULATSA ROMATSA
Malta0.2%
Romania2.1%
Bulgaria1.2%
Cyprus0.7%
Greece2.9%
7.1%Remaining
States92.9%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Over 2009-2014 Greece plans to reduce its en-route DUR by -26%, an average of -5.9% p.a.. In particular this is driven by a significant -16.8% fall in 2010. Similarly to Malta and Cyprus, higher planned savings occur in the early part of the period, with average annual reductions of -11.0% of the en-route DUR between 2009 and 2011. Between 2011 and 2014 Greece plans to reduce its en-route DUR by -2.3% p.a., which is below the objective adopted at EU-wide level of -3.5% per year on average.
In 2009 Greece’s en-route DUR is very similar to that of Bulgaria and Romania. The planned reduction of -5.9% a year by 2014 is higher than that planned by its peers, except for Malta. Should all comparators perform according to the plans Greece en-route DUR in 2014 will be the third highest amongst its peers.
Greece plans to reduce its en-route DUR by -26% between 2009 and 2014 (an average of -5.9% p.a.), mainly through savings occurring between 2009 and 2011 (-21%). The annual decreases of Greece’s en-route DUR between 2011 and 2014 (-2.3%) is below the objective adopted at EU-wide level of -3.5% per year on average. Should all comparators perform according to the plans, by 2014 Greece en-route DUR will be the third highest amongst its peers.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 166 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
HungaroControl (Hungary) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 279.70 HUF
HungaroControl represents 1.0% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€294 €331€262 €301 €284
€341
€297€291€311
€344
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+17%
-5%
+3%+8%
+1% +0.1%+2%
-4%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
-88% -32% -55%
+242%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.840.820.840.830.85
+3%-3%+1%-2%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€71€57€56€58€56
+3% -3% +2%
+25%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+10%+3%
-6%+18%
0
50
100
150
200
250
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
HungaroControl is a medium-sized ANSP, with costs amounting to 1% of the European gate-to-gate provision costs.
Between 2005 and 2008, traffic growth was limited and composite flight-hours increased by +3% (less than +1% p.a. on average). It then decreased by -4% in 2009, resulting in an overall -1% decrease over the period 2005-2009. Traffic complexity is intermediate, and seasonality is relatively high (comparable to LPS).
The gate-to-gate economic unit costs in 2009 (€341) is practically at the same level as in 2005 (€344). It is the result of a significant decrease in the delay unit costs compensated by a significant increase in unit ATM/CNS provision costs (+26%, or an average annual increase of +6%). HungaroControl has the lowest economic and financial unit costs of the comparator group. However, the gap has narrowed in the period.
The delays have improved as traffic growth has slowed and the ATM system upgrade provided additional ATC capacity. On the other hand, ATM/CNS provision costs have increased by +26% between 2005 and 2009 despite the decline in traffic.
Employment costs per ATCO-hour increased by +25% in 2009 after remaining relatively constant over the 2005-2008 period, bringing HungaroControl as the second highest in the comparator group for employment costs per ATCO-hour. The increase in ATCO employment costs was not matched by a productivity increase.
Unit support costs have also been rising at a similar pace over the 2005-2009 period (+26%) since support costs rose by +24% while the traffic decreased by -1%. The main increases in support costs took place in 2006 (+21%) and in 2009 (+5%). Basically the three categories of support costs (non-ATCO employment costs, operating costs and capital-related costs) are impacted by the increase.
HungaroControl still has the lowest economic and financial unit costs of the comparator group in 2009. However, the gap has narrowed in the 2005-2009 period as both the ATCO unit employment costs and the unit support costs have shown substantial increases over the period, without apparent productivity gains.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+27% +26% +24%+26%
-0.4% -1%
+27%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 24%
Weight 76%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 167 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
HungaroControl (Hungary) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Budapest 173 353 18 332 4.64 1.38
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 90
95
100
105
110
115
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Budapest
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Budapest
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
15491549147414741472
228 8
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
5
6
7
8
9
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Budapest
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
5
6
7
8
9
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Budapest 173 353 +3.2% 83 +2.3% 21 946 +4.2%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Budapest 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.07
Hungary 0.03 0.07 0.07
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Budapest
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, HungaroControl’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 1.4% and only a negligible amount of en-route ATFM delays were reported in 2009 for Budapest ACC.
• ATCO productivity of Budapest ACC has gradually increased during the 2005-2009 period, despite a traffic drop in the last year.
• Overtime hours at Budapest ACC are negligible.
Compared to ACCs with similar operational characteristics, Budapest ACC has a higher productivity, essentially due to high sector productivity which offsets a relatively high staffing per sector.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +10% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Budapest ACC recorded no en-route ATFM delays in 2010. No problems are currently foreseen for Budapest ACC between 2011 and 2014.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 168 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
HungaroControl (Hungary) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
3%
6%
9%
12%
15%
18%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.6
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+143%
+210%
-2%
-78%0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:1998* C:1998* C:1998* C:1998*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€13M
€16.2M(2012-2014)
€1.5M
Years
€21M
ATM COM NAV SUR Building
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
Over the 2005-2009 period, HungaroControl assets under construction ranged between 7% to 26% of the net book value of total fixed assets, an indication of sizeable capex during this period. The average remaining accounting life of HungaroControl assets has however remained relatively constant at 6 years. In 2009, HungaroControl required some €424 of fixed assets per composite flight-hour - a productivity of fixed assets of 2.4 composite flight-hours per €1,000 of fixed assets. This is the highest assets productivity amongst its peers. HungaroControl significantly reduced its capital investment in 2009 to €6M, below the annual average for 2005-2008 (€19M), and it is -78% lower of what was planned in ACE 2007 for the year.
The 2009 capital expenditure covered a number of projects, including a number of system upgrades for ALMOS (MET), VCMS/VRRS (COM) and MATIAS (ATM system), implementation of a Tower Simulator and construction of the new ACC building at Budapest.
The planned capex for 2010-2014 are similar to the 2005-2008 yearly average (€19M). Peaks are foreseen in 2011 (€29M) and 2012 (€24M). As compared to ACE 2007 plans, the ACE 2009 capex projections have been significantly revised upwards between 2010 and 2012, clearly indicating that some of the capex originally planned in 2009 has been postponed to the following years. The projected capital programme 2010-14 (€97M) includes the following number of buildings and systems upgrades:
• New building for Budapest ACC (i.e. ANS III, €13M between 2011 and 2012);
• Installation of ATM system in the new ACC building (i.e. €16M, between 2011 and 2013); and,
• Development of CPDLC infrastructure and MATIAS CPDLC functionality integration (i.e. €15M, between 2012 and 2014).
Despite sizeable investments between 2005 and 2009 the average remaining accounting life of HungaroControl assets has remained around 6 years throughout the period. The cumulative capex over 2010-2014 is still significant (new MATIAS ATM system and new ACC building). It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan, nor what the quantified contribution to performance improvements is expected (e.g. improve productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 169 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
HungaroControl (Hungary) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+12.5%
+15.4% -0.4% -1.9% +0.1%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
80
100
120
140
160
180
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 331 372 430 428 420 421
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 114 135 138 141 146
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 101 104 107 111 115
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PHungaroControl
+22%+17%
+5%
-8%
-8%-8%-8%-6%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
HungaroControl’s gate-to-gate unit costs are projected to increase significantly in 2010 (+13%) and again more significantly in 2011 (+15%), before decreasing over 2012 to 2014 at an annual average rate of some -1%. The early increase in unit cost is driven by +35% growth in gate-to-gate costs between 2009 and 2011, combined with a slow traffic increase. As a result over the 2009-2014 period HungaroControl’s gate-to-gate unit costs are planned to increase by +27%, i.e. a +4.9% p.a. on average.
Both actual 2009 costs and traffic were lower than what was forecasted at the end of 2008 (for ACE 2007) before the economic crisis – costs were -8% lower and traffic -6%, an indication of reactivity to the traffic decrease. For years 2010 to 2012, forecast costs have been significantly revised upwards between ACE 2007 and ACE 2009, while traffic has been revised downwards. This shows a much more pessimistic outlook of the unit costs performance for 2010-2012 than before the economic crisis.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Hungary en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Hungary planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Hungary Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
34.735.537.038.2
35.032.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
100
110
120
130
140
150
En-
rout
e tr
affic
& c
osts
inde
x (2
009=
100)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
p.a.-3.1%
30
40
50
60
70
80
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Czech Republic Hungary Slovak Republic Slovenia
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
ANS CR HungaroControl LPS Slovenia Control
Slovak Republic
0.7%
Slovenia0.4%
Hungary1.0%
Czech Republic
1.5%
3.6%Remaining
States96.4%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Over the period 2011-2014, Hungary’s en-route DUR is projected to fall by -3.1% p.a. on average, which is slightly below the objective adopted at EU-wide level (-3.5% p.a. for 2011-2014). Substantial increased are planned in 2010 and 2011, and when calculated over the period 2009-2014, Hungary’ s en-route DUR is projected to increase by +1.6% p.a. on average. This clearly contrasts with the increase of +4.9% p.a. on average in HungaroControl’s gate-to-gate unit costs, suggesting that different assumptions have been considered.
In 2009, Hungary had the lowest en-route DUR in their group. Should all comparators perform according to these plans, by 2014 Hungary still remains the lowest en-route DUR of its comparator group, but given the 2010 and 2011 increases its relative performance amongst its peers would have deteriorated.
Over the 2011-2014 period the current forecast (November 2010) show a planned reduction in Hungary’s en-route DUR of -3.1% per year on average. This is lower than the EU-wide targets (-3.5%). Moreover, if compared over the 2009-2014 period the en-route DUR, for Hungary is forecast to increase by on average some +1.6% p.a. given the significant increases in 2010 and 2011. Should all comparators perform according to these plans, by 2014 Hungary still remains the lowest en-route DUR amongst its comparator group.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 170 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
IAA (Ireland) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: Ireland is part of the Euro zone
IAA represents 1.4% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€309 €337€299 €317 €301
€342€380
€307€323€308
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+11%
+3% +3%
-3%
+8%
+1%+5%
-11%-8%
-20%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays+1030%
-93%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.871.000.950.890.81
-13%
+5%+7%
+9%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€85€84€76€82€71
+16%-8%
+11% +1%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+6%+2%-2%+6%
0
50
100
150
200
250
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
IAA is a medium-sized ANSP with costs amounting to 1.4% of the ACE gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs.
Composite flight-hours remained fairly constant over the period 2005-2009; a combination of increases in each year of 2006-2008 and a sharp -11% reduction in 2009.
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs increased by +13% between 2005 and 2009 (+3% p.a.). Despite these increases, IAA unit costs remained lower than that of NAV Portugal, although the gap between the two has narrowed over the period. IAA has typically experienced low levels of ATFM delay over the period, except in 2008 following Dublin airport capacity shortfalls at peak time.
ATCO-hour productivity increased by +7% p.a. between 2005 and 2008. However, the sharp traffic decline in 2009 (-11%) resulted in a -13% reduction in ATCO-hour productivity which remains the 12th highest in Europe.
Employment costs per ATCO-hour have increased by +20% over the period and are the 13th highest in Europe in 2009. The significant increase in 2008 (+11%) resulted from the retrospective increases in pay for 2006 and 2007. A pay freeze contributed to the low increase in 2009.
Over the period, IAA support costs increased by +14% while traffic remained fairly constant, resulting in an increase in unit support costs (+13%). The main drivers for this increase are rises in non-ATCO employment costs (+24%) and in non-staff operating costs (+16%).
IAA gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs increased by +13% between 2005 and 2009, mainly driven by rises in employment costs per ATCO-hour (+20%) and support costs (14%). Overall, IAA unit costs remain lower than NAV Portugal although the gap between the two has narrowed over the 2005-2009 period.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+7%
+12% +13% +13% +14%
+1%
+20%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 28%
Weight 72%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 171 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
IAA (Ireland) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Dublin 31 734 10 124 5.84 1.11
Shannon 210 289 32 334 1.32 1.21
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Shannon Dublin
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Dublin Shannon
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
15761569162616261639
18 252545 52
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Dublin Shannon
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Dublin 31 734 +0.8% 40 +0.5% 15 330 0%Shannon 210 289 +3.2% 119 +1.9% 54 067 +1.4%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Dublin 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.26 0.23
Shannon 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.08
Ireland 0.09 0.13 0.14
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Shannon
Dublin
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, IAA’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 1.9% and no en-route ATFM delays were reported in 2009 for the two Irish ACCs.
• The considerable amount of en-route ATFM delay reported in 2008 for Dublin ACC (largely “other ATC” related) was temporarily since it completely vanished in 2009.
• ATCO productivity increased steadily between 2005-2008 but decreased in 2009 in a context of severe traffic decline.
• Annual hours on duty declined between 2007 and 2008 and remained fairly constant in 2009. Overtime hours at Irish ACCs remained fairly moderate in 2009.
Compared to ACCs with similar operational characteristics, Dublin ACC tends to have lower productivity. However, Shannon ACC tends to have a higher level of productivity if compared with the average of the cluster. This is due to higher staffing per sector in Dublin ACC and higher sector productivity in Shannon ACC.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is -3% lower than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Shannon ACC recorded no en-route ATFM delays in 2010 whereas Dublin ACC’s delays were negligible. No problems are currently foreseen for Irish ACCs between 2011 and 2014. The main plans focus on further ATM systems improvement, sector capacity increases and airspace change projects locally or at UK/ Ireland FAB level.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 172 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
IAA (Ireland) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009) Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+21%-48%-53%
-33%
10
20
30
40
50
60
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2003* C:2003* C:2003* C:2003*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013 All ACCs
€2.5M€66M
(2006-2014)
NAVCOM SUR
€59M
ATM YearsBuilding
All ACCs
All ACCs
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
For IAA, 2009 corresponds to a peak in the investment cycle that started some years ago. Indeed, 2009 capex (€27M) are higher than the average annual capex spent between 2005 and 2008 (€18M). The 2009 capex covered a number of projects involving the construction of headquarter and operational units buildings, as well as major upgrades of ATM systems in Dublin and Shannon ACCs.
The share of IAA assets under construction continuously increased since 2005 to reach 36% in 2009, reflecting the capex spent in the previous years.
The productivity of IAA’s fixed assets is lower than that of NAV Portugal. In 2008, for IAA some €622 of fixed assets were required for 1 composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 1.61 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets). Following the sharp traffic decrease in 2009 (-10%), the productivity of IAA fixed assets decreased to reach a value of 1.26.
Compared to ACE 2007 plans, the capital expenditure projections have been revised significantly downwards in particular in 2010 and 2011. It is understood that a possible cause is the deferral of the construction of a new tower at Dublin Airport.
The projected capex for 2010-14 (€70M) is relating to a number of ongoing projects, the main one being the COOPANS including the replacement of the current FDP and RDP systems in Shannon and Dublin ACCs, as well as a radar replacement programme and the purchase of simulators for the training centre.
• COOPANS initiative (i.e. €50M, between 2006 and 2011), including the replacement of the current FDP and RDP systems (i.e. €11M);
• Fitting out of the headquarters building (i.e. €2.5M, between 2009 and 2010);
• Replacement of surface radars (A-SMGCS) (i.e. €39M, between 2011 and 2012);
• Replacement of VCSS (i.e. €12M, between 2011 and 2014); and,
• Purchase of simulators for the training centre (i.e. €4M, between 2010 and 2011).
IAA has made significant capital expenditures in the period 2005-2009 (€97M or 77% of 2009 gate-to-gate revenues) and additional €70M are planned to be spent between 2010 and 2014. It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan, nor what the quantified contribution to performance improvements is expected (e.g. improve ATCO productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 173 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
IAA (Ireland) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+11.5%+7.5%
-3.4% -2.1% -2.4%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
140
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 337 376 404 391 383 373
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 110 122 121 120 120
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 99 102 104 106 108
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PIAA
-21% -15% -15%
-16%
-15% -12% -11% -7%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
The gate-to-gate unit costs of IAA show substantial increases in 2010 (+12%) and 2011 (+8%) before moving to a decreasing trend for 2012-2014 (-2.2% per year on average). Over the whole 2009-2014 period, costs are foreseen to increase by +20% while composite flight-hours are forecast to increase only by +8%, resulting in an overall increase in the unit costs by +11%, or +2.1% on average per annum.
Actual traffic 2009 was -7% lower than what was forecasted before the financial crisis at the end of 2008 (for ACE 2007). IAA succeeded in reducing the 2009 costs in an even higher proportion (-16%). For years 2010 to 2012, planned traffic volumes have been significantly revised downwards,(by 11-15%) reflecting the impact of the economic downturn. It is noteworthy that planned costs have also been revised downwards by a large proportion (by 15-21%). As a result the unit costs profile in ACE 2009 reflects a more optimistic outlook than ACE 2007 plans.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Ireland en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Ireland planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Ireland Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
29.531.9 33.2
31.8 30.5 29.5
0
10
20
30
40
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
95
105
115
125
135
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-3.9% p.a.
25
35
45
55
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Ireland Portugal
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
75%
77%
79%
81%
83%
85%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
IAA NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
Remaining States96.4%
3.6%
Ireland1.7%
Portugal2.0%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Ireland plans for a significant increase in en-route costs per service units in 2010 (+7.8%) and 2011 (+4.3%). Then the DUR is expected to decrease over the 2011-2014 period (-3.9% p.a. on average). Overall, in 2014 Ireland DUR is planned to be at 2009 levels (€29.5). Over the 2009-2014 period, Ireland DUR is expected to remain significantly below that of Portugal.
After significant rises in 2010 and 2011, Ireland en-route determined unit rate is planned to reduce by -3.9% p.a. to reach in 2014 a level similar to that of 2009 (€29.5). Based on November 2010 forecasts, in 2014 Ireland DUR is expected to be well below that of Portugal.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 174 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LFV (Sweden) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 10.61 SEK
LFV represents 2.2% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€256 €312€233 €238 €249
€316
€269€278
€242€260
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+4% +6% +7%+10%
+1% +4%+2%
-9%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
-86%
+656%
-55% -65%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.650.700.700.680.70
-7%-0.1%+3%-2%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€74€67€69€59€59
+0.2%
+16% -2%
+10%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+24%
+6%-0.1%+2%
0
40
80
120
160
200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
In 2009, LFV represents some 2.2% of the European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs.
Traffic over the period experienced modest growth (+1% to +4%) before recording a sharp decline in 2009 (-9%), resulting in an average annual change of -3% over the 2005-2009 period.
ATM/CNS provision costs rose steadily and faster than traffic over the 2005-2009 period and a +10% increase was experience in 2009, mainly due to increased staff costs (both ATCOs and support). The traffic decrease and cost increase in 2009 resulted in a significant +22% increase in unit costs, a change from the modest +2 to +4% increases seen from 2005-2008. At +34% over 2005-2009, LFV records the highest increase in unit cost of its peer group. Despite these increases, financial unit costs for LFV are the second lowest of its comparator group. ATFM delay unit costs have been declining since 2007 and represent a small portion of the economic unit costs in 2009. Relative to its peers, traffic complexity is relatively low and variability is very low.
LFV ATCO productivity decreased by (-6%) over the 2005-2009 period and is the second lowest of its comparator group. This relatively low productivity combined with increasing ATCO employment costs have been the main drivers for increasing unit costs. Increasing employment costs have been associated with a new salary agreement applicable over the period 2007-2010. Also, in 2009 the social security and pension contributions rates rose from 80% to 99%. LFV’s productivity is the second lowest of its peer group, and its employment costs the second-highest.
Despite average annual increases of +8% over the 2005-2009 period, unit support costs for LFV are the lowest of its group. This is driven by low unit non-ATCO employment cost as they are the lowest of the group.
Despite a significant increase between 2005 and 2009 (+34%) LFV unit costs are relatively low compared to its peers; this is driven by its particularly low unit support costs. On the other hand, LFV has the second lowest ATCO productivity amongst its peers. This indicates potential scope for performance improvements.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
-6%
+34% +34%+29%+34%
-3%
+25%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 37%
Weight 63%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 175 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LFV (Sweden) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Malmo 194 882 25 313 2.72 1.12
Stockholm 133 586 21 232 2.45 1.15
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 90
95
100
105
110
115
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Malmo Stockholm
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Malmo Stockholm
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
16601660166016601559
454040 16 16
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Malmo Stockholm
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Malmo 194 882 n.a. 143 +0.6% 62 250 +0.4%Stockholm 133 586 n.a. 97 +2.0% 57 250 n.a.
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Malmo 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.07
Stockholm 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sweden 0.02 0.03 0.06
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Malmo Stockholm
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, LFV’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 2.9% and only a negligible amount of en-route ATFM delay was reported in 2009 for the two Swedish ACCs.
• After ATC capacity shortfall in 2005 and minor ones in 2008 (Malmo ACC), Swedish ACCs have maintained a level of low en-route ATFM delays until 2009.
• Since 2007, ATCO productivity of the two Swedish ACCs has declined, which has been exacerbated by the sharp traffic drop in 2009.
• Overtime hours at Swedish ACCs are negligible in 2009.
Compared to ACCs with similar operational characteristics, Swedish ACCs tend to have lower productivity as a result of lower sector productivity and higher staffing per sector.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about 3% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Swedish ACCs recorded higher en-route ATFM delays in 2010 due to staffing issues in Stockholm ACC. If staffing issues are resolved, no particular problems are expected at this stage in Sweden between 2011 and 2014 to meet the operational requirements of the network. The main projects refer to the deployment of system upgrades (COOPANS) in 2011-2012, the preparation for the “consolidation” of NUAC operations which are due to start in 2012/2013, and the gradual deployment of free route airspace projects.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 176 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LFV (Sweden) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009) Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+36%
+7%
+9%
10
15
20
25
30
35
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
+18%
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2005 (All ACCs)*
C:2009 (All ACCs)*
C:2005 (All ACCs)*
C:2005 (All ACCs)*
2006
2007
2008
2009 All ACCs C All ACCs
StockholmMalmo
2011 Malmo Malmo
2012 Stockholm Stockholm
2013
Building
€10.6M
2010
YearsNAV SUR
€6.2M
ATM COM
€63.8M (2006-2014)
€3.4M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
The share of LFV’s assets under construction has been increasing since 2007 to reach 24% in 2009, the highest portion in the last 5 years. This reflects the substantial investments made between 2005 and 2009 (€112M). Increasing depreciation costs since 2005 have lowered LFV’s average remaining accounting life from 12 years in 2005 to 7 in 2009. In 2009, some €342 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of 2.92 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets). Caution is needed with the interpretation of this high productivity since in Sweden until 2010 most terminal ANS assets (TWR buildings, ILS) were allocated to the airport department of LFV.
In 2009, LFV’s capex amounts to some €33M, which is higher than the annual average of investments made between 2005 and 2008 (€20M a year) and +36% higher than projected in ACE 2007. Compared to ACE 2007, the cumulative capex between 2009 and 2012 has been revised upwards, despite the adoption in 2008 of cost-containment measures aimed at, inter alia, postponing investments. The planned cumulative capex between 2010 and 2014 amounts to €65M (43% of the 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues) and it is significantly lower than what was spent in the previous 5 years (€112M). The depreciation is planned to increase over the 2010-2014 period, and from 2011 onwards, its value is forecasted to be higher than the annual capex thus suggesting a decreasing asset base, despite the replacement of FDS and HMI systems in Malmö and Stockolm ACCs (2011-2012). The cumulative capex planned between 2009 and 2014 relate to the following major investment projects:
• ATM system upgrades (COOPANS) (i.e. €61.4M, between 2006 and 2014);
• Regional Advanced ATM Migration Programme (RAMP) (i.e. €2.4M, between 2008 and 2010);
• Commissioning of new VHF Radio/UHF/8,33 kHz (i.e. €3.4M, between 2007 and 2012);
• Surveillance Upgrade Programme (WAM) (i.e. €6.2M, between 2009 and 2013); and,
• Construction of a building in Malmö for training and support (i.e. €10.6M, between 2007 and 2011).
LFV’s planned capex for the period 2010-2014 (€65M) are lower than the amounts expensed between 2005 and 2009 (€112M or 74% of 2009 gate-to-gate revenues). It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan, nor what the quantified contribution to performance improvements is expected (e.g. improve ATCO productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 177 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LFV (Sweden) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-1.7%+0.7%-2.4%-17.2%
+18.2%
0
100
200
300
400
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 312 368 305 298 300 295
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 122 104 104 106 107
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 103 106 109 110 113
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PLFV
-2%
+11%
-6% -7%
-12% -11% -9% -9%
0
50
100
150
200
250
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
300
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
LFV’s gate-to-gate unit costs are projected to increase significantly in 2010 (+18%) before decreasing significantly in 2011 (-17%); however, gate-to-gate unit costs are planned to remain fairly constant over 2012-2014. As a result over the 2009-2014 period LFV’s gate-to-gate unit costs are planned to decrease by -5%, i.e. a -1.1% p.a. on average.
Both actual 2009 costs (-2%) and traffic volumes (-12%) were lower than what was forecasted at the end of 2008 (for ACE 2007) before the economic crisis, an indication of reactivity to the traffic decrease. Planned costs have been significantly revised upwards (+11%) for 2010 and then revised downwards for the years 2011 and 2012 (by 6-7%). Traffic has been revised downwards during the whole period (by 9-11%). This shows a more pessimistic outlook of the unit costs performance for 2010-2012 than in ACE 2007.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Sweden en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Sweden planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Sweden Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
53.154.354.957.1
66.9
56.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-2.4%p.a.
30
40
50
60
70
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Norway Sweden Finland Poland
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
Avinor LFV Finavia PANSA
Finland0.5%
Poland1.7%
Sweden2.6%
Norway1.5%
Remaining States93.7%
6.3%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Sweden plans for a significant increase in en-route determined costs per service units in 2010 (+19%). Then the DUR is expected to decrease over the 2011-2014 period (-2.4% p.a. on average). Overall, Sweden’s en-route unit costs are planned to decrease by -1.2% p.a. over the 2009-2014 period. As a result, in 2014 Sweden DUR is expected to be the second highest in its peer group.
It should be noted that one of the comparators, Finavia presents some variable allocation of costs to en-route from one year to another but keep it at a stable 87% over 2011-2014, the highest of its comparator group.
Sweden’s en-route determined unit rate are planned to reduce by -2.4% p.a. over the 2011-2014 period. This is lower than the cost-efficiency target that has been adopted at EU-wide level (-3.5% p.a. for 2011-2014). Based on November 2010 forecasts, in 2014, Sweden DUR is expected to be the second highest in its peers group.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 178 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LGS (Latvia) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 0.70 LVL
LGS represents 0.3% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€247 €262€281 €300 €287
€262€247
€287€300€281
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+6%
-3% -3%
+11%
+15%+13%
+8%
-9%
-15%
-5%
5%
15%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.620.840.740.760.75
-25%
+12%
-3%+2%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€23€32€32€30€28
+10%+6% -2%
-29%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+7%-6%
-14% +8%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
In 2009, LGS represents some 0.3% of the European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs, and serves 0.4% of the European traffic (expressed in composite flight-hours).
Despite high growth, traffic complexity remains low as well as its seasonal variability and LGS has no capacity issue over 2005-2009 period.
Over 2005-2009, traffic levels increased by +23%. LGS recorded high traffic growth every year between 2005 and 2008 (+10% p.a. on average). However, traffic volumes significantly decreased in 2009 (-9%) reflecting the impact of the economic downturn.
Unit gate-to-gate costs fell by (-6.8%) between 2005 and 2009 (an average annual rate of -1.7%). In 2009, LGS unit gate-to-gate costs are between EANS and Oro Navigacija and remain amongst the lowest in Europe.
After steady increases over 2005-2007, ATCO employment costs per ATCO-hour decreased by (-29%) between 2008 and 2009 to a level -18% lower than the 2005 value.
ATCO-hour productivity fell sharply by (-25%) in 2009. LGS productivity was between EANS and Oro Navigacija productivity.
Support costs rose on average by +3.3% each year over 2005-2009. Traffic growth however has been more significant, ensuring that unit support costs decreased on average by -1.9% p.a. over the period. In 2009, the +34% increase in unit capital-related costs was the main driver for the rise in unit support costs.
Between 2005 and 2009, LGS gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs decreased by -7%, thus being amongst the lowest in Europe in 2009. Over the period, LGS ATCO-hour productivity has been consistently lower than that of its neighbour EANS, indicating scope for future performance improvement.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
-17%
-2%-7% -8%
+14%
+23%
-18%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 14%
Weight 86%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 179 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LGS (Latvia) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Riga 48 624 17 343 1.96 1.14
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Riga
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Riga
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
16961559
172116011601
1
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Riga
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Riga 48 624 +3.8% 38 +5.6% 18 220 0%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Riga 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.05
Latvia 0.02 0.04 0.05
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Riga
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, LGS’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 0.5% and no en-route ATFM delays were recorded for Riga ACC.
• ATCO productivity in Riga ACC increased between 2006 and 2008 but decreased in 2009 in a context of sharp traffic decline.
• In 2009, ATCO productivity of Riga ACC is much lower than Tallinn ACC and similar to Vilnius ACC which have similar operational characteristics. However, ATCO productivity of Riga ACC is well positioned on the average of the cluster. The lower ATCO productivity is due to a mix of higher staffing per sector and lower sector productivity.
• There is no overtime in Riga ACC.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +8% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Riga ACC did not record en-route ATFM delays in 2010. No particular issues are foreseen between 2011 and 2014 for Riga ACC.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 180 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LGS (Latvia) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009) Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
-17%
-78%-68%-89%0
5
10
15
20
25
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:1999* C:1999* C:1999* C:2003*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€10.5M€6.4M(2006-2015)
€2.3M
€2.3M
ATM NAV SUR Building YearsCOM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
The share of LGS’ assets under construction is equal to 7% of the total net book value of fixed assets, the lowest value in the last 5 years. Despite the significant capex spent between 2005 and 2009 (some €41M including major upgrades of the ATM systems in 2008), the average remaining accounting life of LGS’ fixed assets has been slightly decreasing since 2007 to reach 5.4 years in 2009. For LGS, €800 are required per composite flight-hour in 2009 (a productivity of 1.2 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets). LGS’ asset productivity is higher than Oro Navigacija (0.80) but lower than EANS (2.15).
In 2009, LGS’ capex amounts to some €2M, which is significantly lower than the capex spent on average between 2005 and 2008 (€10M a year). This is -89% lower than the amount planned in ACE 2007. Compared to ACE 2007, the planned capex between 2009 and 2012 has been significantly revised downwards. The cumulative capex planned over the 2010-2014 period is significant and amounts to some €20M (90% of the 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues). The cumulative capex planned between 2009 and 2014 mainly relates to the following investment projects:
• Modernization of surveillance system for provision of ATS in Latvia (MSSAL project) through the replacement of 3 radars (i.e. €8.8M, between 2007 and 2009);
• Modernisation of automated ATC system (i.e. FDP, OLDI, AMAN, new APP WP) (i.e. €4.6M, between 2010 and 2015);
• Purchase of ILS/DME equipment in Riga (i.e. €2.3M, between 2007 and 2010);
• Replacement of VHF Radios (i.e. €2.3M, between 2011 and 2012);
• Implementation of a Wide Area Multilateration system for Riga TMA (i.e. €1.7M, between 2007 and 2011);
• Purchase of 3D Tower simulators (i.e. €1.3M, between 2007 and 2010); and,
• AFTN/NOTAM/OPMET/FPMS system modernisation (i.e. €0.5M, between 2006 and 2010).
Despite an intensive investment cycle between 2005 and 2009 (€41M.) the average remaining accounting life of LGS assets remains relatively low (5.4 years in 2009). A significant investment programme is planned for 2010-2014 (€20M or 90% of LGS 2009 gate-to-gate revenues). It is expected that these investments, and in particular the replacement of ATM systems contribute to increase LGS ATCO-hour productivity in the future years.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 181 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LGS (Latvia) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-4.0%-7.5%-10.3%
+3.3%+8.8%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 262 285 295 264 245 235
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 111 121 115 112 112
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 102 108 114 120 125
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PLGS
-34% -34% -35% -43%
-5% -8% -6%
-4%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
LGS gate-to-gate unit costs are planned to decrease by -11% between 2009-2014 (i.e. -2.2% p.a.). It is noteworthy that gate-to-gate costs are forecasted to increase by some +11% p.a. in 2010 and by some +9% in 2011 and then planned to decrease at an average annual rate of -2.5% between 2011 and 2014. In the meantime, traffic volumes are expected to significantly increase by +25% (+5% p.a.).
Compared to ACE 2007 plans, in ACE 2009 LGS has revised its planned costs significantly downwards (by 34-43% over 2010-2012). The traffic profile has also been revised downwards but not in the same magnitude (4-8%). As the result, the unit costs profile in ACE 2009 reflects a more optimistic outlook than in ACE 2007 plans.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Latvia en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Latvia planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Latvia Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
25.5 26.4
30.1 29.527.9 26.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-3.7% p.a.
10
20
30
40
50
60
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Latvia Estonia Lithuania
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
EANS LGS Oro Navigacija
Estonia0.26%
Latvia0.24%
Lithuania0.27%
0.8%Remaining
States99.2%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Between 2009 and 2014, Latvia en-route unit costs are planned to rise by +5.4%. These planned en-route unit costs increases is mainly due to the fact that over the period en-route costs are forecast to increase faster (+32%) than SUs (+26%). It should be noted that Latvia will now include costs for the NSA/CAA, MET and also its contribution to the EUROCONTROL organisation (Latvia becoming a member with effect from 2011). After a significant increase in 2011 (+14%), Latvia en-route DUR are planned to decrease by -3.7% p.a. until 2014. According to November 2010 plans, Latvia DUR would be the second lowest in its peer group in 2014. It should be noted that in 2009 LGS has by far the lowest share of costs allocated to en-route ATM/CNS (65%) of its comparator group. This share is planned to remain fairly constant over the 2010-2014 period.
Latvia’s en-route unit costs are planned to increase by +5.4% p.a. over the 2009-2014 period. The en-route costs increases in 2010 and 2011 are mainly due to the inclusion of NSA/CAA, MET and EUROCONTROL costs in the Latvian cost-base. Latvia en-route DUR are then planned to decrease by -3.7% p.a. until 2014. Based on November 2010 forecasts, in 2014, Latvia DUR is expected to be the second lowest in its peers group.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 182 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LPS (Slovak Republic) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: Slovak Republic is part of the Euro zone
LPS represents 0.6% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€492 €536€530 €536 €488
€549€526
€595€562
€621
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+4%
-9%
+10%
+3%+0.1%
+9%+3%
-5%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
-72%
+318%
-69% -63%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.580.550.530.510.50
+7%+4%+3%+3%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€60€53€56€57€55
+2% -1%-5%
+14%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+10%+3%
-10%+2%
0
100
200
300
400
500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
LPS is one of the smallest European ANSPs, with costs representing 0.6% of the European gate-to-gate ATM/CNS total.
Over the 2005-2009 period, traffic has increased by +7%, despite a -5% decrease in 2009. Traffic complexity is intermediate, and traffic seasonality is rather high.
Between 2005 and 2008, LPS unit gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs decreased by -7.2%. The significant increase observed in 2009 (+9.0) is due to a combination of a decrease in traffic volumes (-5%) and an increase in ATM/CNS costs (+3%). In 2009, LPS had the highest unit financial cost among its comparators (ANS CR, HungaroControl and Slovenia Control) and the fourth highest in Europe.
ATFM delays have been observed over the period, especially in 2005 (year of commissioning of a new ATM system) and in 2007 (mainly due to a strike in February). Since 2008, ATFM delays have been contained at relatively low levels.
Over the 2005-2009 period, ATCO productivity rose by +18% while employment costs per ATCO-hour rose by +9%, positively affecting LPS cost-effectiveness performance. ATCO productivity rose by +7% in 2009, mainly due to the -11% fall in ATCO-on-duty hours. In 2009, LPS’s ATCO employment cost per ATCO-hour was the lowest of its comparator group. Although employment costs rose due to the implementation of a new collective agreement in 2009, it is understood that wage increases were outweighed by a reduction of overtime.
LPS’ unit support costs rose by +3% between 2005 and 2009, mainly due to increases in non ATCO employment costs and capital-related costs. In 2009, the increase in depreciation costs and cost of capital mainly reflect the entry in operation of a new Voice Communication Switching system and a new Terminal Approach Radar in Bratislava. In 2009, LPS’ unit support cost was the third highest in Europe.
LPS unit gate-to-gate financial costs have increased by +1% over the 2005-2009 period, and were the fourth highest in Europe in 2009. Unit support costs have remained high over the period. Despite some improvement between 2005 and 2008, ATCO-hour productivity remained well below LPS comparator’s average.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+18%
-7%
+1% +3%
+10%+9% +7%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 20%
Weight 80%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 183 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LPS (Slovak Republic) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Bratislava 69 900 13 317 4.34 1.38
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 90
100
110
120
130
140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Bratislava
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Bratislava
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
13841427135713811362
123 19 513
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
3
4
5
6
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Bratislava
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
3
4
5
6
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Bratislava 69 900 +5.9% 53 +2.8% 15 550 +2.5%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Bratislava 0.06 0.10 0.24 0.22 0.19
Slovak Republic 0.24 0.22 0.19
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Bratislava
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, LPS’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 0.6% in 2009. Minor en-route ATFM delays were recorded for Bratislava ACC in 2009.
• After a considerable amount of en-route ATFM delay in 2005 and 2007, Bratislava ACC managed to reduce significantly delays in 2008 and 2009.
• ATCO-hour productivity increased between 2005-2009 at an average annual rate of +4%.
• Compared to ACCs with similar operational caracteristics, Bratislava ACC tends to have a higher productivity as a consequence of a high sector productivity and lower staffing per sector.
• Overtime hours in Bratislava ACC are negligible throughout the 2005-2009 period.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +29% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. The actual en-route ATFM delays recorded by Bratislava ACC increased in 2010, but remain low. No significant problems are foreseen for Bratislava ACC between 2011 and 2014. It is expected that the main measures to support the deployment of additional ATC capacity will come from the new ATM system (expected in 2012), along with the new OPS room.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 184 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LPS (Slovak Republic) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.6
4.2
4.8
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+7%
+24%+0.2%
-31%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:1999* C:2005* C:1999* C:2009*
2006
2007
2008
2009 C
2010
2011
2012
2013
NAV
€8.5M
€34.1M
Building YearsATM COM
€1.7M
SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement Comments on capital expenditures
Over the 2005-2009 period, LPS assets under construction have represented between 9% and 19% of the net book value of total fixed assets. During this period an average of €6.9M have been invested each year. The average remaining accounting life of LPS assets decreased from almost 7 years in 2007 to 5 years in 2009. In 2008, for LPS some €913 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 1.10 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets). Following the 2009 traffic downturn (-5%), the productivity of LPS fixed assets decreased in 2009 to reach a value of 1.04. This is slightly higher than ANS CR, but much lower than HungaroControl and Slovenia Control (both higher than 2).
LPS capex amounted to €6.5M in 2009, which is close to the annual average capex spent between 2005 and 2008 (€6.9M). An important driver of LPS 2009 capex was the replacement of the terminal approach radar at Bratislava airport. Although LPS investment plans were revised downwards in 2009 compared to ACE 2007 projections, the cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 (€68M) are much higher than during the 2005-2009 period and correspond to 137% of the 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues.
The main capex for the 2009-2014 period comprise the following major investment projects:
• Construction of the new ACC in Bratislava (i.e. €30M, between 2007 and 2012);
• Monopulse Secondary Surveillance Radar (MSSR) East (i.e. €6M, including infrastructure and system, between 2009 and 2012); and,
• Upgrade of the MSSR in Velky Bucen (i.e. €1.6M, between 2009 and 2010).
Despite a sustained investment programme between 2005 and 2009 (some €6.9M p.a.) the average remaining accounting life of LPS assets fell to 5 years in 2009. While the 2009 actual capex was lower than planned in ACE 2007, LPS planned capex for the period 2011-2012 has been revised upwards, and comprises €30M for the construction of a new ACC in Bratislava. It is noteworthy that four ANSPs which are part of FAB CE plan significant investments relating to the construction of new ACCs or to the upgrade of the ATM system. It is clear that these initiatives in the context of a FAB will not alleviate the current fragmentation of the European system.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 185 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LPS (Slovak Republic) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-4.3%-2.2%+0.3%-12.9%
+6.4%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 536 570 497 498 487 466
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 112 107 112 114 114
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 105 115 121 126 131
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PLPS
-2%
+10%+5%
+6%
-8% -7%
-1% -1%
12
24
36
48
60
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
70
90
110
130
150
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
LPS’s unit gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to decrease by -13% between 2009 and 2014, an average annual decrease of -2.8%, as traffic is forecast to rise faster than costs between 2010 and 2014. Unit costs are planned to rise by +6.4% in 2010, mainly due to large increases in staff costs and depreciation costs. Between 2010 and 2011, unit costs are then planned to fall by -12.9%, mainly due to a forecasted increase in traffic of +10%.
When comparing 2009-2012 plans from ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, actual traffic in 2009 was -8% lower than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2077 data) while actual costs ended up only -2% below plans, an indication of limited reactivity to the traffic decrease. For the 2010-2012 outlook, LPS reported downwards revisions for the traffic forecast, but upward revisions for the planned costs which implies a deterioration of the unit cost profile compared to ACE 2007 plans.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Slovak Republic en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Slovak Republic planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Slovak Republic Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
51.152.853.852.5
58.556.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
En-
rout
e tr
affic
& c
osts
inde
x (2
009=
100)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
p.a.-0.9%
30
40
50
60
70
80
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Czech Republic Hungary Slovak Republic Slovenia
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
ANS CR HungaroControl LPS Slovenia Control
Slovak Republic
0.7%
Slovenia0.4%
Hungary1.0%
Czech Republic
1.5%
3.6%Remaining
States96.4%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Between 2009 and 2014, the Slovak en-route determined unit rates are planned to decrease by -9.8% (-2.1% p.a.). This is better than the +8% increase planned by Hungary, similar to the reduction planned by Slovenia (-10%) and less than the reduction planned by Czech Republic (-18%). Starting from 2011, the reduction in the DUR is -0.9% p.a. which is well below the cost-efficiency objective adopted at EU-wide level for RP1 (-3.5% p.a.).
In comparison to Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia, the Slovak en-route DUR was above the average of the group in 2009. By 2014, the Slovak position relative to the group average is projected to remain similar to that of 2009, would all the States perform according to their plans.
The planned reduction in the Slovak en-route unit costs over the 2009-2014 period (-2.1% p.a.) is below the planned reduction in LPS unit gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (-2.8% p.a.) mainly due to a progressive increase in the proportion of costs allocated to the en-route cost base (from 85% in 2009 to 91% in 2011). ANS CR, HungaroControl and Slovenia Control also plan to increase the share of costs allocated to the en-route cost base.
Between 2009 and 2014, the Slovak DUR is planned to decrease by -2.1% a year on average, which is better than the +8% increase planned by Hungary, similar to the reduction planned by Slovenia (-10%) and less ambitious than the reduction planned by Czech Republic (-18%). The DUR reduction planned for 2011-2014 (-0.9% p.a.) is significantly less than the EU-wide objective for RP1 (-3.5%). Would all States perform according to their plans, by 2014 Slovakia would not have improved its position relative to its comparators.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 186 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LVNL (Netherlands) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: The Netherlands are part of the Euro zone
LVNL represents 2.4% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€579 €684€713 €573 €563
€721€704€668€619
€806
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-15%
+2%
+9%
+2%+0.4%
-1%
+6%
-7%
+18%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
-51%
+130%
-70%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.910.890.991.010.84
+2%-10%
-2%+20%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€124€118€104€92€88
+4%
+13%
+13%+5%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+23%
-2%-5%-21%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
LVNL is a medium-sized ANSP, with costs amounting to 2.4% of the European total. LVNL’s responsibilities are confined to lower airspace, with upper airspace controlled by MUAC. Traffic complexity is among the highest in Europe.
Between 2005 and 2009, composite flight-hours fell by -0.4% Although most ANSPs experienced a reduction in 2009, the decline started in 2008 for LVNL.
Over the 2005-2009 period, LVNL economic cost-effectiveness improved: unit ATM/CNS costs fell by -4% and in 2009 the unit costs of ATFM delay reached their lowest level since 2005. However, it is noteworthy that LVNL started from a high base in 2005, due to exceptional restructuring costs in relation to ATM provision at regional airports and to the implementation of an Early Termination Scheme (ETS) for operational staff. In 2009, LVNL was the ANSPs with the second highest unit cost in Europe, after Belgocontrol.
ATCO-hour productivity rose by +2.0% on average between 2005 and 2009, but changes are not uniform over the period, perhaps because of a change in the methodology used to report ATCO-hour data. ATCO-hour productivity rose by +2% in 2009 despite the sharp decrease in traffic volumes (-7%).
Employment costs per ATCO-hour have increased by +40% over the period (or +8.8% a year on average) to reach €124 in 2009, the 7th highest in Europe. The main drivers for this increase were the recognition of additional pension liabilities required by the adoption of IFRS, in 2007, and the introduction of an ETS, in 2008. The +5% increase in 2009 mainly reflects a change in the basis used to calculate FTEs, and it is understood that in absence of this change, the unit employment costs for ATCOs in OPS would have remained at its 2008 level.
After marked reductions in 2006, 2007 and 2008, unit support costs rose by +23% in 2009 and are with Belgocontrol the highest in Europe. Support staff costs reported in 2009 included a provision of over €21M to cover redundancy costs planned between 2010 and 2014. The redundancy plan should then enable a reduction in support staff costs. It is also noteworthy that LVNL achieved major savings in non-staff operating costs in 2009 (-28% compared to 2008).
Since 2005, LVNL unit ATM/CNS provision costs have remained among the highest in Europe. Measures have been implemented in 2009 to enable substantial reductions in support costs and are expected to generate cost-effectiveness performance improvements in the forthcoming years.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+8%
+29%
-4%-10% -10%
-0.4%
+40%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 18%
Weight 82%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 187 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LVNL (Netherlands) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Amsterdam 76 975 10 160 9.21 1.10
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 90
95
100
105
110
115
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Amsterdam
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Amsterdam
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
16281653148114811550
22
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Amsterdam
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Amsterdam 76 975 +1.6% 60 +4.0% 29 493 0%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Amsterdam 0.04 0.20 0.12 0.14 0.18
Netherlands 0.12 0.14 0.18
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Amsterdam
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009,LVNL’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 1.1%. Minor en-route ATFM delays were recorded for Amsterdam ACC in 2009.
• In a context of declining traffic, en-route ATFM delays in Amsterdam ACC have continuously reduced since 2007.
• Despite the sharp traffic drop, ATCO productivity increased in 2009 to reach the previous levels achieved in 2007. This is mostly due to a reduction of staffing per sector in 2009.
• There are no overtime hours in Amsterdam ACC during the 2005-2009 period, except for a negligible amount in 2008 (ATM system replacement).
In 2009, ATCO productivity of Amsterdam ACC is higher than ACCs with similar operational characteristics. This is mostly due to lower staffing per sector.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is +4% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. The actual en-route ATFM delays recorded by Amsterdam ACC increased in 2010 (0.2 minute per flight). No significant problems are foreseen for Amsterdam ACC between 2011 and 2014. It is expected that the main measures to support the deployment of additional ATC capacity will come from continuous airspace and procedures improvements locally or in the context of FABEC.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 188 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LVNL (Netherlands) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0.0%
0.4%
0.8%
1.2%
1.6%
2.0%
2.4%
2.8%
3.2%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+76%+70%
+41%
-39%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:1998* C:1998* C:1998* C:1998*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€31.8M(2007-2014)
€20.1M
€1.7M
SURATM COM NAV YearsBuilding
€2.2M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
During the period 2005-2009, the share of LVNL assets under construction in the net book value remained contained, with a maximum of 10% in 2007, and only 3% in 2009. Cumulative investments over the period amounted to 47.5M (some €9.5M a year) and, after years of steady increases, the average remaining accounting life of the fixed assets remained slightly above nine years in 2009, in the range of its 2008 level. In 2008, for LVNL, some €1369 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 0.73 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets). Following the sharp traffic downturn (-7%), the productivity of LVNL fixed assets decreased in 2009 to reach a value of 0.67, higher than that of Belgocontrol (0.55).
LVNL capex amounted to €7.5M in 2009, which is below the average annual capex spent between 2005 and 2009 (€9.5M). The main drivers of LVNL 2009 capex were upgrades to the Voice Communication System, the development of a TWR simulator, the ATAS North Sea project, the Radio coverage North Sea project and the LS RD 06 project. Investments made in 2009 were significantly lower than planned in ACE 2007 plans (-39% or some -€4.8M). On the other hand, LVNL capex profile for the years 2010-2012 have been significantly revised upwards with respect to ACE 2007. The cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 is significantly higher than in the five preceding years and amount to €99M (47% of the 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues), with a peak in 2011-2012, mainly relating to the replacement of radar data processing systems. Furthermore, LVNL capex are planned to consistently exceed depreciation costs throughout the planning period, indicating a growing asset base. The capex planned for the period 2009-2014 include the following projects:
• Installation of long distance radar (i.e. €10M) and terminal approach radar –TAR (i.e. €8M) in 2012;
• Replacement of the tower simulator system (€6.8M, in 2012) and of CCIS (auxiliary information system); and,
• Voice Communication System (i.e. €25M, between 2009 and 2014).
LVNL planned capex for the period 2010-2014 amount to €99M (47% of 2009 gate-to-gate revenues) and include investments relating to the replacement of the ACC RDP system. It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan, nor what the quantified contribution to performance improvements is expected (e.g. improve ATCO productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 189 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LVNL (Netherlands) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-2.0%-2.4%-4.7%-4.9%-9.4%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 684 620 589 561 548 537
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 91 89 86 86 85
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 101 104 105 107 109
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PLVNL
+6%
-5% -11% -15%
-8% -8% -6% -6%
0
40
80
120
160
200
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
200
240
280
320
360
400
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
LVNL unit gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to decrease by -22% between 2009 and 2014, an average annual decrease of -4.7%. This significant decrease is due to the fact that costs are planned to decrease by -15% while traffic is expected to increase by +9%.
It is noteworthy, however, that LVNL 2009 costs are included one-off exceptional costs associated with LVNL staff reduction programme. If these costs (around €20M) were not recorded in 2009, reductions in unit gate-to-gate costs over the period would fall to some -2% per year.
In 2009, costs were +6% higher than planned in ACE 2007, while traffic was -8% lower, resulting in a significantly higher unit cost. The higher actual 2009 costs are mainly due to the inclusion of the costs relating to the staff reduction programme in LVNL cost-base. Over the 2011-2012 period, planned costs have been revised downwards in greater proportions than traffic. This implies a more optimistic profile in terms of unit costs than in ACE 2007 plans.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in the Netherlands en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares the Netherlands planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Netherlands Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
74.066.9
61.5 60.8 60.6 60.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSAMUAC En-route costs SUs
-0.6% p.a.
50
60
70
80
90
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Belgium Netherlands
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
Belgocontrol LVNL
Netherlands2.9%
Belgium2.7%
5.6%Remaining
States94.4%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Between 2009 and 2014, the Netherlands en-route unit costs are planned to fall by -4.0% per year on average. Significant unit costs reductions are planned for 2010 (-10%) and 2011 (-8%) reflecting the staff reduction programme implemented by LVNL. Starting from 2011, the Netherland DUR is planned to decrease by -0.6% per year which is well below the cost-efficiency objective adopted at EU-wide level (-3.5% p.a.).
According to the plans submitted in November 2010, The Netherlands DUR is planned to remain at least 10% below that of Belgocontrol over the period, indicating that the projections of the two States, although both showing declining trends are not likely to change their relative positions in 2014.
While no change in cost allocation is planned by LVNL, Belgocontrol plans to allocate a smaller share of its costs to the en-route cost base from 2010 onwards (63% compared to 75% in 2009).
Between 2009 and 2014, The Netherlands plan a -4.0% annual reduction in en-route unit costs. Significant decreases are planned for 2010 and 2011 (-10% and -8%, respectively) mainly reflecting a staff reduction programme implemented by LVNL. Between 2011 and 2014, the Dutch en-route determined unit rate is planned to fall by -0.6% per year on average, which is less than the cost-efficiency objective adopted at EU-wide level (-3.5% p.a.). Would the States perform according to these plans, the Netherlands DUR would be consistently -10% lower than that of Belgium over the 2011-2014 period.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 190 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
MATS (Malta) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: Malta is part of the Euro zone
MATS represents 0.2% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€265 €275€321 €319 €314
€278€265
€314€319€321
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+2%
+10%
-9%
+4%
+12%
+7%
+2%+0.4%
-15%
-5%
5%
15%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.470.490.540.430.42
-3%-10%
+27%
+3%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€22€23€29€19€21
-8%
+50%
-21% -2%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+4%-16%
-5%+1%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
MATS is one of the smallest European ANSPs, with costs amounting to 0.2% of the European gate-to-gate total.
Over the 2005-2009 period, traffic has increased by +23%. This overall increase mainly results from two years of record growth (+12% in 2007 and +7% in 2008). It contrasts with the +4.7% traffic increase observed at European system level over the same period. Traffic in Maltese airspace is the least complex in Europe, while traffic variability is lower than for its neighbours HCAA and DCAC Cyprus.
Over the 2005-2008 period, unit gate-to-gate costs for MATS have decreased by -17.3%, with most of the fall arising in 2008 (-15.5%). The 2008 decrease in unit costs results from reductions in staff costs (due to retirements) and in cost of capital combined with a +7.2% increase in traffic. In 2009, unit costs rose by +3.9% in a context of slackening traffic growth (+0.4%). In 2009, MATS’ unit gate-to-gate costs were the fifth lowest in Europe, and the lowest among its comparator group (comprising DCAC Cyprus, HCAA, BULATSA and ROMATSA).
ATFM delays are not a problem in Maltese airspace.
ATCO-hour productivity rose by +13.5% between 2005 and 2009, an average of +3.2% a year. Despite this increase, MATS ATCO-hour productivity was the second lowest of its comparator group in 2009 and among the lowest in Europe. Employment costs per ATCO-hour rose by +6% over the 2005-2009 period. The noticeable discontinuity in both ATCO-hour productivity and employment costs per ATCO-hour in 2007 is due to changes in reporting and increases in overtime.
Support costs rose by +4% over the 2005-2009 period, and traffic by +23%, enabling an overall decrease in unit support costs of -15%. A key driver for this reduction was a -23% fall in unit non-ATCO employment costs in 2008, due to cuts in the number of technical support staff and ATC assistants. In 2009, MATS’ unit non-ATCO employment costs were the third lowest in Europe. However, its unit non-staff operating costs were the fifth highest, reflecting an atypical cost structure.
MATS unit costs fell by -14% over the 2005-2009 period, benefiting from a strong traffic growth combined with reductions in support staff and a containment of ATCO employment costs. However, MATS ATCO-hour productivity is among the lowest in Europe and remains an important area for improvement.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+14%
-7%-14% -15%
+4%
+23%
+6%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 16%
Weight 84%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 191 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
MATS (Malta) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Malta 35 912 25 334 0.55 1.26
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 70
80
90
100
110
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Malta
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Malta
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
18841958
175217291739
217162376
435503
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
2
3
4
5
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Malta
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
2
3
4
5
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Malta 35 912 +2.0% 28 +2.7% 11 680 0%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Malta 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.05
Malta 0.02 0.03 0.05
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
20
40
60
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Malta
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, MATS’ traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 0.3% and only negligible en-route ATFM delays were recorded for Malta ACC (ATC other related).
• ATCO productivity at Malta ACC continuously increased between 2005 and 2009.
• High levels of overtime have been continuously used between 2005 and 2009.
ATCO productivity of Malta ACC tends to be slightly lower than the average of ACCs with similar operational characteristics, mostly due to a mix of higher staffing per sector and lower sector productivity (although the latter has gradually improved since 2005).
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +12% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Malta ACC did not record en-route ATFM delays in 2010. No significant problems are foreseen between 2011 and 2014 for Malta ACC.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 192 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
MATS (Malta) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009) Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
3%
6%
9%
12%
15%
18%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+732%
+100%
-86%
+675%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:1996* C:1996* C:1996* C:1996*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
NAV SUR
€0.8M
ATM COM
€4.8M
Building Years
€7.5M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
Over the 2005-2008 period, MATS’ assets under construction have represented between 0% and 7% of the net book value of total fixed assets. This reflects low levels of capital expenditure over the period (some €1.8M p.a. on average). The average remaining accounting life of MATS assets has been consistently decreasing since 2005, reaching 2.6 years in 2009, which is among the lowest values in the ACE sample. In 2009, for MATS some €457 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 2.2 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets, which is higher than the asset productivity achieved by the comparators It is understood that this relatively high asset productivity is mainly reflecting an old asset base.
MATS capex amounted to €5.6M in 2009, which is significantly higher than the annual average capex spent over the 2005-2008 period (€1.8M p.a.). The main driver for MATS 2009 capex was the construction of a new administration building (completed in 2009). MATS investments that were planned for the year 2010 in ACE 2007 have been postponed to 2011-2012. The cumulative capex over the 2010-2014 period amounts to some €13M (91% of the 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues) indicating the start of an investment cycle in 2011, with capex well above depreciation costs in 2011-2012, suggesting a growing asset base.
The capex planned for the 2009-2014 period comprise the following major investment projects:
• Replacement of the ATM system (FDP, RDP and HMI system) in 2012 (i.e. €6.5M, between 2011 and 2013);
• Purchase and installation of 2 Monopulse Secondary Surveillance Radars (MSSRs) (i.e. €4.8M, between 2009 and 2012);
• Replacement of Voice Communication System – VCS (i.e. €1M, between 2011 and 2012); and,
• Purchase of a Very high frequency Omni-directional Range (VOR) equipment (i.e. €0.25M, to be commissioned in 2012).
After a period of contained capital expenditures MATS invested €5.6M in 2009 and plans to start a major investment cycle in 2011. Planned capex include the replacement of ATM systems, voice communication systems and the purchase of radars. It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan, nor what the quantified contribution to performance improvements is expected (e.g. improve ATCO productivity in the future years).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 193 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
MATS (Malta) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-5.0%-5.4%+1.3%+1.7%-9.0%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 275 251 255 258 244 232
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 93 96 100 96 93
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 102 104 106 108 110
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PMATS
-8% -10% -8% -10%
-5% -8% -11% -15%
0
5
10
15
20
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
30
50
70
90
110
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
MATS’ gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs are planned to fall by -16% between 2009 and 2014, an average annual decrease of -3.4%, as costs are planned to fall by -7%, while traffic is forecasted to rise by +10% over the period. The planned reduction in gate-to-gate costs in 2010 mainly reflects a -45% reduction in depreciation costs (-€0.9M) consecutive to the full depreciation of the old ATM systems.
When comparing 2009-2012 plans from ACE 2009 and ACE 2007, actual traffic in 2009 was -5% lower than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data) while actual costs ended up -8% below the plans, an indication of reactivity to the traffic decrease. For the 2010-2012 outlook MATS reported downward revisions for both planned costs (around -10% on average) and traffic forecast (-11% on average) which implies a slight deterioration of the unit costs profile compared to ACE 2007.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Malta en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Malta planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Malta Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
17.819.620.520.9
22.4
27.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
85
100
115
130
145
160
175
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
p.a.-5.2%
10
20
30
40
50
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Cyprus Greece Malta Bulgaria Romania
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
DCAC Cyprus HCAA MATS BULATSA ROMATSA
Malta0.2%
Romania2.1%
Bulgaria1.2%
Cyprus0.7%
Greece2.9%
7.1%Remaining
States92.9%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
According to Malta submission to the Enlarged Committee for Route Charges in November 2010, the en-route determined unit rate was planned to decrease by -35% (-8.2% p.a.) between 2009 and 2014. It is noteworthy, however, that the November 2010 projections were based on the assumption of a +41% increase in service units over the 2009-2014 period. Following the Libyan crisis impact on air transport in the region, Malta revised in traffic forecast downwards (+21% instead of +41% for the service unit forecast over the 2009-2014 period).
In comparison to Cyprus, Greece, Bulgaria and Romania, Malta en-route DUR was the lowest of the group in 2009. Although all comparators plan reductions in their DUR, Malta would still have the lowest DUR of the group, would all States perform according to their plans.
An important driver of Malta lower DUR in 2009 and throughout the 2010-2014 period is that MATS allocated only 76% of its gate-to-gate costs to the en-route cost base, compared to some 85% for the comparators States. The difference in allocation is planned to widen by 2014, with MATS share of en-route costs falling to 73% and its comparators’ shares rising to 87%.
Over the 2009-2014 period, Malta plans to reduce its en-route determined unit rate by a cumulative -35% (an average annual rate of -8.2%). Between 2009 and 2011, the en-route DUR is planned to fall by -23% and then to decrease at an annual rate of -5.2% until 2014. Although all comparators plan reductions in their DUR, Malta would have the lowest DUR of the group in 2014, would all States perform according to their plans.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 194 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
M-NAV (FYROM) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 61.18 MKD
M-NAV represents 0.1% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€442 €440€459 €458 €444
€440€442€444€458€459
0
100
200
300
400
500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-3% -6%
+3%
-3%-3%
+4%
-3% -2%
-15%
-5%
5%
15%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.250.280.310.300.32
-10%-10%
+2%-6%
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€27€24€23€21€21
+0.2%+9% +5%
+14%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
-7%-4%-5%
-1%
0
100
200
300
400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
M-NAV is one of the smallest ANSPs in Europe, with costs amounting to 0.1% of the European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs. In July 2009, the ANSP split from the Civil Aviation Agency, forming M-NAV (previously MK CAA). M-NAV traffic is of intermediate complexity but traffic variability is the highest in Europe since in the peak week traffic is +63% higher than the average weekly traffic during the year.
Over the 2005-2009 period, composite flight-hours fell by -4.5%. In fact traffic decreased in each year over the period except for 2008, which showed a +4% increase. It is noteworthy that in the FYROM airspace traffic is sensitive to changes in route structure and its adjacency to Kosovo introduces additional volatility. Over the same period, M-NAV neighbour, NATA Albania experienced a significant traffic increase (+32%).
M-NAV unit ATM/CNS provision costs decreased by -4.2% between 2005 and 2009 (-1.1% p.a.). In 2009, despite a -0.5% decrease compared to 2008, M-NAV unit ATM/CNS provision costs (€440) are +7% higher than for NATA Albania, its more comparable neighbour. Furthermore, in 2009 M-NAV unit costs are the 12th highest in Europe. A surprisingly high level given the lower cost of living and prevailing wages rates in FYROM. Over the period, ATFM delays have not been a problem for M-NAV.
ATCO-hour productivity significantly decreased since 2005 (-22%) and is currently one of the lowest in Europe and less than the half that of NATA Albania. On the other hand, employment costs per ATCO-hour significantly increased over the period (+31%) with a peak of +14% in 2009.
M-NAV support costs significantly fell over the period (-20%). However, despite these reductions M-NAV unit support costs are still the 13th highest in Europe. The significant increase in non-ATCO staff costs in 2008 was mainly due to the implementation of a new law in October 2007 (with retrospective effect from September 2007) specifying an increase of +10% per annum in net salaries of public administration staff over 2007-2009.
M-NAV ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour slightly reduced since 2005 but are the 12th highest in Europe in 2009. In 2009, M-NAV ATCO-hour productivity remains well below that of NATA Albania, indicating room for performance improvement.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
-22%
-4%-16% -20%
+68%
-4%
+31%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 18%
Weight 82%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 195 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
M-NAV (FYROM) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Skopje 18 793 9 317 2.70 1.63
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Skopje
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Skopje
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
14641464137713771376
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Skopje
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Skopje 18 793 +3.6% 36 +1.6% 9 610 n.a.
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Skopje 0.00 0.00 N/appl N/appl N/appl
FYROM N/appl N/appl N/appl
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL
capacity planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Skopje
Comments on planned capacity profile
In 2009, M-NAV’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 0.2% and no en-route ATFM delay was recorded for Skopje ACC.
• Excepting a small increase in 2007, Skopje ACC ATCO productivity decreased over the period.
• In 2009, ATCO productivity at Skopje ACC is lower than ACCs with similar characteristics, mainly due to high staffing per sector. Staffing per sector is showing an increasing trend over the period and sector productivity has shown no improvement.
• No overtime was recorded over the period for Skopje ACC.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +18% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. In 2010, Skopje ACC recorded no en-route ATFM delay, which is no change from 2009. Whilst Kosovo airspace remains closed, the current capacity plan for Skopje ACC is sufficient to meet expected demand. No capacity problems are foreseen between 2011 and 2014 however M-NAV is prepared to open a fourth sector if required.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 196 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
M-NAV (FYROM) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
3%
6%
9%
12%
15%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
1
2
3
4
5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.7
1.4
2.1
2.8
3.5
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
-21%
-96%
-95%-86%
0
1
2
3
4
5
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2002* C:2002* C:2002* C:2003*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
€0.75M 2012
2013
€7.7M(2011-2014)
ATM NAVCOM SUR
€2.3M(2012-2014)
€0.5M(2010-2014)
Building Years
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
Over the 2005-2009 period, the share of M-NAV assets under construction has been consistently low ranging from a high of 8% in 2005 to 0% of the net book value of total fixed assets in 2008 and 2009. The average remaining accounting life of M-NAV assets remained between 5 and 7 years during the period. In 2008, for M-NAV some €668 of fixed assets were required for 1 composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 1.5 composite flight-hour per €1 000 of fixed assets). The productivity of M-NAV’s fixed assets increased in 2009 to reach a value of 1.8.
M-NAV capex amounted to €0.1M in 2009, this is lower than the average capex spent annually between 2005 and 2008 (€1.3M). Although M-NAV investment plans were revised substantially downwards in 2010, 2011 and 2012 compared to ACE 2007 projections, the cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 remain high at around €8M which corresponds to 76% of 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues.
The capex planned for the 2009-2014 period comprise the following major investment projects:
• Procurement of new ATM systems and backup contingency ATC system (i.e. €6.5M, to be commissioned in 2013);
• Installation of backup and new VCS (i.e. €0.35M, in 2011);
• Purchase of new VHF radio system (i.e. €0.75M, in 2012);
• Mode-S enhanced surveillance ground station implementation (i.e. €2.3M, between 2012 and 2014); and,
• Construction of new building for ANSP headquarters (i.e. €0.4M, in 2014).
Although M-NAV projected capex were revised downwards compared to ACE 2007 forecast, a substantial investment programme is planned for 2010-2014 (€8M or 76% of M-NAV 2009 revenues). It is expected that these investments and in particular the implementation of the new ATM systems contribute to improve M-NAV ATCO-hour productivity in the future years.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 197 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
M-NAV (FYROM) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-6.2%-3.3%-5.3%
-7.1%-9.5%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
80
90
100
110
120
130
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 440 398 370 351 339 318
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 93 91 90 91 89
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 103 108 113 118 124
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PM-NAV
-6% -14% -20% -18%
-6% -7% -6% -7%
0
3
6
9
12
15
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
18
26
34
42
50
58
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
M-NAV gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to decrease by -28% over the 2009-2014 period (i.e. -6.3% p.a.) since traffic volumes are expected to increase by +24% while ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to decrease by -11%. This decrease is not uniform over the period, since the unit costs are planned to significantly decrease in 2010 (-9.5%) and then to decrease at an average rate of -5.5% until 2014.
When comparing plans for 2009-2012 from the ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, 2009 actual traffic and costs were -6% lower than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data), an indication of reactivity to the traffic decrease. Compared to ACE 2007 plans, in ACE 2009 M-NAV has revised costs significantly downwards (by 14-20% over 2010-2012). The traffic profile has also been revised downwards but not in the same magnitude (6-7%). As the result, the unit costs profile in ACE 2009 reflects a more optimistic outlook than in ACE 2007 plans.
En-route unit costs
The chart below shows planned changes in FYROM en-route unit costs over the period 2010-2014. The chart on the bottom of this page shows planned changes in allocation of en-route costs for M-NAV between 2009 and 2014.
Planned en-route unit costs for FYROM
26.028.1
22.7 21.7 19.8 18.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-2.6% p.a.
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
M-NAV
Comments on en-route unit costs (Nov. 2010 data)
Between 2009 and 2014, FYROM en-route unit costs are planned to decrease by -18% between 2009 and 2014 since SUs are expected to substantially increase (+17%) while en-route ANS costs are planned to slightly decrease (-3.9%). A trend which is consistent with M-NAV planned gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs over the same period.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 198 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
MoldATSA (Moldova) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 15.45 MDL
MoldATSA represents 0.1% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€410 €452€448 €424 €446
€452
€410€446
€424€448
0
100
200
300
400
500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-2%
+24%
+6%
+17%+18%+15%
+4%+6%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.180.170.140.140.13
+5%+19%
+2%+8%
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€10€9€6€6€6
+1% -4%
+41%
+14%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+10%-11%
+6%-5%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
MoldATSA is one of the smallest ANSPs in Europe, with costs amounting to 0.1% of the European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs. MoldATSA traffic is of lower complexity but traffic variability is intermediate.
Over the 2005-2009 period, composite flight-hours grown rapidly at an average annual rate of +11%. Despite the rapid and sustained traffic growth, ATFM delays are not a problem in Moldavian airspace.
MoldATSA’s ATM/CNS provision costs have increased in line with the traffic (+51%) and as a result unit ATM/CNS provision costs remained fairly constant between 2005 and 2009. In 2009, MoldATSA unit costs are the 10th highest in Europe. A surprisingly high level given underlying economic and traffic demand fundamentals in Moldova.
ATCO-hour productivity significantly increased since 2005 (+37%) but it remains in 2009, the 2nd lowest in Europe. Employment costs per ATCO-hour decreased between 2005 and 2007 before significantly increasing in 2008 and 2009. This reflects the establishment in 2008 of a minimum salary level for public servants in Moldova. Despite these increases, MoldATSA employment costs per ATCO-hour are in 2009 amongst the lowest in Europe.
Between 2005 and 2009, unit support costs remained fairly constant (-1%). MoldATSA 2009 unit support costs amount to €396 and are the 4th highest in Europe.
In 2009, capital-related costs represent 45% of MoldATSA support costs and are the main driver for the higher unit support costs. These costs are associated with the modernization of the ATM/CNS infrastructure, in particular the commissioning of a new RDP system. It also appears that some elements of capex have been reported directly as capital-related costs rather than being capitalised in MoldATSA balance-sheet.
Over the 2005-2009 period, MoldATSA unit gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs remained fairly constant despite a significant traffic increase (+50%). MoldATSA 2009 unit costs are the 10th highest in Europe. This is mainly due to a low ATCO-hour productivity and unit support costs that are in 2009 the 4th highest in Europe, indicating substantial room for performance improvements.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+37%
+14%
+1%
-1%
+48% +50%+56%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 11%
Weight 89%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 199 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
MoldATSA (Moldova) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Chisinau 10 378 14 319 0.86 1.30
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Chisinau
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Chisinau
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
14701455142814281428
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
0
1
2
3
4
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Chisinau
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
0
1
2
3
4
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Chisinau 10 378 +4.6% 33 +1.2% 17 520 0%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Chisinau 0.00 0.00 N/appl N/appl N/appl
Moldova N/appl N/appl N/appl
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL
capacity planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Chisinau
Comments on planned capacity profile
In 2009, MOLDATSA’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 0.1% and no en-route ATFM delays were recorded for Chisinau ACC despite steep increases in traffic.
• Chisinau ACC ATCO productivity was steady over 2005-2007 and increased in 2008 and 2009, in the context of rapidly increasing traffic.
• In 2009, ATCO productivity at Chisinau ACC is generally much lower than ACCs with similar characteristics, mainly due to particularly low sector productivity. This area has shown little improvement over the period amidst minor increases in staffing per sector.
• No overtime was recorded over 2005-2009 for Chisinau ACC.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +61% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Chisinau ACC recorded no en-route ATFM delay in 2010, which is no change from 2009 levels. No capacity issues are expected for Chisinau ACC over the 2010-2014 period.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 200 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
MoldATSA (Moldova) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
2
4
6
8
10
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0
5
10
15
20
25
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+79%
+32% +34%
+103%
0.5
0.9
1.3
1.7
2.1
2.5
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:1998* C:1998* C:1998* C:2002*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
SURCOM
€3.8M
€1.2M
NAV Building YearsATM
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
Over the 2005-2008 period, MoldATSA assets under construction have been consistently below 10% of the net book value of total fixed assets. The significant investment made in 2008 (€9.6M) contributed to increase the share of assets under construction in 2009 (17% of the net book value of total fixed assets). Despite this major capex, the average remaining accounting life of MoldATSA assets significantly decreased from 14 years in 2008 to 6 years in 2009. Caution is needed with the interpretation of these figures since it is understood that some elements of capex are not capitalised in MoldATSA balance-sheet but treated directly as capital-related costs.
In 2008, for MoldATSA some €817 of fixed assets were required for 1 composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 1.2 composite flight-hour per €1 000 of fixed assets). In 2009, the productivity of MoldATSA fixed assets decreased to reach a value of 1.1.
MoldATSA’s capex amounted to €2M in 2009. The planned cumulative capex between 2010 and 2014 amounts to €8M (91% of the 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues) and it is significantly lower than what was spent in the previous 5 years (€15M). The capex planned for the 2009-2014 period mainly relate to the following investment projects:
• Implementation of Thales radar system (i.e. €3.78M, between 2006 and 2009);
• Replacement of FDP, RDP and HMI systems in the context of the ATC Centre modernization programme (2011-2012);
• Construction of a new training centre for ATCOs (to be commissioned in 2010-2011);
• Modernisation of VHF Radio system (i.e. €0.69M, between 2008 and 2009); and,
• Implementation of Aeronautical Fixed Telecommunication Network (AFTN) and Aeronautical Message Handling System (AMHS) (i.e. €0.5M, between 2008 and 2009).
MoldATSA projected capex for 2010-2014 amount to €8M and represent 91% of 2009 gate-to-gate revenues. It is expected that these investments and in particular the implementation of the new ATM systems contribute to improve MoldATSA ATCO-hour productivity in the future years.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 201 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
MoldATSA (Moldova) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-4.6%-3.2%-3.8%
+10.0%-14.1%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
140
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 452 388 427 411 398 380
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 96 113 113 115 115
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 112 119 124 130 136
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PMoldATSA
+21% +21%
+54% +66%
-6%
+4%+3% +4%
0
2
4
6
8
10
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
10
15
20
25
30
35
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
MoldATSA gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to significantly decrease by -16.0% over the 2009-2014 period (i.e. -3.4% p.a.) since composite flight-hours are planned to increase faster (+36%) than ATM/CNS provision costs (+15%). MoldATSA ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to significantly increase in 2011 (+17% compared to 2010). This increase is mainly due a significant rise in the cost of capital (+110%) reflecting the commissioning of the new ATM systems.
Compared to ACE 2007 plans, in ACE 2009 MoldATSA has revised its planned costs significantly upwards (+21-66% over 2010-2012). Similarly, the traffic profile has also been revised upwards but not in the same magnitude (+3-4%). As the result, the unit costs profile in ACE 2009 provides a more pessimistic outlook than in ACE 2007 plans.
En-route unit costs
The chart below shows planned changes in Moldova en-route unit costs over the period 2010-2014. The chart on the bottom of this page shows planned changes in allocation of en-route costs for MoldATSA between 2009 and 2014.
Planned en-route unit costs for Moldova
26.0
28.1
22.7 21.719.8
18.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
80
90
100
110
120
130
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-5.5% p.a.
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
MoldATSA
Comments on the planned en-route unit costs (Nov. 2010 data)
Between 2009 and 2014, Moldova en-route unit costs are planned to decrease by -36% (i.e. -8.6% p.a.). After significant decreases in 2010 (-10.4%) and 2011 (-15.7%), en-route unit costs are planned to decrease by -5.5% p.a. until 2014. These planned en-route unit costs reductions reflect a significant decrease in en-route costs (-20%) over the period while SUs are expected to increase by +25%.
Moldova en-route unit costs profile significantly contrasts with the planned changes in MoldATSA gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs which are expected to slightly decrease over the same period. One of the main drivers for this difference is that gate-to-gate costs are planned to increase (+15%) while en-route costs are expected to decrease (-20%), indicating potential inconsistencies in reporting planned costs data.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 202 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
MUAC (Maastricht) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: Maastricht is within the Euro zone
MUAC represents 1.8% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€223 €253€234 €225 €217
€261
€299€312
€269€252
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+3% +2% +4% +4%+5%
+1%
+7%
-8%
-21%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
+155% +117%
-89%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
1.831.861.861.791.65
-2%+0.2%+4%+9%
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€146€136€137€132€117
+13%+3% -0.4%
+8%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+15%
+5%-5%
-8%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
MUAC is a medium-sized ANSP, with costs amounting to 1.8% of the European total.
Over the 2005-2009 period, traffic has increased by +4%, a growth similar to the European average. This overall increase results from a sharp decrease in 2009 (-8%) which cancelled out over two thirds of the growth accumulated between 2005 and 2008 (+14%). MUAC is responsible for upper airspace only and its traffic complexity is among the highest in Europe.
Between 2005 and 2008, MUAC financial costs per flight-hour decreased by -4.8%. The significant increase observed in 2009 (+13%) is due to a combination of traffic decline (-8%) and costs increases (+4%) which were mainly resulting from an increase in the number of staff and an increase in depreciation costs (following the commissioning of a new ATM system in 2008). Face value, MUAC 2009 unit ATM/CNS cost (€253) is the second lowest in Europe. However, MUAC does not bear the full costs of CNS infrastructure which are made available for joint use by the ANSPs (Belgocontrol, DFS, and LVNL) operating in the Four States airspace.
ATFM delays have been an issue over the period, representing a substantial proportion of MUAC economic costs (over 25% in 2007 and 2008). In 2009, following the sharp traffic downturn, ATFM delays were reduced to marginal levels.
Over the 2005-2008 period, employment costs per ATCO hour rose faster (+16%) than ATCO productivity (+13%), negatively affecting MUAC cost effectiveness performance. In 2009, MUAC ATCO-hour employment cost (€146) was the third highest in Europe, behind Austro Control (€149) and Aena (€193).
Despite a -8% drop in traffic in 2009, MUAC ATCO-hour productivity fell by only -2%, demonstrating flexibility in the downward adjustment of ATCO-hours (-6.6%), a feature that was not widely observed in Europe.
MUAC support costs rose by +11% between 2005 and 2009. The main drivers for the 2009 increase in unit support costs (+15%) are the increase in the number of staff, the start of depreciation of the new ATM systems and the -8% decline in traffic volumes.
MUAC unit costs increased by +8% over the 2005-2009 period. If MUAC 2009 unit costs are the second lowest in Europe, it is noteworthy that it does not bear the full costs of CNS infrastructure. MUAC ATCO employment costs increased faster than productivity over the period, and are in 2009 the 3rd highest in Europe.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+11% +13%+8% +6%
+11%
+4%
+25%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 32%
Weight 68%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 203 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
MUAC (Maastricht) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Maastricht 531 873 21 341 9.47 1.13
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 90
95
100
105
110
115
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Maastricht
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Maastricht
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
1336141213891419
1475
223487 48 8
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
4
5
6
7
8
9
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Maastricht
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
4
5
6
7
8
9
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Maastricht 531 873 +3.0% 218 +3.7% 64 124 +3.0%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Maastricht 0.05 0.05 0.30 0.24 0.22
MUAC 0.30 0.24 0.22
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Maastricht
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, MUAC’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 3.9% while the share of total European en-route ATFM delay was 0.8%.
• After an increase between 2005 and 2007, en-route ATFM delays continuously decreased since then to reach a particular low level in 2009.
• From an already high level in 2005, ATCO productivity increased between 2005 -2007, remained constant in 2008 and decreased in 2009, as a result of the significant drop in traffic.
• In Maastricht ACC there were moderate levels of overtime during the 2005-2008 period, and negligible in 2009.
In 2009, ATCO productivity of Maastricht ACC is higher than ACCs with similar operational characteristics. This is mostly due to higher sector productivity.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +6% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. In 2010 Maastricht ACC recorded similarly low levels of en-route ATFM delays as in 2009. No significant problems are foreseen between 2011 and 2014 for Maastricht ACC. It is expected that the main measures to support the deployment of additional ATC capacity will come from the gradual deployment of free route airspace (FRAM project), several airspace projects in the context of FABEC; further exploitation of the ATM system capabilities, and enhanced ATM procedures.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 204 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
MUAC (Maastricht) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total en-route NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal en-route NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage en-route remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
en-
rout
e de
prec
iatio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of en-route fixed assets Average depreciation rate of en-route fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
5
10
15
20
25
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
Cap
ex to
en-
rout
e de
prec
iatio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) En-route depreciation (M€) Capex to en-route depreciation ratio
-35%
-44%
-5%+10%
5
9
13
17
21
25
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2008* C:2008* C:2002* C:1995*
2006
2007
2008 C C
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€55M(2011-2016)
ATM
€19.6M(2011-2014)
COM NAV SUR Building Years
€1.3M
€50M (2003-2008)
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
Between 2005 and 2007, MUAC assets under construction represented some 40% of the net book value of total fixed assets. Since 2008, however, following the commissioning of a new ATM system, assets under construction fell to much lower levels (4% in 2009). Despite cumulative investments of €81M over the 2005-2009 period (some €16.1M a year) the average remaining accounting life of the fixed assets remains relatively low in 2009 (5 years). In 2008, for MUAC, less than €290 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 3.4 composite flight-hours per €1000 of fixed assets). Following the sharp traffic downturn (-8%) and a slight increase in the asset base (+4%), the productivity of MUAC fixed assets significantly decreased in 2009 to reach a value of 3.0. This is in absolute a very high productivity compared to other ANSPs. However, it is noteworthy that this indicator is biased by the fact that MUAC is using CNS assets owned by Belgocontrol, DFS and LVNL.
MUAC capex amounted to €10M in 2009, the lowest capex since 2005, indicating the end of an investment cycle. The main drivers of MUAC 2009 capex were on-going work on the new FDPS system, ARTAS (Linux) and backup VCS systems as well as office PCs and cooling plan infrastructure. Although MUAC investment plans were revised substantially downwards for the period 2009-2011 compared to ACE 2007 projections, the cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 remains above that of the preceding five years (€86M compared to €81M). MUAC capex are planned to significantly exceed depreciation costs from 2011 onwards, indicating a growing asset base.
The capex planned for the period 2009-2014 comprise the following major investment projects:
• Replacement of the VCS system (i.e. €13M, between 2011 and 2016);
• Implementation of the new CWP system (i.e. €22.3M, between 2013 and 2015);
• Renewal of infrastructure (i.e. €19.6M, between 2011 and 2014);
• Implementation of ATFCM/ASM tools (i.e. €8M, between 2011 and 2014); and,
• Upgrade of compliant SESAR ATM systems (i.e. FDP, DL-FEP, IOP interoperability ground-ground and i4D interoperability air-ground) (i.e. €10.5M, between 2011 and 2016).
Despite an intensive investment cycle between 2005 and 2009 (€16.1M p.a.) the average remaining accounting life of MUAC assets remains relatively low (5 years in 2009). Although MUAC planned capex were revised downwards compared to previous years forecast, a substantial investment programme is planned for 2010-2014 (€86M). It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan, nor what the quantified contribution to performance improvements is expected.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 205 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
MUAC (Maastricht) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-1.3%-0.2%+8.3%-13.6%
+4.2%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 253 264 228 247 247 243
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 106 96 107 110 111
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 102 107 110 113 116
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PMUAC
-7% -7%
-15% -7%
-9% -10% -9% -10%
0
40
80
120
160
200
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
300
500
700
900
1 100
1 300
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
MUAC en-route unit costs are projected to fall by -4% between 2009 and 2014, an average annual decrease of -0.8%, as flight-hours are expected to rise faster than costs until 2014. The large annual variations in ATM/CNS provision costs planned in 2011 and 2012 (-9.0% and +11.4%, respectively) are mainly due to fact that the 2011 costs are netted by exceptional negative costs amounting to some €-12M. These exceptional elements result from the implementation of IFRS by EUROCONTROL.
When comparing 2009-2012 plans from ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, actual traffic in 2009 was -9% lower than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data) while actual costs ended up -7% below plans, an indication of reactivity to the traffic decrease. For the 2010-2012 outlook MUAC reported downwards revisions for both forecast costs (-10% on average) and forecast traffic (also -10% on average) which implies a similar profile in terms of unit costs than in ACE 2007.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
MUAC en-route costs are included in Belgium, Germany and The Netherlands cost-bases and as a result no planned en-route determined unit rate is shown for MUAC in this page.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Maastricht Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
MUAC INCLUDED IN BELGIUM, GERMANY AND THE NETHERLANDS COST BASES
MUAC INCLUDED IN BELGIUM, GERMANY AND THE NETHERLANDS COST BASES
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
100%
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
MUAC
MUAC INCLUDED IN BELGIUM, GERMANY AND THE NETHERLANDS COST BASES
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
For trends in determined unit rates, see the data and commentary for Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 206 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NATA Albania (Albania) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 131.60 LEK
NATA Albania represents 0.2% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€369 €411€402 €397 €368
€441
€391€368€397€416
0
100
200
300
400
500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-1%
+10%
+4%
+20%+19%
+4%+0.04%
+7%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
-100%
+35%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.570.560.450.400.56
+3%+24%
+11%-28%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€11€9€13€9€12
-18%
+34%
-28%
+19%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+11%+4%
-9%-2%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
NATA Albania is one of the smallest ANSPs in Europe, with costs amounting to 0.2% of the European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs. NATA Albania traffic is of intermediate complexity but traffic variability is the 2nd highest in Europe since in the peak week, traffic is +55% higher than the average weekly traffic during the year.
Over the 2005-2009 period, composite flight-hours grown significantly at an average annual rate of +7%, although growth was irregular.
After consecutive decreases in 2006 and 2007, NATA Albania’s unit ATM/CNS provision costs increased in 2009 (+12%) to reach €411, reflecting a significant rise in ATM/CNS provision costs (+20%) while traffic increased by +7%. ATFM delays were experienced in 2008 and increased in 2009 (+35%), but are not particularly significant.
2009 ATCO-hour productivity is similar to 2005 levels, although erratic changes are observed for ATCO productivity over the period. Although traffic growth was irregular, it is understood that there are inconsistencies in the number of ATCO-hour on duty reported by NATA Albania. In 2009, NATA Albania ATCO-hour productivity (0.57) is amongst the 10 lowest in Europe.
Employment costs per ATCO-hour fell by -6% over the period, although this fall was irregular, probably reflecting inconsistencies in data reporting. The +19% increase observed in 2009 for the employment costs per ATCO-hour reflects a raise of wages and the payment of new allowances. NATA Albania’s ATCO employment costs remain one of the lowest in Europe.
Over the period, support costs have increased faster (+36%) than the rapid traffic growth (+32%). The increase in 2009 unit support costs (+11%) is mainly due to a significant +49% rise in unit non-staff operating costs. Capital-related costs represent some 36% of NATA Albania support costs. These comprises costs relating to the modernisation of the ATM/CNS infrastructure (NAMP project), although it also appears that some elements of capex have been reported directly as capital-related costs rather than being capitalised in NATA Albania balance-sheet. As a result NATA Albania 2009 unit support costs (€392) are the 5th highest in Europe.
Over the 2005-2009 period, NATA Albania unit gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs slightly rose by +2% despite a significant traffic increase (+32%). This should be seen in the light of lower ATCO-hour productivity and unit support costs that are in 2009 the 5th highest in Europe, indicating substantial room for performance improvements.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+2%
-8%
+2% +3%
+36%+32%
-6%"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 6%
Weight 94%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 207 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NATA Albania (Albania) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Tirana 34 624 13 319 1.99 1.55
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Tirana
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Tirana
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
16641595
2042
2336
2073
389536
7022
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
0
1
2
3
4
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Tirana
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
0
1
2
3
4
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Tirana 34 624 +5.8% 18 +15.5% 19 572 +2.9%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Tirana 0.12 0.13 N/appl N/appl N/appl
Albania N/appl N/appl N/appl
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL
capacity planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Tirana
Comments on planned capacity profile
In 2009, NATA Albania’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 0.3% while the share of total European en-route ATFM delay was 0.2%.
Annual average en route ATFM delays remained stable and low at 0.1 minutes per flight.
• After decreasing in 2006, ATCO productivity at Tirana ACC continuously increased for the remainder of the period, in the context of increasing traffic.
• In 2009, ATCO productivity at Tirana ACC is generally higher than ACCs with similar characteristics, due to a mix of lower staffing per sector and higher productivity. Significant reductions in staffing per sector have been achieved since 2007.
• Overtime for Tirana ACC has reduced significantly since highs in 2005 and 2006, notable in light of the increasing traffic.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +43% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Tirana ACC recorded an increase in its en-route ATFM delay in 2010 (expressed in minutes per flight) of +11% however delay levels remain low. Tirana ACC is operating at capacity in 2010 and minor capacity problems are foreseen between 2011 and 2014 if traffic growth is high as forecast.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 208 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NATA Albania (Albania) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.6
4.2
4.8
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+131%
+1095%+26%
-54%
0
4
8
12
16
20
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2004* C:2004* C:2004* C:1994*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€8.6M
Building YearsATM COM
€0.3M
NAV SUR
€1.7M€12.3M
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
Over the 2005-2009 period, NATA Albania assets under construction have been consistently above 19% of the net book value of total fixed assets. This is an indication of significant capex during this period (some €9M p.a.). Despite this intensive investment cycle, the average remaining accounting life of NATA Albania assets has been fairly stable since 2005 and was 6 years in 2009. Caution is required with the interpretation of these figures since it appears that some elements of capex have been reported directly as capital-related costs rather than being capitalised in NATA Albania balance-sheet. In 2008, for NATA Albania some €949 of fixed assets were required for 1 composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 1.1 composite flight-hour per €1 000 of fixed assets). In 2009, the productivity of NATA Albania fixed assets slightly decreased in 2009 to reach a value of 1.0. This is significantly lower than M-NAV (1.8).
The capex spent by NATA Albania between 2005 and 2009 is significant (€45M) and represents more than 200% of NATA Albania 2009 gate-to-gate revenues. NATA Albania capex was €8M in 2009, this is the same order of magnitude as the capex spent annually between 2005 and 2008, but -54% less than planned in ACE 2007. An important driver for NATA Albania 2009 capex was the replacement of the FDP, RDP and HMI systems in the context of the National Airspace Modernisation Plan (NAMP). Compared to ACE 2007 projections, NATA Albania’s investment plans were revised substantially upwards for the period 2010-2012. An intensive investment programme is planned over the next years, in particular for 2010 and 2011. The planned capex for 2010-2014 amount to €30M which corresponds to 144% of 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues. NATA Albania capex is planned to significantly exceed depreciation costs during 2010 and 2011 but to reduce to below the depreciation costs for the remainder of the period, indicating the end of the investment cycle. The capex planned for the 2009-2014 period comprise the following major investment projects:
• Purchase of a new ATM system (i.e. €7.1M, planned to enter in operation in September 2012);
• New joint ACC/APP/TWR building located near Mother Teresa Airport (i.e. €12.3M, planned to be commissioned in summer 2011);
• Purchase of a Voice Communication System (i.e. €1.5M, planned to be commissioned in 2012); and,
• Remote radio facility (i.e. €1.6M, planned to be commissioned in 2011).
Over the 2005-2009 period, NATA Albania spent some €45M in capital investment in the context of the NAMP project. This is a significant amount which represents more than 200% of NATA Albania 2009 gate-to-gate revenues. The capex planned for 2010-2014 is also intensive and amount to €30M. It is expected that these investments and in particular the implementation of the new ATM systems contribute to improve NATA Albania ATCO-hour productivity in the future years.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 209 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NATA Albania (Albania) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-5.6%-4.3%+0.3%+1.5%+2.5%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
95
103
111
119
127
135
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 411 421 428 429 411 388
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 111 116 123 125 125
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 108 112 118 125 133
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PNATA Albania
+11%+25% +35%
+35%
-3% -1% -2%
+0.5%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
NATA Albania gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to slightly decrease by -5.7% over the 2009-2014 period (i.e. -1.2% p.a.) since composite flight-hours are planned to increase faster (+33%) than ATM/CNS provision costs (+25%). The planned increase in NATA Albania ATM/CNS provision costs mainly reflects significant rises in staff costs (+15% p.a.) and depreciation costs (+7% p.a.) relating to the entry in operation of the new ACC/APP/TWR building in the context of the NAMP project.
Compared to ACE 2007 plans, in ACE 2009 NATA Albania has revised its planned costs significantly upwards (+25-35% over 2010-2012). The traffic profile has slightly been revised downwards (some -1.0% on average). As the result, the unit costs profile in ACE 2009 provides a more pessimistic outlook than in ACE 2007 plans.
En-route unit costs
The chart below shows planned changes in Albania en-route unit costs over the period 2010-2014. The chart on the bottom of this page shows planned changes in allocation of en-route costs for NATA Albania between 2009 and 2014.
Planned en-route unit costs for Albania
26.028.1 22.7 21.7
19.8 18.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
100
110
120
130
140
150
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-5.3% p.a.
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs
80%
82%
84%
86%
88%
90%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
NATA Albania
Comments on en-route unit costs
Between 2009 and 2014, Albania en-route unit costs are planned to decrease by -22% (i.e. -4.8% p.a.). These planned en-route unit costs reductions are due to the fact that over the period SUs are expected to increase much faster (+36%) than en-route costs (+7%).
Albania en-route unit costs profile significantly contrasts with the planned changes in NATA Albania gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs which are expected to slightly decrease over the same period. One of the main drivers for this difference is that gate-to-gate costs are planned to increase faster (+25%) than en-route costs (+7%), indicating potential inconsistencies in reporting planned costs data.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 210 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NATS (United Kingdom) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 0.89 GBP
NATS represents 9.1% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€350 €386€360 €342 €359
€429€445€458€432€433
0
100
200
300
400
500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+8%
-2% -2%
+3%
-0.3%
+0.4%
+5%
-11%
-4%
+10%
+23%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
-54%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
1.011.140.960.960.92
-11%
+19%
-1%+5%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€103€92€80€82€71
+16% -3%
+16%
+12%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+5%-2%+7%
-9%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
NATS is one of the largest ANSPs in Europe, with costs representing some 9% of the European gate-to-gate ATM/CNS total.
Over the 2005-2009 period, traffic has declined by -3%, which is lower than for the other largest ANSPs. This is due to the sharp decrease of -11% in 2009 which cancelled out the growth (+9%) observed between 2005 and 2008. NATS controls a mixture of areas of very high and relatively low traffic complexity.
Between 2005 and 2008, NATS unit gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs slightly decreased (-2.7%). The significant increase observed in 2009 (+10%) is mainly due to the sharp decrease in traffic volumes (-11%) while ATM/CNS costs decreased by -2%. Face value, NATS 2009 unit ATM/CNS costs (€386) are the lowest among the five largest ANSPs. However, it is important to note that the level of NATS 2009 unit costs expressed in Euro benefit from the significant depreciation (20%) of the Pound compared to the Euro between 2007 and 2009.
ATFM delays have been an issue over the period, representing a substantial proportion of NATS economic costs (more than 20% over 2006-2008). In 2009, following the sharp traffic downturn, ATFM delays were substantially reduced but still represent more than 10% of NATS economic costs.
Over the 2005-2008 period, employment costs per ATCO-hour rose faster (+31%) than ATCO productivity (+24%), negatively affecting NATS cost-effectiveness performance. It should be noted that changes in the methodology to compute ATCO-hours on duty are the main drivers for the increases in NATS 2008 ATCO productivity and employment costs. In 2009, NATS ATCO-hour productivity is the highest amongst the five largest ANSPs.
NATS support costs slightly decreased by -3% between 2005 and 2009. This reflects decreases in all support costs categories except exceptional costs which significantly increased over the period. These exceptional costs are mainly associated with redundancy costs and relocation to Swanwick and Prestwick areas.
NATS unit costs increased by +7% over the 2005-2009 period. NATS 2009 unit costs are the lowest amongst the largest States, although they benefit from the significant depreciation of the Pound compared to the Euro (20% for 2007-2009). Total gate-to-gate ATFM delays (including both attributable and non-attributable en-route delays) have been an issue between 2005-2008 and despite the sharp fall in traffic (-11%) they still represent more than 10% of NATS economic costs in 2009.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+10%
+33%
+7%
-3%
+0.1%
-3%
+47%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 24%
Weight 76%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 211 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NATS (United Kingdom) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
London AC 507 990 17 305 7.92 1.15
London TC 269 352 13 112 33.74 1.13
Prestwick 370 490 24 230 5.85 1.00
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
London AC London TC Prestwick
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
London AC London TC Prestwick
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
12471268
143414341441
23 3131
4 9
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
London AC London TC Prestwick
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
London AC 507 990 +2.1% 378 -2.4% 89 884 0%London TC 269 352 +2.1% 298 +0.7% 175 158 0%Prestwick 370 490 +2.1% 272 -1.0% 109 839 0%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
London AC 0.18 0.10 0.22 0.16 0.14
London TC 0.11 0.04 0.11 0.10 0.11
Prestwick 0.03 0.12 0.17 0.21 0.20
United Kingdom 0.31 0.28 0.27
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Mov
emen
t per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
London AC
London TC
Prestwick
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, NATS’ traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 9.7% while the share of total European en-route ATFM delay was 5.5%: the 11th highest penalizing ANSP in Europe.
NATS–wide en-route ATFM delay per flight significantly decreased from circa 0.6 in 2008 to 0.2 minute in 2009, although the situation differs among the three ACCs. In a context of severe drop in traffic in 2009:
• London AC and Prestwick ACCs have considerably reduced en-route ATFM delays in 2009 compared to the 2005-2008 period, while London TC reported an increase in en-route ATFM delays in 2009 to reach a level similar to the average of the previous years, although there were mostly related to weather.
• Overtime hours at UK ACCs were moderate during the 2005-2007 period and were negligible in 2008 and 2009.
• All three ACCs show a continuous increase in ATCO productivity between 2005-2008, but a decrease in 2009 as the result of the severe drop in traffic.
ATCO productivity of UK ACCs tends to be in line with the average observed for ACCs with similar operational characteristics. London AC shows atypical patterns for the staffing per sector and sector productivity.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about the same achieved in the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. In 2010 NATS–wide en-route ATFM delay per flight further decreased (except for Prestwick ACC) so that its share of the European en-route ATFM delay was 1.7% compared to 5.5% in 2009. No significant problems are foreseen between 2011 and 2014 for UK ACCs. The preparations for the Summer 2012 Olympic Games are on-going. It is expected that the main measures to support the deployment of additional ATC capacity will come from more flexible rostering, implementation of system improvements (e.g., iFACTS), and enhanced procedures as part of the UK Ireland FAB.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 212 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NATS (United Kingdom) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
40
80
120
160
200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Cap
ex to
en-
rout
e de
prec
iatio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) En-route depreciation (M€) Capex to en-route depreciation ratio
-7%
-27%-20% -16%
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2001 (All ACCs)*C:1996 (Lond. AC);
2007 (Lond. TC);2009 (Prest.)*
C:2001 (Lond. AC);2007 (Lond. TC);
2009 (Prest.)*
C:2002 (Lond. AC);2007 (Lond. TC);
2008 (Prest.)*
2006
2007 C C C
2008 London AC
2009London AC and
PrestwickPrestwick London TC
2010London AC, TC and
PrestwickLondon TC London AC and TC
2011
2012 London AC
2013
SURNAVATM COM Building Years
€161M**(2004-2010)
€542M (2003-2013)
C
C
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
C
** The amount reported for building also includes the capex for the new system in Prestwick ACC
Comments on capital expenditures
Over the 2005-2009 period, NATS assets under construction have been consistently above 29% of the net book value of total fixed assets. This is an indication of significant capex during this period (some €165M p.a.). The average remaining accounting life of NATS assets increased since 2005 but remains relatively low in 2009 (6.5 years) compared to the magnitude of the investment cycle. In 2008, for NATS some €833 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 1.2 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets). Following the sharp traffic downturn (-11%), the productivity of NATS fixed assets decreased in 2009 to reach a value of 1.1 (the second highest value amongst the other largest ANSPs).
NATS capex amounted to €144M in 2009, this is lower than the average capex spent in 2005-2008. An important driver for NATS 2009 capex was the major upgrades of the RDP and HMI systems and investments relating to the iTEC and iFACTS programmes. Although NATS investment plans were revised substantially downwards for the period 2010-2012 compared to ACE 2007 projections, the cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 remain high at €595M which corresponds to 80% of 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues. Furthermore, NATS capex is planned to consistently exceed depreciation costs during the whole period, indicating a growing asset base.
The capex planned for the 2009-2014 period comprise the following major investment projects:
• iTEC FDP (i.e. €280M, between 2007 and 2013);
• iFACTS controller tools (i.e. €184M, between 2003 and 2011);
• Prestwick Centre new building, common workstations and system (i.e. €161M, between 2004 and 2010);
• VCCS programme (i.e. €50M, between 2004 and 2013); and,
• Electronic Flight Data (i.e. €28M, between 2008 and 2011).
Despite an intensive investment cycle between 2005 and 2009 (€165M p.a.) the average remaining accounting life of NATS assets remains relatively low (6.5 years in 2009). Although NATS projected capex were revised downwards compared to previous years forecast, a substantial investment programme is planned for 2010-2014 (€595M). It is expected that these investments contribute to improve the quality of service provided by NATS in the future years.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 213 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NATS (United Kingdom) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+0.7% -4.8%-5.7% +1.1% +3.8%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
IFR
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
140
En-route unit ATM/CNS costs 404 407 387 365 369 383
En-route costs (index) 100 97 97 95 98 105
ANSP IFR flight-hours (index) 100 96 101 105 108 111
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PNATS
-16%-13%-16%-13%
-11%-12%
-12%-7%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
En
-ro
ute
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
1 000
1 200
1 400
1 600
1 800
2 000
2 200
2 400
2 600
AN
SP
IFR
flig
ht-
ho
urs
(T
ho
usa
nd
s)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
NATS did not provide planned costs and traffic data for terminal ANS, as a result this analysis focuses on NATS en-route ATM/CNS provision costs per flight-hour. NATS en-route unit costs are projected to decrease by -5% between 2009 and 2014, an average annual decrease of -1.1%, as flight-hours are planned to rise faster than costs until 2014. After decreases in 2011 (-4.8%) and 2012 (-5.7%), en-route unit ATM/CNS costs are planned to increase until 2014 (+2.4% p.a.).
When comparing 2009-2012 plans from the ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, actual traffic in 2009 was lower by -7% than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data) while actual costs ended up -13% lower than planned, an indication of reactivity to the traffic decrease. For the 2010-2012 outlook NATS reported downward revisions for both forecast costs (around -15% on average) and forecast traffic (around -12% on average) which implies a slightly better profile in terms of unit costs than in ACE 2007 plans.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in the UK en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares the UK planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments. Planned en-route determined unit rate for United Kingdom Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
69.675.9 72.6 71.4 71.2
68.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
En-
rout
e tr
affic
& c
osts
inde
x (2
009=
100)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-2.5% p.a.
50
60
70
80
90
100
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Spain Germany France Italy United Kingdom
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
Aena DFS DSNA ENAV NATS (2009)
UK11.0%
Italy9.6%
France17.8%
Germany13.8%
Spain14.5%
66.9%Remaining
States33.1%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Between 2009 and 2014, the UK en-route unit costs are planned to slightly decrease by -1.8% (-0.4% p.a.). This is significantly less than the fall planned by Spain (-30%), Italy (-12%), Germany (-9%) and France (-10%). Starting from 2011, the reduction in the DUR is -2.0% p.a. which is well below the cost-efficiency objective adopted at EU-wide level for RP1 (-3.5% p.a.).
In comparison to the other four largest States, the UK en-route DUR was below the average of the group in 2009. However, by 2014, the UK would have the highest DUR of the group, would all the States perform according to these plans.
Between 2009 and 2014, the UK DUR is planned to slightly decrease by -0.4% a year on average, this is less than the falls planned by Spain, Italy, Germany and France. The DUR reduction planned for 2011-2014 (-2.0% p.a.) is significantly less than the EU-wide objective for RP1 (-3.5%). Would all the States perform according to these plans, by 2014 the UK would have the highest DUR in the comparator group.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 214 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NAV Portugal-FIR Lisboa (Portugal) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: Portugal is part of the Euro zone
NAV Portugal represents 1.8% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€423 €411€468 €420 €406
€420€456
€433€425€470
0
100
200
300
400
500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-4%
+3%+7%
-9%
+6%+3%
+7%
-6%
+24%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
+191% +463%
-72%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.920.960.960.850.84
-4%+0.4%+13%
+1%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€130€125€106
€111€118
-5%-5%
+18%+4%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
-8%
-1%+2%-12%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
In 2009, NAV Portugal represents some 1.8% of the European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs (€134M), and serves 1.9% of the European traffic (expressed in composite flight-hours).
NAV Portugal has both a relatively low traffic complexity and seasonal variability.
Traffic grew at an average of +5.4% p.a. between 2005 and 2008, slightly higher than growth in Ireland, which was +4.6% over the same period. Both experienced a sharp decline in 2009, although for IAA it was particularly severe (-11%, compared to -6% for NAV Portugal).
Unit ATM/CNS provision costs have reduced every year except in 2008. Although NAV Portugal has higher unit costs than IAA the difference between the two has reduced from 57% in 2005 to 22% in 2009. When comparing using PPP, however, the gap between the two widens.
In 2009 NAV Portugal has experienced negligible amounts of delays as it seems that the ATC capacity shortfalls in 2007 and 2008 have been addressed.
ATCO productivity improved steadily until 2008, but reduced in 2009 by -4% in a context of declining traffic. NAV Portugal ATCO productivity has traditionally been comparable to IAA, although the latter’s productivity fell sharply in 2009 in a context of much severe traffic decline.
Despite -5% annual reductions in 2006 and 2007 (mainly due to a downward revaluation of pension liabilities following an increase of the retirement age from 55 to 57), employment unit costs are now more than +11% higher than in 2005. 2008 saw the largest increase, caused by a rise in pension contributions and an upward revision of pension liabilities.
In contrast, unit support costs have fallen almost every year, with the largest reductions in capital-related costs (-12% each year on average) and non-ATCO employment costs. Despite this significant improvement, NAV Portugal unit support costs remain some 13% higher than IAA in 2009.
NAV Portugal improved its performance over 2005-2009, managing to reduce its unit support costs and somewhat reducing the performance gap with its peer, IAA. However, high ATCO employment costs and support costs remain the two main areas for performance improvement in NAV Portugal.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+9%
+2%
-12%-18%
-10%
+9.9%+11%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 31%
Weight 69%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 215 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NAV Portugal-FIR Lisboa (Portugal) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level
ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Lisboa 202 091 31 300 2.19 1.14
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 80
90
100
110
120
130
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Lisboa
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Lisboa
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
331377
380
175418221846
19521835
347 185
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Lisboa
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Lisboa 202 091 +3.4% 87 +0.9% 47 933 +3.4%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Lisboa 0.02 0.01 0.28 0.21 0.16
Portugal 0.28 0.21 0.16
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Lisboa
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, NAV Portugal’s (FIR Lisboa) traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 1.9% and only negligible en-route ATFM delays were recorded for Lisboa ACC.
• After an increase observed in 2007, en-route ATFM delays continuously decreased since then to reach a low level in 2009.
• ATCO productivity increased between 2005 and 2008, but decreased in 2009 in a context of sharp traffic decline.
• Relatively high levels of overtime have been continuously used between 2005 and 2009, although they have reduced in 2009.
ATCO productivity of Lisboa ACC tends to be higher than ACCs with similar operational characteristics, mostly due to a mix of lower staffing per sector and higher sector productivity (although the latter significantly reduced in 2009).
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is +2% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Only negligible en-route ATFM delays were recorded for Lisboa ACC in 2010. No significant problems are foreseen between 2011 and 2014 for Lisboa ACC. It is expected that the main measures to support the deployment of additional ATC capacity will come from enhanced sectorisation, further system improvements and sector capacity increases.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 216 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NAV Portugal-FIR Lisboa (Portugal) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+4%
+124%
+96% +92%
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2001* C:2001* C:2001* C:1999*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€6.3M(2010-2015)
€8.4M(2010-2015)
€53.2M (2010-2015)
NAV SUR Building YearsATM COM
€9.7M(2008-2015)
€7.3M(2010-2015)
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
Over the 2005-2009 period, NAV Portugal’s share of fixed assets under construction have been consistently above 20% of the total net book value of fixed assets, and in 2009 NAV Portugal records 33% of assets under construction. This is a significant value, which is close to its comparator’s IAA (36%). Despite this, the average remaining accounting life of NAV Portugal fixed assets is quite low, below 3 years all over the period, reflecting the relatively contained capex of NAV Portugal’s between 2005 and 2009 (€36M). In 2009, for NAV Portugal some €574 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of 1.7 composite flight-hours per €1000 of fixed assets). The average depreciation rate of these fixed assets is relatively low, at around 4% in 2009.
In 2009, NAV Portugal’s capex amounts to €10M, a value which is higher than the average amount spent between 2005 and 2008 (€7M a year) and +4% higher than planned in ACE 2007. Compared to ACE 2007 plans, the capex forecasted between 2010 and 2012 have been revised significantly upwards. The cumulative capex planned between 2010 and 2014 amounts to €68M (47% of NAV Portugal’s gate-to-gate ANS revenues in 2009) and it is almost twice the value of what was invested over the 2005-2009 period (€36M). The planned capex profile clearly indicates the start of a new investment cycle, confirmed by a capex to depreciation ratio greater than 1 during the 2010-2014 period. The increasing asset base is expected to result in higher average remaining accounting life of fixed assets in future years.
The cumulative capex between 2009 and 2014 mainly reflects the following investment projects:
• iTEC-eFDP ATM system (i.e. €39.6M, between 2009 and 2014);
• Replacement of VORs and DMEs (i.e. €3.4M, between 2010 and 2014);
• Upgrade of the hardware for the LISATM central system (i.e. €6.6M, between 2005 and 2013); and,
• Purchase of Mode S radars (i.e. €3.2M, between 2012 and 2015).
NAV Portugal’s capital programme shows significantly higher projected investment over the period 2010-2014 than over 2005-2009, reflecting the start of a new investment cycle, mainly driven by ATM systems improvements and replacements. It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan, nor what the quantified contribution to performance improvements is expected (e.g. improve ATCO productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 217 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NAV Portugal-FIR Lisboa (Portugal) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009)
Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-1.5%-1.6%-1.2%-1.3%-7.0%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
140
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 411 382 377 372 367 361
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 98 101 102 102 103
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 105 110 112 115 117
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PNAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
+1%+1%
-2% -1%
-8% -7% -7% -8%
0
40
80
120
160
200
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
200
300
400
500
600
700
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
NAV Portugal’ s gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs are expected to reduce every year during the 2009-14 period (on average -2.5% p.a.), with the largest reduction in 2010 (-7.0%); after which the unit cost reductions average -1.4%.
When comparing 2009-2012 plans from the ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, actual traffic in 2009 was lower by -8% than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data) while actual costs ended up -1% lower than planned. The 2010-2012 outlook from ACE 2009 data is more pessimistic (in terms of unit cost profile) than ACE 2007 data since it shows a sharp downwards traffic revision (an average of -7% a year), while gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs remain flat (-2% downwards revision in 2010 followed by an upwards +1% revision in 2011-12).
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Portugal en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Portugal planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Portugal Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
42.743.043.643.244.8
49.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-0.4% p.a.
25
35
45
55
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Ireland Portugal
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
75%
77%
79%
81%
83%
85%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
IAA NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
Remaining States96.4%
3.6%
Ireland1.7%
Portugal2.0%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Portugal’s en-route DUR is expected to reduce by -13.3% between 2009 and 2014, an average of -2.8% p.a., with the main reduction taking place in 2010 (-9.1%) and in 2011 (-3.6%). This is consistent with NAV Portugal’ s gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs reduction during the 2009-14 period (average of -2.4% p.a.). Over the 2011-2014 the decreasing trend is more modest with an annual average of -0.4%, which is well below the objective adopted at EU-wide level of -3.5% per year on average.
In 2009, Portugal had a DUR which was +67% higher than Ireland. Should Ireland and Portugal perform according to these plans, by 2014 Portugal would still have a significantly higher DUR compared to Ireland (+45%), although the gap is somewhat reducing compared to 2009.
Portugal’s en-route DUR is expected to reduce by -13.3% between 2009 and 2014, an average of -2.8% p.a.. Over the 2011-2014 the decreasing trend is more modest with an annual average of -0.4%, well below the objective adopted at EU-wide level of -3.5% per year on average. Portugal has a significantly higher en-route DUR of its peer (Ireland) over the whole period, although the gap is somewhat reducing compared to 2009.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 218 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NAVIAIR (Denmark) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 7.44 DKK
NAVIAIR represents 1.5% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€343 €395€315 €299 €326
€406
€612
€359€358€334
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-3%
+12%
+7% +5%+3%+1%+2%
-9%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays+211% +704%
-43% -96%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.930.950.830.860.84
-1%+15%
-4%+3%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€91€78€77€69€68
+2%
+11% +2%
+16%
0
20
40
60
80
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour +14%
+12%
+6%-7%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
In 2009, NAVIAIR represents some 1.5% of the European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs and serves 1.6% of the European traffic (expressed in composite flight-hours).
NAVIAR has a traffic with intermediate complexity but low seasonal variability.
NAVIAIR is the only ANSP within its peer group to have experienced an overall reduction in traffic during the period. The decline was particularly marked in 2009 (-9%).
Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs have increased every year since 2007, and the combination of this and the declining traffic have increased unit costs by an even greater rate. Despite these increases both NAVIAIR total costs and unit costs remain the lowest of its comparator group.
As a proportion of economic cost, delay is relatively low (except in 2008), and the 2009 value is lower than in 2005. Delays were abnormally high in 2008 due to transition problems with the implementation of CASIMO, the new ATM system. However, even in 2008 unit economic costs were the lowest of its peer group, as in all other years.
ATCO productivity has improved by an average of +2.8% every year, although overall levels remain the lowest in the group. The overall increase in productivity is driven by the +15% improvement in 2008, which resulted from a reported reclassification of 46 Apron ATCOs as ATC assistants.
Unit employment costs have continued to increase every year, with the largest increases in 2007 and 2009. The 2007 increase resulted from the implementation of a new collective agreement. Despite the +16% increase in 2009, NAVIAR maintains the lowest unit employment costs in its peer group, although the difference is considerably reducing.
Unit support costs have risen in most years; the reduction in 2006 arising from changes in depreciation policy. Overall NAVIAIR unit support costs increased by +27%, mostly due to capital-related costs. In 2009 unit support costs are very similar to Austro Control, in contrast to 2005 where they were around -16% lower.
Over 2005-2009 NAVIAIR’s unit ATM/CNS costs increased by 25%. The significant increase in ATCO employment costs has not been matched by an increase in productivity. Capital-related costs notably increased reflecting recent investments to upgrade the ATM systems. Compared to its peers, NAVAIR continues to have the lowest unit costs.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+12%
+20%+25% +27%
+23%
-3%
+34%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 26%
Weight 74%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 219 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NAVIAIR (Denmark) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Kobenhavn 147 262 18 300 3.21 1.13
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 80
90
100
110
120
130
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Kobenhavn
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Kobenhavn
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.6
4.2
4.8
5.4
6.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
1558
1732161015761576
37 6637
174
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Kobenhavn
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Kobenhavn 147 262 +2.8% 107 0% 35 308 +2.7%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Kobenhavn 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.07
Denmark 0.06 0.06 0.07
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Kobenhavn
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, NAVIAIR’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 1.6% and only negligible en-route ATFM delays were recorded for Kobenhavn ACC.
• A considerable amount of en-route ATFM delay was recorded in 2008 which was mainly due to the implementation of the new ATM system.
• ATCO productivity remained fairly constant between 2005 and 2007 and has been decreasing since then, in a context of declining traffic in 2008 followed by a sharp drop in 2009.
• Fairly moderate levels of overtime have been used between 2005-2007, more significant levels in 2008 (new ATM system), and no overtime at all in 2009.
ATCO productivity of Kobenhavn ACC is similar to that of ACCs with similar operational characteristics.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is +4.6% higher than the level achieved before the economic crisis. Only negligible en-route ATFM delays were recorded for Kobenhavn ACC in 2010. No significant problems are foreseen between 2011 and 2014 for Kobenhavn ACC. It is expected that the main measures to support the deployment of additional ATC capacity will come from the deployment of COOPANS in 2012, the preparation for the “consolidation” of NUAC operations which are due to start in 2012/2013, and the gradual deployment of free route airspace projects.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 220 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NAVIAIR (Denmark) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
5
10
15
20
25
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
-40%-7%
-10% +26%
10
14
18
22
26
30
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2007* C:2006* C:2007* C:2007*
2006 C
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€55.7M(2006-2014)
ATM COM NAV SUR
€5.1M
YearsBuilding
C C C
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
Between 2005 and 2009, NAVIAIR’s share of assets under construction have been highly volatile, from 62% in 2006 to significantly lower levels in 2007 and 2008 (14% and 12%, respectively) and increasing to 20% in 2009. In 2009, the exceptional depreciation costs, relating to asset impairment and to projects that were capitalised in previous years, lead to a drop of the average remaining accounting life to 8 years. However, in the three previous years the average remaining accounting life showed very high levels (i.e. 23 years in 2008) as a consequence of the large amount invested between 2005 and 2009 (€122M) and a -44% fall in 2008 depreciation costs due to the extension of the estimated useful life of the DATMAS ATM system commissioned in December 2007. In 2009, for NAVIAR some €849 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of 1.18 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets), the highest assets productivity amongst its peers.
NAVIAIR spent some €16M of capex in 2009, lower than the 2005-2008 average (€27M a year) and -40% below the amount planned in ACE 2007. Compared to ACE 2007 plans, NAVIAIR revised downwards its capex plans for 2010 (-7%) and 2011 (-10%) while the planned capex for 2012 were revised upwards (+26%). The cumulative capex planned between 2010 and 2014 amounts to €91M (85% of the 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues), which is lower than the amount spent between 2005 and 2009 (€122M), when the major ATM systems were upgraded. The capex planned between 2009 and 2014 mainly refers to the following investment projects:
• The COOPANS project with the Irish Aviation Authority and LFV (in partnership with Thales) for common and harmonised upgrades of the EUROCAT 2000 ATM system (i.e. €35M, between 2010 and 2014);
• Implementation of ADS-B, Wide Area Multilateration and Mode S support in Danish FIR (i.e. €4M, between 2011 and 2013);
• Upgrades of the IP LAN/WAN infrastructure (2010-2014) and new VCS in four airports (2010-2014) for a total capex of €6M; and,
• Faroe Islands radar (i.e. €1.1M, between 2008 and 2010).
NAVIAR made sizeable investments between 2005 and 2009, with a major upgrade of its ATM systems in 2008. The cumulative capex over 2010-2014 is still significant, as further upgrades of its ATM system are planned in the context of COOPANS. It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan, nor what the quantified contribution to performance improvements is expected (e.g. improve productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 221 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NAVIAIR (Denmark) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-1.0%+0.8%+2.7%+0.7%-9.0%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
140
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 395 359 362 372 375 371
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 94 99 104 106 106
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 104 108 110 111 113
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PNAVIAIR
+8%+4%+0.2%+8%
-3% -2% -3% -3%
0
40
80
120
160
200
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
200
300
400
500
600
700
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
NAVIAIR’ s gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs are expected to reduce by -6.1% over the 2009-14 period (on average -1.2% p.a.), resulting from a large reduction in 2010 (-9.0%); followed by gradual increases until 2013.
When comparing 2009-2012 plans from the ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, actual traffic in 2009 was lower by -3% than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data), while actual costs ended up +8% higher than planned (significantly higher depreciation costs than planned due to new accounting standards in 2009). The 2010-2012 outlook from ACE 2009 data is more pessimistic (in terms of unit costs profile) than ACE 2007 data since it shows a downwards traffic revision (an average of -3% a year), while gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs were revised upwards, especially for 2011 and 2012 (an average of +4% a year over 2010-2012).
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Denmark en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Denmark planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Denmark Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
62.464.666.265.168.9
75.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-1.4% p.a.
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Austria Denmark Switzerland
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
Austro Control NAVIAIR Skyguide
Austria2.5%
Switzerland2.0%
Denmark1.6%
6.2%Remaining
States93.8%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Denmark’s en-route DUR is expected to reduce by -17.5% between 2009 and 2014, an average of -3.8% p.a., with the main reduction taking place in 2010 (-9%) and in 2011 (-5.4%). This is not consistent with NAVIAIR’ s gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs reduction during the 2009-14 period (average of -1.2% p.a.). Over the 2011-2014 the decreasing trend is more modest with an annual average of -1.4%, which is well below the objective adopted at EU-wide level of -3.5% per year on average.
In 2009, Denmark had a DUR which was +16% higher than Austria, the lowest DUR amongst the comparators. The combination of increase in 2010 of Austria’s DUR and substantial reductions in Denmark’s DUR between 2009 and 2011 imply that the gap between Austria and Denmark in terms of en-route DUR is forecast to reduce significantly in future years. Should States perform according to these plans, by 2014 Denmark’s DUR would be + 4% higher than Austria, and significantly lower than Switzerland.
The planned average reduction in Denmark’s en-route DUR is -1.4% p.a. over the 2011-2014 period, which is well below the objective adopted at EU-wide level of -3.5% per year on average. Over the 2009-2014 period, Denmark DUR shows a more significant reduction (-3.8% p.a.), with main reductions in 2010 and 2011. This is the largest rate of improvement amongst its peer group. Should States perform according to these plans, by 2014 Denmark’s DUR would be close to the lowest of its peer group (Austria), and significantly lower than Switzerland.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 222 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Oro Navigacija (Lithuania) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 3.45 LTL
Oro Navigacija represents 0.2% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€318 €364€432 €451 €379
€364
€318
€379
€451€432
0
100
200
300
400
500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+16%
-4% -2% -6%
+15% +17%+11%
-18%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.410.570.480.410.38
-28%
+20%
+17%
+8%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€34€32€24€22€22
+1%+9%
+31%+6%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+7%-20%
-17%
+6%
0
100
200
300
400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
Oro Navigacija is one of the smallest European ANSPs, with costs amounting to 0.2% of the European total.
Over the 2005-2009 period, traffic has increased by +23%; a combination of increases in each year of 2006-2008 and a -18% decrease in 2009. This profile was actually similar for Oro Navigacija comparators, EANS and LGS. Traffic complexity and seasonality are both among the lowest in Europe.
Between 2005 and 2008, Oro Navigacija unit gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs fell by -26%, supported by a +49% increase in traffic. The significant increase in 2009 (+14.5%) is mainly due to the sharp decrease in traffic (-18%) while ATM/CNS costs fell by -6%. In 2009, unit gate-to-gate costs were higher than those of LGS and EANS.
Capacity and delays are understood not to be a problem for Oro Navigacija.
Over the 2005-2008 period, ATCO-hour productivity rose faster than the employment costs per ATCO-hour, positively affecting Oro Navigacija cost-effectiveness performance. However, the trend reversed in 2009, with ATCO-hour productivity falling by -28%, as a combination of the drop in traffic and of an increased number of ATCO-hours available in 2009. ATCO-hour productivity for Oro Navigacija was in 2009 among the lowest in Europe, and -34% below that of LGS.
The main driver for the observed increase in ATCO employment costs in 2008 is the implementation of a two-year collective agreement applicable to all staff. Employment cost per ATCO-hour in 2009 (€34) was below that of EANS (€40) but above that of LGS (€23).
Oro Navigacija support costs fell by -7% between 2005 and 2009. Combined to a +23% traffic increase, it resulted in an overall -25% reduction in unit support costs over the period. In 2009, the rise in support staff costs was actually offset by reductions in maintenance costs. It should also be noted that in 2009 and 2010, Oro Navigacija decided not to charge any cost of capital to airspace users; a measure which contributed to further reduce Lithuania en-route and terminal chargeable cost-bases.
Oro Navigacija unit costs fell by -16% over the 2005-2009 period but are still higher than those of LGS and EANS, mainly due to lower ATCO-hour productivity and higher unit support costs.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+9%
-16%
-25%
-7%
+41%
+23%
+54%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 16%
Weight 84%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 223 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Oro Navigacija (Lithuania) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level
ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Vilnius 38 843 15 308 1.70 1.12
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 70
80
90
100
110
120
130
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Vilnius
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Vilnius
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
16041480150314431426
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Vilnius
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Vilnius 38 843 +4.0% 33 +3.4% 14 600 +8.4%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Vilnius 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.06
Lithuania 0.04 0.05 0.06
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Vilnius
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, Oro Navigacija’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 0.3% and no en-route ATFM delays were recorded for Vilnius ACC throughout the 2005-2009 period.
• ATCO productivity increased continuously between 2005-2008, but decreased in 2009 in a context of severe traffic drop (-18%).
• There are no overtime hours in Vilnius ACC throughout the 2005-2009 period.
• In 2009, ATCO productivity of Vilnius ACC is lower than Tallinn ACC and similar to Riga ACC which have similar operational characteristics. The lower ATCO productivity is due to a mix of higher staffing per sector and lower sector productivity.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +4.9% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Vilnius ACC recorded no en-route ATFM delays in 2010. No problems are currently foreseen for Vilnius ACC between 2011 and 2014. It is expected that the main measure to support the deployment of additional ATC capacity will come from the replacement and modernization of the ATM system.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 224 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Oro Navigacija (Lithuania) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
2
4
6
8
10
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0
1
2
3
4
5
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
-44%
+234%+4%
-27%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2005* C:2005* C:2005* C:2005*
2006
2007
2008
2009
€0.4M 2010
2011
2012
2013
€2.1M
NAV
€9.6M
2013-2015
€11.9M(2008-2015)
COMATM SUR YearsBuilding
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
Over the 2005-2009 period, Oro Navigacija assets under construction have never exceeded 15% of the net book value of total fixed assets. Cumulative investments over the period amounted to €36M (some €7M p.a.). The average remaining accounting life of the fixed assets has been rising since 2007 and reached 10.6 years in 2009. In 2008, for Oro Navigacija, some €944 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 1.1 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets). Following the sharp traffic downturn (-18%), the productivity of Oro Navigacija fixed assets significantly decreased in 2009 to reach a value of 0.8, a level significantly below that of LGS (1.2) or EANS (2.2).
Oro Navigacija capex amounted to €9M in 2009, which is above the average annual capex spent between 2005 and 2008. The main drivers of Oro Navigacija 2009 capex were the replacement of radars at Kaunas and Palanga, the tower simulator, FDPS and RDPS upgrades, and transmission network. Investments made in 2009 were -27% below ACE 2007 projections, due to the postponement of some investments to 2011. The cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 is significantly lower than in the five preceding years and amount to €13M (63% of the 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues). The capex planned for the period 2010-2014 include the following major investment projects:
• Vilnius ATCC equipment modernisation (i.e. €4M, between 2010 and 2014);
• Replacement of radar in Kaunas and Palanga (i.e. €9.6M, between 2008 and 2010);
• Aerodrome air traffic control system (i.e. €1.2M, between 2010 and 2011);
• Replacement of Palanga ATCC equipment (i.e. €0.8M, between 2011 and 2014);
• Navigational radio beacons at Palanga, Kaunas and Vilnius (i.e. €1.5M, between 2010 and 2013); and,
• ILS for Kaunas airport (i.e. €0.5M, in 2010).
After an intensive investment cycle between 2005 and 2009 (some €7M p.a.) the average remaining accounting life of Oro Navigacija assets reached 10.6 years in 2009. With a recent asset base, the capital expenditures over the 2010-2014 period are planned to be much lower than in the five preceding years. It is expected that the recent capex will bring about improvements in ATCO-hour productivity and provide adequate capacity to absorb traffic growth without deterioration in the quality of service.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 225 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Oro Navigacija (Lithuania) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-5.1%+9.5%
-3.6% -6.0% -3.4%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
140
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 364 345 378 365 343 331
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 104 118 117 114 114
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 109 113 117 122 126
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014POro Navigacija
-37% -32% -36% -26%
-29% -25% -22% -23%
0
11
22
33
44
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
30
64
98
132
166
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
Oro Navigacija gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs are projected to fall by -9.1% between 2009 and 2014, an average annual decrease of -1.9%, as traffic is forecast to rise slightly faster than costs over the 2009-2014 period. A large increase in unit costs is planned in 2011 (+9.5%), reflecting planned increases in staff costs (+4%), non-staff operating costs (+17%) and depreciation costs (+6%).
When comparing 2009-2012 plans from the ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, actual traffic in 2009 was -23% lower than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data) while actual costs ended up -26% below plans, an indication of reactivity to the traffic decrease. For the 2010-2012 outlook Oro Navigacija reported downward revisions for both forecast costs (around -35% on average) and forecast traffic (around 25% on average) which implies a better profile in terms of unit costs than in ACE 2007 plans.
It should also be noted that in 2009 and 2010, Oro Navigacija decided not to charge any cost of capital to airspace users; a measure which contributed to further reduce Lithuania en-route and terminal chargeable cost-bases.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Lithuania en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Lithuania planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Lithuania Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
49.8 49.8 51.349.4
45.6 43.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-5.5% p.a.
10
20
30
40
50
60
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Latvia Estonia Lithuania
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
EANS LGS Oro Navigacija
Estonia0.26%
Latvia0.24%
Lithuania0.27%
0.8%Remaining
States99.2%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Between 2009 and 2014, the Lithuanian en-route determined unit rates are planned to decrease by -13.1% (-2.8% p.a.). This is better than the increase planned by Latvia (+5%) or the fall planned by Estonia (-2%). It should be noted that the increase in the en-route DUR planned for 2011 (+3%) mainly reflects the fact that no cost of capital was not charged to airspace users in 2009 and 2010. Starting from 2011, the Lithuanian DUR is expected to decrease by -5.5% p.a. until 2014.
In comparison to Latvia and Estonia, the Lithuanian en-route DUR was almost twice higher in 2009. Would all States perform according to their plans, the gap between Lithuania and its comparators would reduce by 2014, but Lithuania would still show a significantly higher DUR.
The proportion of en-route costs as a percentage of total gate-to-gate costs for Oro Navigacija was the highest among its comparators in 2009, at 85%, and Oro Navigacija does not plan any significant change in cost allocation during the period 2009-2014. Among Oro Navigacija’s comparators, only EANS plans to allocate a greater share of costs to the en-route cost base from 2010 onwards (from 79% to 91%).
Between 2009 and 2014, the Lithuanian DUR is planned to fall by -2.8% a year on average, which is better than the increase planned by Latvia (+5%) or the fall planned by Estonia (-2%). The DUR reduction planned for 2011-2014 (-5.5% p.a.) is above the EU-wide objective for RP1 (-3.5% p.a.). However, would all States perform according to their plans, by 2014, the Lithuanian DUR would still be the highest of the comparator group.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 226 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
PANSA (Poland) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 4.32 PLN
PANSA represents 1.6% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€293 €295€262 €241 €239
€439€479
€430
€364€324
0
100
200
300
400
500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+6%+10%
-6%
+11%
+8%
+15%
-7%
-22%
-3%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
+97% +56%
=
+33%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.870.930.860.820.76
-6%+7%
+5%+9%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€72€72€57€54€50
+8%+5%
+26% -1%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
-10% -2%
+25% -1%
0
50
100
150
200
250
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
PANSA was formed on 1 April 2007 from PATA and PPL, some of the changes between 2005 and 2008 might be an artefact of changes in reporting.
PANSA is a medium sized ANSP, with costs totalling 1.6% of the European gate-to-gate ATM/CNS total.
Over the 2005-2009 period, traffic has increased by +28%, a combination of increases in each year of 2006-2008 and a -7% reduction in 2009. In contrast, over the same period, traffic grew by only +5% for Avinor, and fell by -3% for LFV. Traffic complexity is intermediate, similar to LFV, higher than its Baltic neighbours, but significantly lower than DFS.
Between 2005 and 2008, PANSA unit gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs rose by +12%. The apparent stability in unit costs observed in 2009 is due to the concomitant decrease in traffic and costs. Despite an overall increase over the period, PANSA 2009 unit costs were lower than Avinor, LFV and Finavia.
ATFM delays have been a major issue over the period, representing a very high proportion of PANSA economic costs (33% to 45% over 2006-2009). In Europe, only DCAC Cyprus and HCAA had ATFM delays at higher levels. Significant improvements are not expected before the commissioning of a new ATM system, Pegasus, in 2011.
Following a sharp increase in 2008 (+26%), employment costs per ATCO-hour rose faster (+44%) than ATCO productivity (+23%) between 2005 and 2008. The rise in employment costs between 2005 and 2008 also contrasts with the growth in the Polish GDP per head (+24%). Part of that rise related to the payment of overtime, due a shortage of ATCOs. In 2009, ATCO-hour productivity fell by -6%, due to the -7% decline in traffic, but was still well above the European average, and also the highest among its comparators Avinor, LFV and Finavia.
Following a significant increase in 2008 (+35%), PANSA support costs have increased by +40% between 2005 and 2009. The changes in the different elements of support costs during this period have been affected by institutional changes linked to the transfer of infrastructure assets to PANSA.
PANSA unit costs increased by +13% over the 2005-2009 period. PANSA shows lower unit costs than its comparators. However, ATFM delays have been a major issue over the period, indicating that provision of ATC capacity has not been adequate over the 2005-2009 period.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+16%+23%
+13%+9%
+40%
+28%
+42%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 27%
Weight 73%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 227 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
PANSA (Poland) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Warszawa 260 115 30 330 3.11 1.16
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Warszawa
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Warszawa
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
11911249126312011208
97 144122 199
158
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
9.5
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Warszawa
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
9.5
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Warszawa 260 115 +1.4% 109 +11.0% 31 814 +0.3%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Warszawa 1.72 1.18 0.32 0.31 0.26
Poland 0.32 0.31 0.26
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Warszawa
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, Poland’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 2.3% while the share of total European en-route ATFM delay was 10.1%: the 2nd most penalizing ANSP.
Despite a sharp traffic decline, en-route ATFM delay per flight generated by Warszawa ACC remained high in 2009 (1.7 minutes):
• After continuous increase in en-route ATFM delay since 2005, Warszawa ACC showed an improvement in 2009.
• The ATC capacity shortfall could not be addressed despite relatively high levels of overtime. The main reasons for this shortfall, and resulting ATFM delays, seem to be ATCO shortage and currently lacking modern ATM system.
• ATCO productivity increased gradually between 2005 and 2008 and remained constant in 2009, despite the drop of traffic.
In 2009, ATCO productivity of Warszawa ACC is higher than ACCs with similar operational characteristics operated by comparators ANSP, mostly due to higher sector productivity.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is -1.5% than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. The actual en-route ATFM delays recorded by Warszawa ACC decreased in 2010 (from 1.7 in 2009 to 1.2 in 2010). Poland is preparing for the hosting of the European Football Championship in 2012. In Poland major projects are scheduled for deployment over the period 2012-2014, including a new ATM system; airspace re-organisation; vertical re-sectorisation; assessment of sector capacities; enhanced sector configurations and opening schemes, and recruitment of additional ATCOs. Effective implementation of these measures is particularly important to ensure provision of adequate ATC capacity to meet the operational requirements of the European network by 2014.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 228 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
PANSA (Poland) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+14%-26%
-40%
-49%
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:1995* C:1993* C:1995* C:1999*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€4.7M €1M
€25.3M
ATM COM Building Years
€0.5M
NAV SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
Over the 2005-2008 period, PANSA assets under construction have been consistently below 8% of the net book value of total fixed assets. This share rose to 16% in 2009, following a much higher capex in 2009 than in the preceding years. Cumulative investments between 2005 and 2009 amounted to €62M (€12M p.a.) and 2008 marked the start of a new investment cycle. The average remaining accounting life of PANSA assets was at its highest in 2007 (12 years) and progressively fell to 10.5 in 2009. In 2008, some €330 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 3.0 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets). Following the sharp traffic downturn (-7%), the productivity of PANSA fixed assets significantly decreased in 2009 to reach a value of 2.6.
PANSA capex amounted to €20M in 2009, which is above the average annual capex spent between 2005 and 2009. The main drivers of PANSA 2009 capex were the ATM Pegasus system, the PRANET project and CNS monitoring projects. Although PANSA investment plans were revised substantially downwards for the period 2009-2011 compared to ACE 2007 projections, the cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 remain high at €127M, which corresponds to 104% of the 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues. The capex planned for the 2010-2014 period comprise the following major investment projects:
• Replacement of the ATM systems (FDP, RDP, HMI and VCS) - Pegasus 21 project (i.e. €25.3M, between 2008 and 2012);
• PRANET project, Radar Message Conversion and Distribution Equipment (RMCDE) (i.e. €4.7M, between 2008 and 2010); and,
• CNS Monitoring (i.e. €0.9M, between 2009 and 2013).
Despite a relatively recent asset base (with a remaining accounting life of assets above 10 years in 2009) PANSA plans a major investment cycle throughout 2010-2014, including a new ATM system for Warsaw ACC and new radars. This will translate into a major increase in depreciation costs between 2010 and 2014. It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan. Given the major ATFM delay issues, it is expected that the new ATM system will help reduce the capacity gap.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 229 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
PANSA (Poland) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-3.4%-1.6%-0.4%-4.1%+5.9%
0
100
200
300
400
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
105
120
135
150
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 295 313 300 299 294 284
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 105 118 123 126 126
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 99 116 121 126 132
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PPANSA
-15% -16%
-13% -16%
-27% -35% -32% -38%
0
40
80
120
160
200
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
200
400
600
800
1 000
1 200
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
PANSA gate-to-gate unit costs are projected to fall by -3.9% between 2009 and 2014, an average annual decrease of -0.8%, as traffic is planned to rise only slightly faster than costs by 2014. After a +5.9% increase in 2010 (mainly due to an significant increase in non-staff operating costs), unit costs are planned to fall consistently until 2014.
When comparing 2009-2012 plans from ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, actual traffic in 2009 was -27% lower than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data) while actual costs ended up -15% below plans, an indication of reactivity to the traffic decrease. For the 2010-2012 outlook PANSA reported downwards revisions for both forecast costs (around -15% on average) and forecast traffic (around -35% on average) which implies a more pessimistic profile in terms of unit costs than in ACE 2007 plans.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Poland en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Poland planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Poland Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
32.533.934.734.738.1
34.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-2.1% p.a.
30
40
50
60
70
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Norway Sweden Finland Poland
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
Avinor LFV Finavia PANSA
Finland0.5%
Poland1.7%
Sweden2.6%
Norway1.5%
Remaining States93.7%
6.3%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Between 2009 and 2014, the Polish en-route determined unit rates are planned to fall by -5.4% (-1.1% p.a.). This is better than the increase planned by Finland, similar to the reduction planned by Sweden (-5.6%) but less ambitious than the reduction planned by Norway (-7.0%). Starting from 2011, the reduction in the DUR is -2.1%, which is well below the cost efficiency objective adopted at EU-wide level for RP1 (-3.5% p.a.).
In comparison to Finland, Norway and Sweden, the Polish en-route DUR was the lowest of the group in 2009 and the Polish DUR is planned to maintain its relative advantage over the planning horizon, would all the States perform according to their plans.
The proportion of en-route costs as a percentage of total gate-to-gate costs for PANSA is among the highest in the group, slightly below that of LFV. Based on the forward-looking information provided in ACE 2009, PANSA does not plan any significant change to cost allocation during the period 2009-2014, remaining close to 80%. Among PANSA comparators, only Finavia and to a lower extent LFV plan to allocate a greater share of costs to the en-route cost base from 2010-2011 onwards.
Between 2009 and 2014, the Polish DUR is planned to fall by -1.1% per year on average, this is slightly less than the reductions planned by Norway and Sweden. The DUR reduction planned for 2011-2014 (-2.1% p.a.) is significantly less than the EU-wide objective for RP1 (-3.5%). Would all the States perform according to their plans, by 2014 Poland would still have the lowest DUR in the comparator group.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 230 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ROMATSA (Romania) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 4.23 RON
ROMATSA represents 1.9% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€471 €480€506 €501 €400
€480€471
€400
€501€506
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-17%
+21%
+4%+0.2% +0.4%+3%+1%
-2%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.430.430.370.360.35
+0.4%+15%
+5%+2%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€52€55€46€41€39
+5%
+12%
+18%-5%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+5%+25%
-29%
-2%
0
100
200
300
400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
ROMATSA is a medium-sized ANSP with costs amounting to 1.9% of the European gate-to-gate total.
Between 2005 and 2009, the number of composite flight-hours increased by +6%, a growth much lower than for its neighbour BULATSA (+25% over the same period). ROMATSA traffic is of intermediate complexity but traffic variability is the 8th highest in Europe since in the peak week traffic is +37% higher than the average weekly traffic during the year.
Between 2005 and 2009, ROMATSA unit gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs decreased by -5% (-1.3% a year) since costs remained fairly constant while traffic increase by +6%. However, ROMATSA 2009 unit costs (€480) are significantly higher than that of BULATSA (€414) and HCAA (€339), and are the 7th highest in Europe. A surprisingly high level given underlying economic and traffic demand fundamentals in Romania. Over the period, ATFM delays were not an issue for ROMATSA.
ATCO-hour productivity significantly increased since 2005 (+23%) but remains in 2009, the 6th lowest in Europe. In the meantime, ROMATSA employment costs per ATCO-hour rose by +31% and are in 2009 close to that of BULATSA. The significant increase in employment costs per ATCO-hour observed in 2008 (+18%) reflects the implementation of a new collective agreement in March 2008 as well as the re-location of staff from Arad to Bucharest operational units.
Over the 2005-2009 period, ROMATSA support costs reduced by -3% while traffic increased by +6%, as a result unit support costs decreased by -9%. After a significant decrease in 2007 (-29%), unit support costs increased in 2008 (+25%) and 2009 (+5%). The increase in 2008 is mainly due to exceptional costs associated to amounts paid to employees leaving under an early retirement scheme. The main driver for the unit support costs increase in 2009 is a significant rise of non-staff operating costs (+108%) mainly relating to restructuring costs. As a result, in 2009, ROMATSA unit support costs (€360) are the 7th highest in Europe.
Over the 2005-2009 period, ROMATSA unit gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs decreased by -5% in a context of a +6% traffic increase. ROMATSA 2009 unit costs are the 7th highest in Europe. ATCO-hour productivity remains relatively low despite increases over the period, and unit support costs are in 2009 the 8th highest in Europe, indicating scope for future performance improvements.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+23%
+7%
-5%-9%
-3%
+6%
+31%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 25%
Weight 75%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 231 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ROMATSA (Romania) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Bucharest 244 649 34 327 2.79 1.37
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 90
100
110
120
130
140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Bucharest
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Bucharest
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
13841384145014501450
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Bucharest
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Bucharest 244 649 +5.8% 292 -3.0% 75 807 +4.6%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Bucharest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Romania 0.00 0.00 0.00
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer- LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Bucharest
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, ROMATSA’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 1.8% and no en-route ATFM delays were recorded for Bucharest ACC throughout the 2005-2009 period.
• ATCO productivity increased between 2005-2008 but decreased in 2009 in a context of declining traffic.
• There is no overtime in Bucharest ACC throughout the 2005-2009 period.
In 2009, ATCO productivity of Bucharest ACC is lower than ACCs with similar operational characteristics operated by comparators ANSPs, due to a mix of higher staffing per sector and lower sector productivity. These two drivers worsened since 2007.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +28% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Bucharest ACC did not record en-route ATFM delays in 2010. No significant problems are foreseen between 2011 and 2014 for Bucharest ACC.
The number of ATCOs in OPS is planned to reduce by some -3.0% p.a. as a result of the consolidation of ACC operational units in Romania. This reorganization process is expected to generate productivity improvements in future years.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 232 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ROMATSA (Romania) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+100%
+144%
+89%
-0.4%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2006* C:2006* C:2006* C:2004*
2006 C C C
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€4.7M
€1.1M
€17.4M
€5M
YearsBuildingATM COM NAV SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
Over the 2005-2009 period, ROMATSA’s assets under construction have been consistently below 10% of the net book value of total fixed assets. In the meantime, the assets average remaining accounting life increased to reach some 11 years in 2009. In 2009, for ROMATSA some €698 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of 1.4 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets). A level significantly higher than BULATSA (1.0).
ROMATSA capex amounted to €12M in 2009, this is the same order of magnitude as the capex spent annually between 2005 and 2008. Compared to ACE 2007 plans the capex for 2010-2012 have been revised significantly upwards. The cumulative capex over the 2010-2014 period amounts to €145M (some 87% of the gate-to-gate ANS revenues in 2009).
The capex planned for the 2009-2014 period comprise the following major investment projects:
• Modernization of ATM system, within the Technical Operational Strategy ROMATSA 2012+, approved in 2009 (i.e. €17.4M, between 2008 and 2011, to be commissioned in December 2011), including the upgrade of the FDP system in 2009;
• Improvement of A-SMGCS (i.e. €4M, planned to be commissioned in April 2012);
• Replacement of ILS, VOR and DME equipments at several airports (i.e. €5M, between 2011 and 2012);
• Replacement of 1 WAM and 3 Mode S radars (i.e. €4M, between 2011 and 2012);
• Building of contingency OPS room in Bucharest ACC (i.e. €1.1M, between 2010 and 2011); and,
• Replacement of 20 Non-Directional Beacons (NDBs) (i.e. €0.7M, in 2011).
ROMATSA planned capex for 2010-2014 amount to €145M and mainly relates to the modernisation of the ATM systems. It is expected that these investments contribute to significantly improve ROMATSA ATCO-hour productivity in future years.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 233 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ROMATSA (Romania) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-3.6%-5.0%-3.4%-2.7%-12.1%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
70
90
110
130
150
170
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 480 422 410 396 377 363
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 94 95 95 94 94
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 107 111 115 120 125
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PROMATSA
+32%+26% +27% +23%
-5% -1% -0.2%
+1%
0
40
80
120
160
200
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
250
350
450
550
650
750
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs are expected to fall by -24% between 2009 and 2014, an average annual reduction of -5.4%. This is due to the fact that costs are planned to decrease (-6%) while traffic volumes are expected to significantly increase (+25%) over the period.
When comparing 2009-2012 plans from the ACE 2009 and ACE 2007 submissions, actual traffic in 2009 was lower by -5% than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data) while actual costs ended up +32% higher than planned. This is mainly due to higher staff costs than planned in ACE 2007.
For the 2010-2012 period, ROMATSA planned a traffic profile which is fairly in line with ACE 2007 plans while costs have been revised significantly upwards (+23-27%). As a results, if the units costs planned for the years 2010-2012 show a decreasing trend their level is much higher than in ACE 2007 plans.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Romania en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Romania planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Romania Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
34.035.136.737.6
40.742.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
90
100
110
120
130
140
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
p.a.-3.3%
10
20
30
40
50
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Cyprus Greece Malta Bulgaria Romania
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
DCAC Cyprus HCAA MATS BULATSA ROMATSA
Malta0.2%
Romania2.1%
Bulgaria1.2%
Cyprus0.7%
Greece2.9%
7.1%Remaining
States92.9%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Between 2009 and 2014, Romania en-route unit costs are planned to significantly decrease by -20% (-4.4% p.a.). This is less than the fall planned by Malta (-35%) and Greece (-25%) but more than Cyprus (-11%) and Bulgaria (-12%). Significant en-route unit costs decreases are planned for 2010 (-4.4%) and 2011 (-7.5%), and then lower falls are forecasted until 2014 (-3.3% p.a.).
In comparison to the other States in this comparator group, Romania en-route DUR was the 3rd highest at a level close to Bulgaria and Greece. According to November 2010 plans, by 2014 Romania would have the 2nd highest DUR of the group below Bulgaria.
Between 2009 and 2014, Romania DUR is planned to significantly decrease by -4.4% a year on average, this is less than the falls planned by Malta and Greece but more than Cyprus and Bulgaria. According to November 2010 plans and despite a planned decrease in DUR for 2011-2014 (-3.3% p.a.), Romania would have the 2nd highest DUR of the comparator group in 2014.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 234 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Skyguide (Switzerland) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 1.51 CHF
Skyguide represents 2.9% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€467 €488€438 €467 €482
€598€639
€745€690
€645
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+9% +11%
-2% -3%
+8%
+1%+2%
-7%
+18%
+7%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
-35% -36%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
1.081.151.171.121.13
-6%-2%+4%-1%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€116€116€119€117€121
-3% +1% -2% -1%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+4%-4%
+5%+10%
0
100
200
300
400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
Skyguide is a medium-sized ANSP with costs amounting to 2.9% of the European total. A significant amount of ATM services are delegated from France and Germany to Skyguide for operational purposes. Skyguide traffic complexity is the second highest in Europe.
Composite flight-hours have increased moderately by +4% over the period 2005-2009; a combination of increases between 2006 and 2008 with a sharp -7% reduction in 2009.
Skyguide ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour rose by +11% between 2005 and 2009, mainly due to increases in support costs. ATFM delays have been recurrent over the period, and represented 35% of Skyguide economic costs in 2007. Unit costs of delays then fell in very large proportions in both 2008 and 2009. However, despite the sharp decrease in traffic volumes (-7%), in 2009 ATFM delays represent 18% of Skyguide unit economic costs, which are the 6th highest in Europe.
Despite a -5% decrease since 2005, Skyguide ATCO-hour productivity (1.08) was the second highest in Europe in 2009, higher than that of Austro Control (0.95) and NAVIAIR (0.93).
Employment costs per ATCO-hour also followed a generally downward trend (close to -1% a year on average), an atypical situation among European ANSPs. Consequently Skyguide employment costs per ATCO hour in 2009 (€116) were significantly below those of Austro Control (€149), but higher than NAVIAIR (€91).
Support costs rose by +19% since 2005. Combined with a +4% increase in traffic this led to a +15% increase in skyguide unit support costs (€380) which are in 2009 much higher than that of Austro Control and NAVIAIR (€272). The main drivers of the increase in support costs were exceptional depreciation costs due to the postponement of a major ACC rationalisation project in 2006. The reductions in support costs achieved in 2008 and 2009 were not sufficient to compensate for the sharp traffic decrease in 2009 (-7%).
Skyguide unit costs increased by +11% over the 2005-2009 period. If Skyguide ATCO productivity is the 2nd highest in Europe, unit support costs are significantly higher than NAVIAIR and Austro Control, indicating scope for future performance improvements. ATFM delays have been an issue over the period and despite the sharp fall in traffic (-7%) they represent 18% of Skyguide economic costs in 2009. This indicates that provision of ATC capacity has not been adequate over the 2005-2009 period.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
-5%
+1%
+11%+15%
+19%
+4%
-4% "Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 22%
Weight 78%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 235 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Skyguide (Switzerland) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Geneva 121 193 12 310 10.70 1.15
Zurich 136 255 11 285 10.89 1.13
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 90
95
100
105
110
115
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Geneva Zurich
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Geneva Zurich
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
12701317136814031317
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Geneva Zurich
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Geneva 121 193 +2.1% 103 +1.9% 30 983 +2.4%Zurich 136 255 +2.1% 98 +3.8% 40 710 +3.1%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Geneva 0.24 0.30 0.19 0.18 0.13
Zurich 0.61 0.51 0.17 0.13 0.10
Switzerland 0.22 0.18 0.14
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Geneva
Zurich
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, Skyguide’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 2.4% while the share of total European en-route ATFM delay was 6.6%: the 8th most penalizing ANSP. En-route ATFM delay per flight generated by the two Swiss ACCs was circa 0.5 minute in 2009.
• Geneva and Zurich ACCs show a continuous reduction in en-route delay since 2007, although they remain significant at Zurich ACC.
• The ATC capacity shortfall could not be addressed despite the sharp traffic decline in 2009. The main reason for this shortfall, and resulting ATFM delays, seem to be ATCO shortage in Zurich ACC.
• There is no overtime in Swiss ACCs throughout the 2005-2009 period.
• Whereas ATCO productivity at Geneva ACC remained stable since 2006, there was a gradual decrease at Zurich ACC between 2006 and 2009.
In 2009, the productivity of Swiss ACCs tend to be in line with the average observed for the other ACCs with similar operational characteristics and higher than Kobenhavn ACC but lower productivity than Vienna ACC. This is due to increasing staffing per sector in Geneva ACC since 2005 and generally lower sector productivity.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is +2% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. The actual en-route ATFM delays recorded by the Swiss ACCs slightly decreased in 2010. In Switzerland, the plans for both Geneva and Zurich ACCs refer to continuous ATM system upgrades, sector capacity increases, ATCO recruitment locally and enhanced ASM/ATFCM procedures in the context of FABEC. Effective implementation of these measures is particularly important to ensure provision of adequate ATC capacity to meet the operational requirements of the European network by 2014.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 236 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Skyguide (Switzerland) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+34%
+53%
-18%-20%
15
20
25
30
35
40
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:1999 (Geneva);2007 (Zurich)*
C:2004 (All ACCs)*C:2003/06 (Gen.);2004/05 (Zurich)*
C:2004/05 (Gen.);2009/10 (Zurich)*
2006 Geneva Geneva
2007 C
2008 Zurich
2009 Zurich Geneva
2010 Geneva and Zurich Zurich
2011
2012
€13.7M (2013-2014)
2013
€26.9M (2012-2014)
SURNAVATM COM Building Years
C
C
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
C
Comments on capital expenditures
The share of assets under construction in Skyguide net book value was exceptionally high in 2005 (almost 50%) and then progressively fell to its lowest level in 2009 (6%). Cumulative investments over the period 2005-2009 amounted to €232M (105% of 2009 gate-to-gate revenues), with a peak of €71M at the start of the period. This included major investments in relation to the ACC restructuration project, which was subsequently abandoned, leading to exceptional depreciation costs. As a result, the average remaining accounting life of the fixed assets remained fairly stable over the period, at around 6 years. In 2008, some €989 of fixed assets were required per composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 1.0 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets). Following the sharp traffic downturn (-7%), the productivity of Skyguide fixed assets decreased in 2009 to reach 0.9, a value comparable to Austro Control (0.9) but lower than NAVIAIR (1.2).
Skyguide capex amounted to €26M in 2009, its lowest level in the period 2005 and 2009. Investments made in 2009 and 2010 were revised downards (some -20% and -18% respectively) compared to ACE 2007 projections, while these were revised significantly upwards over the period 2011-2012 (up to +53% in 21011), reflecting the postponement of some investments from 2009 to the following years. The cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 amounts to €165M (75% of the 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues).
The capex planned for the period 2010-2014 include the following major investment projects:
• TACO (Tower – Approach – Communication) system integration into the new FDP in Zurich (i.e. €6.1M, to be completed in 2012);
• Upgrade of RDP systems in Zurich and Geneva ACCs (commissioned in 2010);
• Implementation of stripless system (i.e. €13M, to be completed in 2013);
• Implementation of datalink (i.e. €7.4M, to be completed in 2013);
• Upgrade of Local Area Network (LAN) (i.e. €6.3M, to be completed in 2014); and,
• Hardware replacement (i.e. €7.8M, to be completed in 2014).
Despite an intensive investment cycle between 2005 and 2009 (€232M) the average remaining accounting life of Skyguide assets remains relatively low (around 6 years in 2009). This is due to exceptional depreciation costs following the decision to postpone a major ACC rationalisation project in 2006. Skyguide projected capex for 2010-2014 amount to €165M and include major upgrades in Zurich ACC RDP systems. It is not clear how these investments relate to IP1 or the European ATM Master Plan, nor what the quantified contribution to performance improvements is expected (e.g. improve ATCO productivity and capacity/quality of service in the future years).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 237 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Skyguide (Switzerland) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+0.2%-2.3%+0.3%+5.1%-1.0%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 488 483 508 509 497 498
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 100 108 111 110 113
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 101 103 106 108 111
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PSkyguide
-4%
+0.4%
+8% +10%
-5% -6% -6% -5%
110
140
170
200
230
260
290
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
Gate-to-gate unit costs are projected to rise by +2% between 2009 and 2014, an average annual increase of +0.4%, as costs are planned to rise slightly faster than traffic until 2014.
The actual 2009 costs were some -4% lower than those planned in ACE 2007, but the projections for 2011 and 2012 have been revised upwards by some 8-10%. On the other hand, traffic forecast have been revised downwards by about -5% throughout the planning horizon, resulting in a more pessimistic outlook than in ACE 2007.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Switzerland en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Switzerland planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Switzerland Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
89.3 86.2 89.281.8 81.5 81.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-2.8% p.a.
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Austria Denmark Switzerland
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
Austro Control NAVIAIR Skyguide
Austria2.5%
Switzerland2.0%
Denmark1.6%
6.2%Remaining
States93.8%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Between 2009 and 2014, the Swiss en-route unit costs are planned to fall by -1.7% per year on average. Starting from 2011, the reduction in the DUR is -2.8% p.a. which is well below the cost-efficiency objective adopted at EU-wide level for RP1 (-3.5% p.a.).
According to States November 2010 plans, the Swiss en-route DUR would be significantly higher than that of Austria and Denmark over the whole period.
The proportion of en-route costs as a percentage of total gate-to-gate costs for Skyguide (around 70%) is lower than that of Austro Control and NAVIAIR. Skyguide does not plan any significant change to cost allocation during the period 2009-2014, and among their comparators, only NAVIAIR plan to allocate a growing share of costs to the en-route cost base from 2010 onwards.
Between 2009 and 2014, Switzerland en-route unit costs are planned to decrease by -1.7% a year on average. The DUR reduction planned for 2011-2014 (-2.8% p.a.) is less than the EU-wide objective for RP1 (-3.5%). According to States plans, by 2014 Switzerland would have, and by far, the highest DUR in the comparator group.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 238 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Slovenia Control (Slovenia) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: Slovenia is part of the Euro zone
Slovenia Control represents 0.3% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€448 €470€376 €384 €416
€476€459
€500
€396
€459
0
100
200
300
400
500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+7%
+23%
+15%
+2%
+14%
+7%+5%
-3%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
-85%
+589%
-86% -50%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.400.460.450.460.45
-13%
+2%-2%+3%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€71€71€67€64€64
+1%+4%
+6% -1%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
-0.1%+10%
+9%+5%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
Slovenia Control is one of Europe’s smallest ANSPs with total ATM/CNS costs amounting to 0.3% of the European total.
Traffic grew rapidly between 2005 and 2008, at +9% on average per year before a -3% decline in 2009. Traffic complexity in Slovenia is intermediate, but seasonal variability high.
Slovenia Control’s economic unit cost has moved up and down over the 2005-2009 period as a result of large variations in delay unit costs. After a peak in 2007, perhaps because of the unexpectedly high traffic increase in 2007 and transition to a new FDP system, delay costs fell to marginal levels by 2009 and are the lowest in the peer group.
The unit ATM/CNS provision costs on the other side have steadily increased over the 2005-2009 period at an average annual rate of +6%. As a result of these increases, unit cost in 2009 is +25% higher than it was in 2005. At €470 in 2009, Slovenia Control has the second highest unit cost of its comparator group, while it was second lowest in 2005. Moreover, the increase in unit cost in the 2005-2008 period coincided with a steep rise in traffic. In addition, 2009 saw a +2% rise in ATM/CNS costs despite a -3% reduction in traffic.
Employment costs per ATCO-hour increased by a cumulative +12% over 2005-2008 and fell by -1% in 2009. Slovenia Control has consistently exhibited the lowest productivity levels of the group over the period. These even deteriorated by -13% in 2009.
Support costs rose by 56% over 2005-2009, i.e. an average increase of 12% per annum between 2005 and 2008, followed by a small decrease of -3% in 2009. This 56% increase in costs, combined with the 25% increase in traffic resulted in a 25% increase in unit support costs for the 4-year period. This increase is accountable to an increase in non-ATCO employment related costs per composite flight-hour in the magnitude of +18% per annum on average.
Slovenia Control delays have been significantly reduced over the period 2005-2009. On the other hand, the financial gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness has deteriorated drastically as a result of significant increases in employment costs (for both ATCOs and non ATCOs) and deterioration in productivity. Across cost and productivity metrics, Slovenia Control is amongst the lowest performing of its peers.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
-11%
+25% +25% +25%
+56%
+25%
+11%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 37%
Weight 63%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 239 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Slovenia Control (Slovenia) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level
ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Ljubjana 38 642 10 277 4.78 1.34
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Ljubljana
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Ljubljana
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
14431436144814481448
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Ljubljana
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Ljubljana 38 642 +5.9% 52 +2.2% 14 444 +2.0%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Ljubjana 0.02 0.00 0.31 0.26 0.22
Slovenia 0.31 0.26 0.22
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values for SES II capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL capacity
planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Ljubjana
Comments on capacity & productivity indicators
In 2009, Slovenia Control’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 0.3% in 2009. Minor en-route ATFM delays were recorded for Ljubljana ACC in 2009.
• After a considerable amount of en-route ATFM delay in 2005 and 2007, Ljubljana ACC managed to reduce significantly delays in 2008 and 2009.
• ATCO productivity decreased since 2005, particularly significantly in 2009 in a context of declining traffic.
• There is no overtime in Ljubljana ACC throughout the 2005-2009 period.
In 2009, ATCO productivity of Ljubljana ACC is lower than ACCs with similar operational characteristics, due to a mix of higher staffing per sector and lower sector productivity. These two drivers worsened since 2006.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +33% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. No en-route ATFM delays were recorded by Ljubljana ACC in 2010. No significant problems are foreseen for Ljubljana ACC between 2011 and 2014. It is expected that the main measure to support the deployment of additional ATC capacity will come from the new OPS room (expected in 2012).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 240 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Slovenia Control (Slovenia) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
3%
6%
9%
12%
15%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
+1%
+130%
-68%-1%
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2007* C:2000* C:2000* C:1998*
2006
2007 C
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
ATM COM NAV
€24M**
€0.7M
SUR YearsBuilding
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
** The amount reported for ATM also includes the capex for the new building in Ljubljana ACC
Comments on capital expenditures
In the 2005-2009 period, Slovenia Control is showing a significant share of assets under construction (approaching 50% of the net book value of total fixed assets in 2008). This is an indication that significant capex were made during this period. Despite this intensive investment cycle, the average remaining accounting life of Slovenia Control assets remained relatively low and further decreased in 2008 and 2009. This may be due to significant write-off of assets.
In 2008, for Slovenia Control some €434 of fixed assets were required for 1 composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 2.3 composite flight-hour per €1000 of fixed assets). Following the increase in the GBV of fixed assets (+3%) and traffic downturn (-3%) in 2009, the productivity of Slovenia Control fixed assets decreased to reach a value of 2.17. This is however still a high productivity compared with the ANSPs in the comparator group.
Slovenia Control undertook €8M of capital investment in 2009, which is nearly double the average capex for 2005-2008 (€4M). The 2009 capital spent covered the continuing build of its new Air Traffic Control Centre and systems upgrades for D-VOR, FDPS/SDPS, Voice and data recording systems and safety nets. The planned capex for 2010-2014 (cumulative €32M) represents 114% of the gate-to-gate ANS revenues in 2009 and it is slightly higher than spent in the previous five years (€26M), with a peak of €17M in 2011.
Actual capex is fairly in line with the projections made in ACE 2007, while the figure in 2010 has been significantly revised downwards (-68%) and in 2011 upwards (+130%), reflecting the postponement of the net ATCC in Ljubljana from 2011 to 2012. The projected capital programme 2010-14 (€32M) includes:
• The new ATCC in Ljubljana (i.e. €23M, between 2006 and 2012, including both the building infrastructure and technical/system equipments); and,
• Purchase of a D-VOR (i.e. € 0.7M, between 2009 and 2011).
Slovenia Control’s capex is planned to increase significantly over the next 5-year period. The cumulative capex for 2010-2014 (€32M) is mainly relating to the construction of the new ACC building (€23M).
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 241 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Slovenia Control (Slovenia) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-1.1%-0.2%+0.2%-1.4%+5.8%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 470 497 490 491 490 485
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 110 112 124 129 132
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 104 108 119 124 128
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PSlovenia Control
-3%
+2%
-1%
+7%
-5% -8% -11% -8%
0
10
20
30
40
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
40
60
80
100
120
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
Slovenia Control plan for a +5.8% increase in unit gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs in 2010. This increase will be followed by a -1.4% decrease in 2011 and from 2012-2014 unit costs are forecast to be relatively stable, with average annual reductions of -0.3%.
Both actual 2009 costs and traffic were lower than what was forecasted at the end of 2008 (for ACE 2007) before the economic crisis – costs were -3% lower and traffic -5%, an indication of reactivity to the traffic decrease. For years 2010 and 2011, forecast costs are fairly in line with ACE 2007 projections and have been revised upwards in 2012 (+7%), while traffic has been revised downwards (at around -8%/-11%). This shows a much more pessimistic outlook of the unit costs performance for 2010-2012 than before the economic crisis.
Profile of the en-route DURs based on States Nov. 2010 forecasts
The chart below on the left-hand side shows planned changes in Slovenia en-route determined unit rate (DUR, as defined in the EC performance scheme regulation) over the period 2012-2014 and the corresponding unit costs per SU for 2009-2011. The figure on the right-hand side compares Slovenia planned profile in en-route unit costs with States operating in relatively similar economic and operational environments.
Planned en-route determined unit rate for Slovenia Planned changes in en-route determined unit rate
64.667.069.571.1
75.371.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
En-
rout
e tr
affic
& c
osts
inde
x (2
009=
100)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
p.a.-3.2%
30
40
50
60
70
80
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
Czech Republic Hungary Slovak Republic Slovenia
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs Share of comparators in total en-route ANS costs
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
ANS CR HungaroControl LPS Slovenia Control
Slovak Republic
0.7%
Slovenia0.4%
Hungary1.0%
Czech Republic
1.5%
3.6%Remaining
States96.4%
Comments on the planned en-route DUR (Nov. 2010 data)
Between 2009 and 2014, Slovenia en-route determined unit rates are planned to decrease by -10.2% (-2.6% p.a.). This is similar to the reduction planned by Slovakia (-9.8%) but far less ambitious than the reduction planned by Czech Republic (-17.7%). Starting from 2011, the reduction in the DUR is -3.2% p.a. which is below the cost efficiency objective adopted at EU-wide level for RP1 (-3.5% p.a.).
In comparison to Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovak Republic, Slovenia en-route DUR was well above the comparators group in 2009, and its relative position is not planned to change much, would all the States perform according to their plans.
The Slovenian en-route determined unit rates profile contrasts with planned changes in Slovenia Control gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs. The observed difference is mainly due to higher traffic forecast for the service units than for the composite flight-hours, and to inconsistencies between the en-route costs projections disclosed in the Route Charges document and in Slovenia Control ACE submission.
In 2009, Slovenia Control allocated 85% of its gate-to-gate costs to the en-route cost-base, a higher proportion than ANS CR and HungaroControl. In 2011, Slovenia Control plans to increase this share to 88%.
Between 2009 and 2014, the Slovenian DUR is planned to decrease by -2.6% a year on average, this is similar to the reduction planned by Slovakia but far less ambitious than the reduction planned by Czech Republic. The DUR reduction planned for 2011-2014 (-3.2% p.a.) is below the EU-wide objective for RP1 (-3.5% p.a.). Would all the States perform according to their plans, by 2014 Slovenia would still have the highest DUR in the comparator group.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 242 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
SMATSA (Serbia and Montenegro) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 93.81 RSD
SMATSA represents 0.9% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€298 €310
€339 €344
€310€299
€344€340
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-6%
+5%
+15%+13%
+9%
+1%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
Unit costs of ATFM delays
-67%
+179%
-32%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.740.760.690.61
-1%+10%
+14%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€45€43€48
€41
+17%
-10%+3%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+4%-12%+1%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
SMATSA is a small ANSP with costs amounting to 0.9% of the European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs. As well as the airspace of Serbia and Montenegro, SMATSA also provides services in part of the airspace of Bosnia and Herzegovina. SMATSA traffic is of intermediate complexity but traffic variability is relatively high since in the peak week, traffic is +46% higher than the average weekly traffic during the year.
Following the accession of Serbia and Montenegro to EUROCONTROL in July 2005, SMATSA has reported data to ACE from 2006 onwards, so these comments only relate to the 2006-2009 period.
Over the period, composite flight-hours grown significantly at an average annual rate of +7.5%, although growth was irregular.
SMATSA unit ATM/CNS provision costs decreased by -8.7% between 2006 and 2009 (-3.0% p.a.). In 2009, despite a +4.0% increase compared to 2008, SMATSA unit ATM/CNS provision costs (€310) are lower than for Croatia Control. ATFM delays are not a problem in Serbia and Montenegro and SMATSA has a policy that aims for zero delay. The +179% increase in ATFM delays unit costs observed for 2008 is not relevant as it represents only minimal delays.
Over the 2006-2009 period, SMATSA ATCO-hour productivity increased by +23% (+7.0% p.a.). Although, it slightly decreased in 2009 (-1%), SMATSA ATCO-hour productivity is +18% higher than Croatia Control.
In the meantime, employment costs per ATCO-hour increased by +9% (+2.8% p.a.) however in 2009 these remain lower than those reported by Croatia Control.
Support costs have risen over the 2006-2009 period (+14%) but less than traffic (+24%), contributing to the overall decrease in unit ATM/CNS provision costs.
In a context of +24% traffic increase, SMATSA unit ATM/CNS provision costs reduced by -9% over the 2006-2009 period. ATCO-hour productivity and employment costs per ATCO-hour compare well to its neighbour Croatia Control.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2006-2009)
+23%
-11%-9% -8%
+14%
+24%
+9%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 20%
Weight 80%
Decrease in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2006-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 243 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
SMATSA (Serbia and Montenegro) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level
ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Belgrade 197 449 24 348 4.99 1.45
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b 70
80
90
100
110
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Beograd
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Belgrade
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
1336132812241224
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
3
4
5
6
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Belgrade
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
3
4
5
6
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Belgrade 197 449 +2.4% 152 +1.3% 42 490 +1.7%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Belgrade 0.00 0.01 N/appl N/appl N/appl
Serbia/Montenegro N/appl N/appl N/appl
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL
capacity planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
50
100
150
200
250
2009
A
2010
P
2011
P
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Belgrade
Comments on planned capacity profile
In 2009, SMATSA’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 1.5% while the share of total European en-route ATFM delay was small, 0.03%, despite a steep 4.2% increase in traffic from 2008. Additional ATCOs were made available during the period and an enhanced ATM ops concept including Radar/Planner operations was implemented.
• Belgrade ACC ATCO productivity has shown steady increases from 2007-2009, in the context of increasing traffic.
• In 2009, ATCO productivity of Belgrade ACC is slightly above the average of the ACCs with similar operational characteristics.
• No overtime has been recorded for Belgrade ACC over the period.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +12% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Belgrade ACC recorded a slight increase in its en-route ATFM delay in 2010 however delay levels remained very low. No capacity problems are foreseen for Belgrade ACC between 2011 and 2014 and there is sufficient capacity to accommodate further increases in demand and/or the potential reopening of Kosovo airspace.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 244 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
SMATSA (Serbia and Montenegro) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
3%
6%
9%
12%
15%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
-31%
+174%
-26%-21%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
M€
Planned capex (ACE 2007) Planned capex (ACE 2009)
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:2004* C:2004* C:2004* C:2004*
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€4.9M€18M
ATM COM NAV SUR
€30.9M
Building Years
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
Comments on capital expenditures
The share of SMATSA fixed assets under construction significantly increased between 2006 (14%) and 2009 (36%). This is an indication of significant capex during this period. In 2009, the average remaining accounting life of SMATSA assets was around 7 years. This value is expected to increase when the assets currently under construction will enter into operation. In 2008, for SMATSA some €594 of fixed assets were required for 1 composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 1.7 composite flight-hours per €1 000 of fixed assets). The productivity of SMATSA fixed assets increased in 2009 to reach a value of 2.0. A relatively high level compared to similar ANSPs.
The capex spent by SMATSA between 2006 and 2008 is significant (€47M) and represents more than 72% of 2009 gate-to-gate revenues. SMATSA capex was €27M in 2009 which is significantly higher than the amounts spent between 2006 and 2008 (€16M p.a.). An important driver for SMATSA 2009 capex was the construction of the new ACC building in Belgrade and the replacement of the ATM systems that are planned to be in operation in 2011. It is noteworthy that major upgrades of the ATM systems had been done in 2008. Although SMATSA investment plans were revised substantially compared to ACE 2007 projections, the cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 remains significant at around €87M which corresponds to 135% of 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues.
The capex planned for the 2009-2014 period mainly relate to the modernisation of the ATM system (FAMUS) and comprise the following major investment projects:
• The new ACC building in Belgrade (i.e. €18M, between 2009 and 2010);
• A new ATM System for Belgrade ACC (consisting of DPS, VCS, DVRPS and TRS) and SMATSA communications network (i.e. €30.9M, between 2009 and 2011);
• Purchase of an aircraft equipped with Automatic Flight Inspection System (i.e. €10M, between 2008 and 2010); and,
• Purchase of VHF and UHF radio system for air-ground communications intended for coverage improvement in the airspace below FL195 (i.e. €4.9M, between 2008 and 2010).
Over the 2005-2009 period, SMATSA spent some €73M in capital investment in the context of the FAMUS project. This is a significant amount which represents more than 100% of SMATSA 2009 gate-to-gate revenues. The capex planned for 2010-2014 is also intensive and amount to €87M.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 245 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
SMATSA (Serbia and Montenegro) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009)
Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-6.7%-5.8%
-5.1%-3.3%+1.4%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
85
91
97
103
109
115
121
127
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 310 314 304 288 272 253
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 99 102 99 95 91
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 98 104 106 108 111
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PSMATSA
-9% -15% -19% -28%
-1% -9% -8% -11%
0
30
60
90
120
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
150
250
350
450
550
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
SMATSA gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to significantly decrease by -18% over the 2009-2014 period (i.e. -3.9% p.a.) since composite flight-hours are expected to increase (+11%) while ATM/CNS provision costs are planned to decrease (-9%). The decrease in SMATSA ATM/CNS provision costs is mainly to due to falls in staff costs (-1.4% p.a.) and non-staff operating costs (-9% p.a.).
Compared to ACE 2007 plans, in ACE 2009 SMATSA has revised its planned costs significantly downwards (15-28% over 2010-2012). The traffic profile has also been revised downwards but not in the same magnitude (-8-11%). As the result, the unit costs profile in ACE 2009 provides a more optimistic outlook than in ACE 2007 plans.
En-route unit costs
The chart below shows planned changes in Serbia and Montenegro en-route unit costs over the period 2010-2014. The chart on the bottom of this page shows planned changes in allocation of en-route costs for SMATSA between 2009 and 2014.
Planned en-route unit costs for Serbia and Montenegro
26.0 28.1 22.721.7
19.818.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
En-
rout
e A
NS
cos
ts /
SU
(€)
90
95
100
105
110
115
En-
rout
e co
sts
& t
raff
ic in
dex
(200
9=10
0)
ANSP EUROCONTROL MET NSA SUs En-route costs
-6.3% p.a.
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
SMATSA
Comments on en-route unit costs (Nov. 2010 data)
Between 2009 and 2014, Serbia & Montenegro en-route unit costs are planned to decrease by -18% (i.e. -3.8% p.a.). After small reductions in 2010 (-1.3%) and 2011 (-1.1%), en-route unit costs are planned to decrease by -6.3% p.a. until 2014. These planned en-route unit costs reductions reflect a significant decrease in en-route costs (-10%) over the period while SUs are expected to increase by +10%.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 246 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
UkSATSE (Ukraine) – Cost-effectiveness KPIs (€2009) Contextual economic information Operational conditions
Aggregated complexity score: Seasonal traffic variability: Exchange rate: 1 EUR = 10.87 UAH
UkSATSE represents 1.8% of European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs
Min MaxMin Max
Min MaxMin Max
Trend in gate-to-gate economic cost-effectiveness (all financial data in €2009 prices)
€322 €391€338 €393 €357
€394
€322
€357€393
€338
0
100
200
300
400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht-h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hourATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
+1%
-2%
+11%+11%+9%
+12%
-9%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours
+31%
Trend in ATCO-hour productivity Assessment on ANSP performance
0.300.350.280.220.19
-12%
+24%
+24%
+19%
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
r pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
Trend in employment costs per ATCO-hour
€11€11€10€10€9
+6% +2%
+12% -2%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€ pe
r A
TC
O-h
our
on d
uty
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Trend in support costs per composite flight-hour
+22%
-10%-8%+21%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009€ pe
r co
mpo
site
flig
ht h
our
(200
9 pr
ices
)
Employment costs (excl. ATCOs in OPS) Non-staff operating costs
Capital-related costs Exceptional costs
UkSATSE is a medium-sized ANSP with costs amounting to 1.8% of the European system gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs. UkSATSE traffic is of lower complexity and traffic variability is intermediate.
Over the period, traffic grown significantly at an average annual rate of +5.6%, although the number of composite flight-hours controlled by UkSATSE decreased by -9% in 2009.
UkSATSE unit ATM/CNS provision costs increased by +16% between 2005 and 2009 (+3.7% p.a.). In 2009, unit costs rose by +21% since ATM/CNS provision costs increased by +11% while traffic decreased by -9%. ATFM delays are not a problem for UkSATSE.
After significant consecutive increases between 2005 and 2008 (+22% p.a.) UkSATSE ATCO-hour productivity decreased by -12% in 2009 to reach a level of 0.30, the 4th lowest ATCO-hour productivity in Europe.
Although employment costs per ATCO-hour increased by +18% over the 2005-2009 period, these remain amongst the lowest in Europe.
Between 2005 and 2009, UkSATSE support costs increased much faster (+53%) than traffic volumes (+24%) and as a result unit support costs rose by +23%. In 2006, unit support costs were affected by a major addition to capital-related costs, and exceptional costs were reported in 2007 and 2008 due to write-offs and provisions for bad debt. In 2009, UkSATSE unit support costs amounted to €355, the 9th highest in Europe. A level which does not seem commensurate with prevailing lower wage rates and cost of living in Ukraine.
In 2009, UkSATSE ATM/CNS provision costs increased by +11% while traffic decreased by -9%. This resulted in an increase of unit ATM/CNS provision costs (+21%) which cancelled the reductions achieved between 2006 and 2008. UkSATSE ATCO-hour productivity decreased in 2009 (-12%) to reach 0.30, the 4th lowest ATCO-productivity in Europe. Unit support costs significantly increased since 2005 (+23%) and were in 2009 amongst the 10 highest in Europe. A level which does not seem commensurate with prevailing lower wage rates and cost of living in Ukraine and which indicates room for future performance improvements.
Changes in financial cost-effectiveness (2005-2009)
+62%
-27%
+16%+23%
+53%
+24%+18%
"Traffic effect"
ATCO-hour productivity
"Support costs effect"
Employment costs per
ATCO-hour
ATCO employment costs per composite
flight-hour
Support costs per composite
flight-hour
Weight 11%
Weight 89%
Increase in unit ATM/CNS
provision costs 2005-2009
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 247 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
UkSATSE (Ukraine) – Capacity and productivity indicators at ACC level ACC operational characteristics in 2009 ACC flight-hours
ACC name IFR Flight-
hours
Average Transit
Time (min)
Average Flight Level
Aggregated complexity
score
Seasonal Traffic
Variability
Dnipropetrovsk 4 209 15 202 0.53 1.33
Kharkiv 47 206 25 342 1.25 1.30
Kyiv 85 104 29 321 1.45 1.24
L'viv 63 799 25 342 1.91 1.21
Odesa 22 665 18 327 1.11 1.37
Simferopol 80 425 29 346 1.81 1.22
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3a Cluster 3b
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Flig
ht-h
ours
inde
x (1
00 in
200
9)
Dnipropetrovs'k+Kharkiv Kyiv L'viv Odesa Simferopol
Kharkiv ACC closed in 2010 and activities were transferred to Dnipropetrovs'k ACC
ATCO-hour productivity and ATFM en-route delays ATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Dnipropetrovs'k Kharkiv Kyiv L'viv Odesa Simferopol
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
AT
CO
-hou
r(p
rodu
ctiv
ity)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
En-
rout
e de
lay
> 1
5 m
in. p
er fl
ight
-hou
r
ATC Capacity Weather ATC Other Other Productivity
12311180121812551176
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Average overtime hours per ATCO in OPS per yearATCO-hours on duty per ATCO per year (without overtime)
AT
CO
-hou
rs o
n du
ty p
er A
TC
O p
er y
ear
Sector productivity and staffing per sector Planned staffing and sectorisation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Dnipropetrovs'k Kharkiv Kyiv L'viv Odesa Simferopol
Flig
ht-h
ours
per
sec
tor-
hour
(sec
tor
prod
uctiv
ity)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
AT
CO
-hou
rs p
er s
ecto
r-ho
ur(s
taffi
ng p
er s
ecto
r)
Sector productivity Staffing per sector
2009
%annualchange09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
2009
% annual change 09-14
Dnipropetrovs'k 4 209 +69.0% 72 +7.6% 17 520 +24.6%Kharkiv 47 206 Closed 51 Closed 52 560 ClosedKyiv 85 104 +3.4% 187 -0.2% 70 080 +0.2%L'viv 63 799 +3.4% 72 +3.9% 43 800 0%Odesa 22 665 +3.4% 53 +10.4% 43 800 0%Simferopol 80 425 +3.4% 136 +2.2% 61 320 0%
ACC name
IFR Flight-hours ATCOs in OPS Sector-hours
Reference values for capacity KPI Planned capacity profile (LSSIP 2010-2014)
2009A 2010A 2012 2013 2014
Dnipropetrovs'k 0.00 0.00 N/appl N/appl N/appl
Kharkiv 0.00 0.00 Closed Closed Closed
Kyiv 0.02 0.09 N/appl N/appl N/appl
L'viv 0.00 0.02 N/appl N/appl N/appl
Odesa 0.00 0.03 N/appl N/appl N/appl
Simferopol 0.00 0.00 N/appl N/appl N/appl
Ukraine N/appl N/appl N/appl
ACC name
En-route ATFM delays per flight
Actual and planneden-route capacity KPI
Reference values capacity KPI provided by EUROCONTROL
capacity planning process
Capacity profile (summer - LSSIP)
0
20
40
60
80
100
2009
A20
10P
2011
P20
12P
2013
P20
14P
2009
A20
10P
2011
P20
12P
2013
P20
14P
2009
A20
10P
2011
P20
12P
2013
P20
14P
2009
A20
10P
2011
P20
12P
2013
P20
14P
2009
A20
10P
2011
P20
12P
2013
P20
14P
AC
C m
ovem
ents
per
hou
r
Actual capacity providedPlanned capacityRequired capacity to achieve PC capacity target
Kyiv Lviv
Odesa
Simferopol
Kharkiv + Dnipropetrovs'k
Comments on planned capacity profile
In 2009, UkSATSE’s traffic share in terms of total flight-hours controlled in Europe was 2.3% while the share of total European en-route ATFM delay was 0.1%.
In 2009, all Ukrainian ACCs apart from Kyiv recorded no en-route ATFM delay. Kyiv ACC recorded low levels of delay due to a combination of capacity and weather issues.
• ATCO productivity at Ukrainian ACCs generally increased in the years leading up to 2008, in the context of increasing traffic for all except Dnipropetrovs’k. 2009 saw ATCO productivity at all Ukrainian ACCs decline, with the most significant decreases seen at Kyiv and L’viv.
• In 2009, ATCO productivity at Ukrainian ACCs is generally much lower than ACCs with similar operational characteristics, due to a combination of low sector productivity and higher staffing per sector. Dnipropetrovs’k ACC, Kyiv ACC and Smiferopol ACC are particularly poor performers.
• No overtime was recorded for UkSATSE ATCOs during 2005-2009.
Outlook 2010-2014:
The level of traffic planned for 2014 is about +10% higher than the 2008 peak, i.e. before the economic crisis. Minor increases in en-route ATFM delay in 2010 were recorded for Kyiv, L’viv and Odesa, however delay levels remained low. No capacity problems are foreseen at any Ukrainian ACCs between 2011 and 2014.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 248 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
UkSATSE (Ukraine) – Asset structure and main capital investment projects (€2009)
Asset structure and capital productivity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
3
6
9
12
15
Yea
rs
Total NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets under constructionTotal NBV ATM/CNS fixed assets in operationAverage remaining accounting life (fixed assets in operation)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Com
posi
te fl
ight
-hou
rs p
er €
'000
of G
BV
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
Ave
rage
rat
e of
dep
reci
atio
n (%
of G
BV
)
Productivity of fixed assets Average depreciation rate of fixed assets
Planned capital expenditures and depreciation costs
0
4
8
12
16
20
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
M€
0.0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3.0
Cap
ex to
dep
reci
atio
n ra
tio
Capex (M€) Depreciation (M€) Capex to depreciation ratio
NOT AVAILABLE
Information on major capex projects and ATM system upgrades / replacements
FDPS RDPS HMI VCS
C:1997 (L'viv);2000 (Khar., Odesa,
Kyiv);2007 (Simf., Kyiv, Dnip.)*
C: 1997 (L'viv);2000 (Odesa and Kyiv);
2007 (Simf.)*
C: 1997 (L'viv);2000 (Odesa and Kyiv);
2007 (Simf.)*
C:2000 (Kyiv);2003 (Odesa, L'viv and
Kyiv);2006 (Simf., Dnip.)*
2006 Kharkiv Kharkiv Kharkiv C
2007 C C C
2008 Kyiv L'viv L'viv
2009
2010 Dnipropetrovs'k Dnipropetrovs'k Kyiv
Simferopol SimferopolL'viv and Kyiv L'viv and Kyiv
2012 Kharkiv and Odesa Kharkiv, Odesa and Kyiv Kharkiv, Odesa and Kyiv
2013
€10M**
2011 L'viv L'viv
€26.5M
NAV
€4M
Building YearsATM COM SUR
* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement* C = Commissioning Upgrade Replacement
C
** The amount reported for ATM also includes the capex for the new building in L'viv ACC
Comments on capital expenditures
Over the 2005-2009 period, UkSATSE assets under construction have been consistently above 20% of the net book value of total fixed assets. This is an indication of significant capex during this period (some €16M p.a.). As a result of this intensive investment cycle, the average remaining accounting life of UkSATSE assets increased from 7 years in 2005 to 8.5 years in 2009. In 2008, for UkSATSE some €304 of fixed assets were required for 1 composite flight-hour (a productivity of fixed assets of 3.3 composite flight-hour per €1 000 of fixed assets). Following the sharp traffic downturn (-9%), the productivity of UkSATSE fixed assets slightly decreased in 2009 to reach a value of 3.2.
UkSATSE capex was €10M in 2009, this is lower than the average capex spent annually between 2005 and 2008 (€17M p.a.). The cumulative capex planned for 2010-2014 is significant at around €69M which corresponds to 43% of 2009 gate-to-gate ANS revenues.
The capex planned for the 2009-2014 period are related to a large scale ATM modernisation programme and comprise the following major investment projects:
• Purchase of 5 ATCR-33S radars (i.e. €25M, between 2007 and 2009);
• Building & equipment for Receiving Centre (RX) and Transmitting Centre (TX) in Dnipropetrovs’k (i.e. €2M, between 2008 and 2010);
• Building & equipment for ATM centre in L’viv (i.e. €10M, between 2009 and 2011);
• Building tower in Simferopol (i.e. €2M, between 2008 and 2009); and,
• Upgrade of one en-route radar (i.e. €1.5M, between 2009 and 2010).
Over the 2005-2009 period, UkSATSE spent some €79M in capital investment in the context of a large scale ATM modernisation programme. The capex planned for 2010-2014 amount to €69M. It is expected that these investments and in particular the implementation of the new ATM systems contribute to improve UkSATSE ATCO-hour productivity in the future years.
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 249 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
UkSATSE (Ukraine) – Forward-looking cost-effectiveness (€2009) Planned changes in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
-6.0%+4.6%
0
100
200
300
400
500
€ p
er
com
po
site
flig
ht-
ho
ur
90
100
110
120
130
140
Gate-to-gate unit ATM/CNS costs 391 409 384 0 0 0
Gate-to-gate costs (index) 100 109 106 100 100 100
Composite flight-hours (index) 100 105 108 112 115 119
2009 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014PUkSATSE
+24%
-3% -6% -9% -12%
0
50
100
150
200
2009 2010 2011 2012
Ga
te-t
o-g
ate
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(Mill
ion
s o
f Eu
ro)
300
450
600
750
900
Co
mp
osi
te fl
igh
t-h
ou
rs
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Planned costs (ACE 2007) Planned costs (ACE 2009)
Planned traffic (ACE 2007) Planned traffic (ACE 2009)
Comments on planned gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour
UkSATSE did not provide sufficient information to compute planned ATM/CNS provision costs for the period 2012-2014.
The right-hand side chart indicates that 2009 actual traffic was -3% lower than planned before the economic crisis (in ACE 2007 data). On the other hand, actual 2009 ATM/CNS provision costs were +24% higher than planned. As a result, UkSATSE 2009 unit ATM/CNS provision costs are significantly higher than planned in ACE 2007.
En-route unit costs
The chart below shows planned changes in Ukraine en-route unit costs over the period 2010-2014. The chart on the bottom of this page shows planned changes in allocation of en-route costs for UkSATSE between 2009 and 2014.
Planned en-route unit costs for Ukraine
NOT AVAILABLE
Allocation of en-route costs in gate-to-gate ATM/CNS costs
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
2009A 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P 2014P
Sha
re o
f en-
rout
e co
sts
(%)
UkSATSE
Comments on en-route unit costs (Nov. 2010 data)
Cost-effectiveness performance focus at ANSP level 250 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Annex 1 – Status on ANSPs Annual Reports 251 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ANNEX 1 – STATUS ON ANSPS YEAR 2009 ANNUAL REPORTS
Ava
ilabi
lity
of a
pub
lic
Ann
ual
Re
port
s (A
R)
Ava
ilabi
lity
of
Man
age
me
nt R
epor
t
Ava
ilabi
lity
of A
nnu
al
Acc
ount
s
Inde
pen
dent
aud
ited
acco
unts
Sep
arat
e ac
coun
ts fo
r en
-ro
ute
and
term
inal
A
NS
cos
ts
Info
rmat
ion
prov
ided
in
Eng
lish
PRU comments
Aena No Includes airport activities.
ANS CR No
ARMATS No No No No No No PRU received an extract of the financial statements comprising an Income and a Balance Sheet statement.
BULATSA No
Austro Control No
Avinor No AR mainly in Norwegian, except a summary in English.
Belgocontrol No Audit performed by the “Collège des Commissaires”. No cash flow statement.
Croatia Control No
DCAC Cyprus No No No No No No
DFS No Separate accounts are used for internal reporting purposes and charges calculation.
DHMİ No Includes airport activities.
DSNA No
EANS No
ENAV No No A document comprising a short summary of ENAV financial statements is available in English.
Finavia No Detailed accounts only available for total Finavia.
HCAA No No No No No No
HungaroControl No
IAA No LFV No Detailed accounts for total LFV.
LGS No
LPS No
LVNL Separate Income Statement for en-route and terminal ANS
MATS Separate Income Statement for en-route and terminal ANS.
M-NAV No No No No No No
MoldATSA No No No No No No PRU received an extract of the financial statements comprising a Balance Sheet statement.
MUAC n/appl
NATA Albania No No
NATS Several ARs for individual group companies.
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) No
NAVIAIR No No
Oro Navigacija Total revenues and costs provided for both en-route and terminal ANS.
PANSA No
ROMATSA No
Skyguide Separate accounts for military OAT services.
Slovenia Control No
SMATSA No
UkSATSE No Annual Report does not include a balance-sheet statement
Annex 1 - Table 0.1: Status on ANSP’s 2009 Annual Reports
Annex 1 – Status on ANSPs Annual Reports 252 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Annex 2 – Performance indicators used for the comparison of ANSPs 253 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ANNEX 2 - PERFORMANCE INDICATORS USED FOR THE COMPARISON OF ANSPS
The output measures for ANS provision are, for en-route, the en-route flight-hours controlled82 and, for terminal ANS, the number of IFR airport movements controlled. Those output measures can be derived from the EUROCONTROL database and therefore readily available and consistent across the ANSPs included in the analysis. In addition to those output metrics, it is important to consider a "gate-to-gate" perspective, because the boundaries used to allocate costs between en-route and terminal ANS vary between ANSPs and might introduce a bias in the cost-effectiveness analysis83. For this reason, an indicator combining the two separate output measures for en-route and terminal ANS provision has been calculated. The "composite gate-to-gate flight-hours" are determined by weighting the output measures by their respective average cost of the service for the whole European system. This average weighting factor is based on the total monetary value of the outputs over the period 2002-2009 and amounts to 0.26. The composite gate-to-gate flight-hours are consequently defined as:
Composite gate-to-gate flight-hours = En-route
flight-hours + (0.26 x IFR airport movements)
In the ACE 2001-2006 Reports, two different weighting factors were used to compute ANSPs cost-effectiveness: one for the year under study and another to examine changes in performance across time. As the ACE data sample became larger in terms of years, the difference between these two weighting factors became insignificant. For the sake of simplicity, it was therefore proposed in the ACE 2007 Benchmarking Report to use only one weighting factor to analyse ANSPs performance for the year and to examine historical changes in cost-effectiveness.
Although the composite gate-to-gate output metric does not fully reflect all aspects of the complexity of the services provided, it is nevertheless the best metric currently available for the analysis of gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness84.
82 Controlled flight-hours are calculated by the CFMU as the difference between the exit time and entry time of any given flight in the controlled airspace of an operational unit. Three types of flight-hours are currently computed by the CFMU (filed model, regulated model and current model). The data used for the cost-effectiveness analysis is based on the current model (Model III or CFTM) and includes flight-hours controlled in the ACC, APP and FIS operational units which are described in the CFMU environment. 83 See also working paper on “Cost-effectiveness and Productivity Key Performance Indicators”, available on the PRC web site at www.eurocontrol.int/prc. 84 Further details on the theoretical background to producing composite indicators can be found in a working paper on “Productivity of European ANSPs: basic concepts and application" (Sept. 2003).
Annex 2 – Performance indicators used for the comparison of ANSPs 254 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Annex 3 – Traffic complexity indicators at ANSP level 255 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ANNEX 3 – TRAFFIC COMPLEXITY INDICATORS AT ANSP LEVEL
[1] [2] [3] [4][5] =
[2]+[3]+[4][6] =
[1]x[5]
ANSPs Adj
uste
d de
nsity
Ver
tical
inte
ract
ions
Ho
rizon
tal i
nter
actio
ns
Sp
ee
d in
tera
ctio
ns
Str
uct
ura
l com
plex
ityin
dic
ato
r
Agg
rega
ted
com
ple
xity
sc
ore
Belgocontrol 9.30 0.43 0.53 0.44 1.40 13.01Skyguide 11.05 0.28 0.56 0.21 1.05 11.58NATS 10.42 0.38 0.41 0.30 1.09 11.32DFS 10.25 0.30 0.53 0.26 1.08 11.07MUAC 10.29 0.26 0.51 0.16 0.92 9.47LVNL 9.60 0.24 0.38 0.34 0.96 9.21Austro Control 8.10 0.21 0.49 0.21 0.92 7.47ANS CR 7.34 0.18 0.51 0.22 0.92 6.75DSNA 9.33 0.16 0.39 0.14 0.69 6.47ENAV 5.26 0.28 0.55 0.20 1.04 5.47SMATSA 8.64 0.05 0.46 0.06 0.57 4.94Slovenia Control 6.13 0.15 0.49 0.13 0.78 4.76HungaroControl 7.34 0.08 0.44 0.13 0.65 4.75LPS 5.32 0.15 0.48 0.18 0.82 4.34Aena 5.79 0.18 0.40 0.12 0.71 4.11NAVIAIR 3.95 0.18 0.54 0.20 0.93 3.66Croatia Control 5.58 0.07 0.48 0.09 0.64 3.54PANSA 3.75 0.13 0.51 0.22 0.87 3.25DHMI 4.99 0.14 0.38 0.11 0.62 3.10LFV/ANS Sweden 3.23 0.21 0.45 0.23 0.89 2.87ROMATSA 4.88 0.07 0.36 0.15 0.57 2.81M-NAV 4.80 0.10 0.40 0.08 0.58 2.78DCAC Cyprus 4.00 0.15 0.39 0.10 0.64 2.57ATSA Bulgaria 6.91 0.06 0.24 0.06 0.36 2.47HCAA 3.87 0.13 0.39 0.11 0.63 2.43Avinor 2.07 0.35 0.48 0.26 1.10 2.27NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) 3.35 0.17 0.40 0.08 0.65 2.18NATA Albania 4.60 0.06 0.32 0.05 0.43 1.99LGS 2.99 0.09 0.41 0.14 0.64 1.92Finavia 2.01 0.26 0.34 0.35 0.95 1.90EANS 3.36 0.14 0.26 0.17 0.57 1.90IAA 4.50 0.08 0.21 0.09 0.39 1.74Oro Navigacija 3.18 0.06 0.34 0.13 0.54 1.70UkSATSE 2.77 0.05 0.36 0.17 0.58 1.60MoldATSA 1.33 0.07 0.39 0.20 0.65 0.86ARMATS 1.03 0.10 0.36 0.19 0.65 0.67MATS 1.04 0.12 0.37 0.12 0.62 0.64
Average 7.07 0.22 0.44 0.19 0.85 6.03
Annex 3 - Table 0.1: Traffic complexity indicators at ANSP level, 2009
Annex 3 – Traffic complexity indicators at ANSP level 256 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
[1] [2] [3] [4][5] =
[2]+[3]+[4][6] =
[1]x[5]
ANSPs ACC name Adj
uste
d de
nsi
ty
Ver
tica
l in
tera
ctio
ns
Hor
izo
ntal
inte
ract
ions
Sp
ee
d in
tera
ctio
ns
Str
uctu
ral c
ompl
exi
ty
Agg
reg
ated
co
mpl
exity
sc
ore
Aena Palma 5.7 0.26 0.39 0.26 0.91 5.2 116Aena Barcelona 5.9 0.23 0.45 0.12 0.79 4.6 274Aena Madrid 6.0 0.13 0.39 0.07 0.59 3.6 330Aena Sevilla 4.3 0.21 0.35 0.10 0.65 2.8 282Aena Canarias 2.2 0.21 0.28 0.12 0.62 1.4 241ANS CR Praha 7.3 0.17 0.51 0.21 0.90 6.5 312LFV/ANS Sweden Malmo 3.6 0.14 0.47 0.16 0.76 2.7 313LFV/ANS Sweden Stockholm 2.3 0.34 0.39 0.36 1.09 2.5 232ATSA Bulgaria Sofia 7.1 0.06 0.24 0.05 0.35 2.5 348ARMATS Yerevan 1.1 0.08 0.35 0.19 0.61 0.7 313Austro Control Wien 8.2 0.18 0.50 0.18 0.85 7.0 323Avinor Oslo 3.2 0.35 0.47 0.22 1.05 3.4 192Avinor Bodo 0.8 0.37 0.47 0.30 1.14 1.0 184Avinor Stavanger 1.0 0.29 0.47 0.30 1.07 1.1 188Belgocontrol Brussels 9.3 0.43 0.53 0.44 1.40 13.0 159Croatia Control Zagreb 5.8 0.06 0.48 0.08 0.62 3.6 341DCAC Cyprus Nicosia 4.0 0.15 0.39 0.10 0.64 2.6 318DFS Langen 10.1 0.40 0.52 0.42 1.34 13.5 147DFS Munchen 9.8 0.32 0.47 0.29 1.09 10.7 225DFS Rhein 11.4 0.22 0.57 0.16 0.94 10.7 344DFS Bremen 4.4 0.34 0.50 0.40 1.24 5.5 132DHMI Istanbul 5.0 0.20 0.30 0.11 0.61 3.0 290DHMI Ankara 4.8 0.09 0.40 0.10 0.58 2.8 339DSNA Reims 10.4 0.20 0.39 0.15 0.74 7.8 324DSNA Paris 8.7 0.23 0.28 0.27 0.78 6.7 243DSNA Marseille 7.9 0.17 0.43 0.13 0.72 5.7 315DSNA Bordeaux 9.8 0.11 0.40 0.08 0.59 5.8 335DSNA Brest 9.2 0.10 0.43 0.07 0.60 5.5 347EANS Tallinn 3.4 0.14 0.26 0.17 0.57 1.9 310ENAV Milano 6.2 0.43 0.59 0.37 1.39 8.7 171ENAV Padova 5.9 0.31 0.62 0.21 1.14 6.7 295ENAV Roma 5.2 0.24 0.52 0.16 0.92 4.8 282ENAV Brindisi 3.4 0.13 0.49 0.10 0.72 2.4 315Finavia Tampere 1.7 0.25 0.26 0.29 0.81 1.4 256Finavia Rovaniemi 0.6 0.36 0.35 0.30 1.00 0.6 239MK CAA Skopje 4.7 0.10 0.42 0.06 0.58 2.7 317HCAA Athinai+Macedonia 3.8 0.10 0.37 0.08 0.55 2.1 311HungaroControl Budapest 7.4 0.07 0.43 0.13 0.62 4.6 332IAA Dublin 6.1 0.28 0.36 0.32 0.96 5.8 124IAA Shannon 4.3 0.05 0.19 0.06 0.30 1.3 334LGS Riga 3.2 0.08 0.42 0.12 0.62 2.0 343LPS Bratislava 5.4 0.15 0.48 0.18 0.81 4.3 317LVNL Amsterdam 9.6 0.24 0.38 0.34 0.96 9.2 160MATS Malta 1.0 0.10 0.36 0.11 0.57 0.5 334MoldATSA Chisinau 1.3 0.07 0.39 0.20 0.65 0.9 319MUAC Maastricht 10.3 0.26 0.51 0.16 0.92 9.5 341NATA Albania Tirana 4.6 0.06 0.32 0.05 0.43 2.0 319NATS London TC 26.1 0.47 0.50 0.32 1.29 33.7 112NATS Prestwick 5.3 0.32 0.39 0.39 1.10 5.8 230NATS London AC 9.1 0.31 0.33 0.23 0.87 7.9 305NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) Lisboa 3.4 0.17 0.40 0.07 0.64 2.2 300NAVIAIR Kobenhavn 3.7 0.16 0.55 0.17 0.88 3.2 300Oro Navigacija Vilnius 3.2 0.06 0.34 0.13 0.54 1.7 308PANSA Warszawa 3.8 0.11 0.52 0.18 0.82 3.1 330ROMATSA Bucuresti 4.9 0.07 0.36 0.14 0.57 2.8 327Skyguide Zurich 10.2 0.31 0.54 0.23 1.07 10.9 285Skyguide Geneva 11.1 0.22 0.56 0.18 0.96 10.7 310Slovenia Control Ljubljana 6.2 0.15 0.49 0.13 0.78 4.8 277SMATSA Beograd 8.8 0.05 0.46 0.06 0.57 5.0 348UkSATSE Simferopol 3.7 0.01 0.34 0.14 0.49 1.8 346UkSATSE L'viv 2.8 0.02 0.51 0.17 0.70 1.9 342UkSATSE Kyiv 2.3 0.12 0.31 0.21 0.63 1.5 321UkSATSE Kharkiv 2.8 0.04 0.28 0.13 0.45 1.3 342UkSATSE Odesa 1.8 0.04 0.45 0.12 0.61 1.1 327UkSATSE Dnipropetrovs'k 0.3 0.53 0.38 0.61 1.52 0.5 202
7.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.8 5.9 289European system average
Ave
rage
use
d f
light
leve
l
Annex 3 - Table 0.2: Traffic complexity indicators at ACC level, 2009
Annex 4 – Cost of capital reported by ANSPs 257 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ANNEX 4 – COST OF CAPITAL REPORTED BY ANSPS
ANSPs Comments
Aena Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the net current assets with an average rate of 5.2%.
ANS CR Gross cost of capital computed as the product of an average rate of 5.1% and an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and a part of the working capital.
ARMATS Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising of the long-term assets and the average net current assets (working capital) with an average rate of 14.0%.
BULATSA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the net current assets with an average rate of 7%.
Austro Control Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets (excluding assets under construction, land and financial assets) with an average rate of 3.3%.
Avinor Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets in operations at year-end with a weighted average cost of capital (calculated at Avinor Group level) of 8.3%.
Belgocontrol Gross cost of capital which comprises the financial cost of debt and the product of the yearly average Belgian OLO rate (linear bonds, 2.2%) with an asset base corresponding to the total NBV of fixed assets less the borrowings.
Croatia Control Corresponds to the product of the asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the current assets with an average rate of 4.5%.
DCAC Cyprus Corresponds to the product of the asset base comprising the NBV of fixes assets in operation and the current assets with an average rate of 6.0%.
DFS Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets in operation and the net current assets with an average rate of 6.16%.
DHMİ
Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets in operation and the net current assets (reduced by the provision for over/under recovery and the cost of debt, since no ANS investments are currently financed by debt), with an average rate of 6.82%.
DSNA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets in operation and net current assets with an average rate of 3.74%.
EANS Computed as the sum of the cost of equity (8% required return on equity) and the cost of debt.
ENAV Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets with an average rate of 3.2%.
Finavia Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and net current assets with an average rate including the return on equity (4.9%) and the cost of debt (2.5%).
HCAA Corresponds to the product of the average operating capital employed with an average rate of 2.41%.
HungaroControl Gross cost of capital calculated using the return on equity (i.e. 9.3%) applied to the average NBV of fixed assets and net current assets.
IAA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets with an average rate of 7.17%.
LFV Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the current assets with an average rate of 3.9%.
LGS Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the current assets with an average rate of 8.1%.
LPS Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the current assets with an average rate of 8.7%.
LVNL Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets with an average rate of 4.2%.
MATS Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the net current assets with an average rate of 3.9%.
M-NAV Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets with an average rate of 5.5%.
MoldATSA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets in operation with an average rate of 16.3%, plus a part of the capex in the year, not capitalised in the Balance Sheet.
MUAC Corresponds to the product of the actual interest paid by EUROCONTROL to the banks with the proportion of EUROCONTROL NBV assets belonging to MUAC.
NATA Albania Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the net current assets with an average rate of 4.8%.
Annex 4 – Cost of capital reported by ANSPs 258 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NATS Economic cost of capital computed as the product of the regulatory rate of return (6.5%) with the regulatory asset base for en-route ANS and with the capital employed for terminal ANS.
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the current assets with an average rate of 5.42%.
NAVIAIR Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the net current assets with an average rate of 4.3%.
Oro Navigacija Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the net current assets with an average rate of 3.0%.
PANSA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the net current assets with an average rate of 3.5%.
ROMATSA Corresponds to the sum of the cost of debt and the cost of equity (8% applied to equity).
Skyguide Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets with an average rate of 2.52%.
Slovenia Control Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the net current assets with an average rate of 4.0%.
SMATSA Corresponds to the product of an asset base comprising the NBV of fixed assets and the net current assets with an average rate of 12.4%.
UkSATSE Includes elements of capital expenditure.
Annex 4 - Table 0.1: Comments on cost of capital reported by ANSPs, 2009
Annex 5 – Exchange rates, inflation rates and PPPs 2009 data 259 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ANNEX 5 – EXCHANGE RATES, INFLATION RATES AND PURCHASING POWER PARITIES (PPPS) 2009 DATA
ANSPs Countries 2009
Exchange rate (1 € =)
2009 Inflation rates (%)
2009 PPPs
Comments
Aena Spain 1 0.8 0.94
ANS CR Czech Republic 26.4 1.0 17.94
ARMATS Armenia 506.1 3.4 243.79 PPPs from IMF database
Austro Control Austria 1 0.5 1.12
Avinor Norway 8.7 2.1 11.75
Belgocontrol Belgium 1 0.6 1.15
BULATSA Bulgaria 2.0 2.8 0.87
Croatia Control Croatia 7.3 2.4 5.01
DCAC Cyprus Cyprus 1 1.3 0.91
DFS Germany 1 0.4 1.07
DHMI Turkey 2.2 6.5 1.24
DSNA France 1 0.8 1.16
EANS Estonia 1 -0.1 0.69
Adjustment made on Euros since EUROSTAT PPPs for Estonia are based on the Euro and not the EEK
ENAV Italy 1 0.5 1.03
Finavia Finland 1 1.6 1.21
HCAA Greece 1 1.4 0.94
HungaroControl Hungary 279.7 4.2 170.18
IAA Ireland 1 -1.8 1.20
LFV Sweden 10.6 0.9 11.87
LGS Latvia 0.7 3.5 0.48
LPS Slovak Republic 1 0.9 0.68
LVNL Netherlands 1 1.0 1.13
MATS Malta 1 1.7 0.74
M-NAV F.Y.R. Macedonia 61.2 -0.5 23.79
MoldATSA Moldova 15.5 0.4 7.59 PPPs from IMF database
MUAC 1 1.0 1.13 Netherlands PPPs and inflation rate used for MUAC
NATA Albania Albania 131.6 5.5 55.32
NATS United Kingdom 0.9 2.6 0.85
NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa)
Portugal 1 -0.8 0.84
NAVIAIR Denmark 7.4 1.3 10.56
Oro Navigacija Lithuania 3.5 4.2 2.13
PANSA Poland 4.3 3.5 2.47
ROMATSA Romania 4.2 5.6 2.14
Skyguide Switzerland 1.5 0.0 2.03
Slovenia Control Slovenia 1 1.8 0.84
SMATSA Serbia and Montenegro
93.8 10.4 44.49 Data for Serbia only since ACE data is provided in Serbian Dinar
UkSATSE Ukraine 10.9 15.9 4.03 PPPs from IMF database
Annex 5 - Table 0.1: 2009 Exchange rates, inflation rates and PPPs data
Annex 5 – Exchange rates, inflation rates and PPPs 2009 data 260 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Presentation and comparison of historical series of financial data from different countries poses problems, especially when different currencies are involved, and inflation rates differ. There is a danger that time-series comparisons can be distorted by transient variations in exchange rates. For this reason, the following approach has been adopted in this Report for allowing for inflation and exchange rate variation. The financial elements of performance are assessed, for each year, in national currency. They are then converted to national currency in 2009 prices using national inflation rates. Finally, for comparison purposes in 2009, all national currencies are converted to Euros using the 2009 exchange rate. This approach has the virtue that an ANSP’s performance time series is not distorted by transient changes in exchange rates over the period. It does mean, however, that the performance figures for any ANSP in a given year prior to 2009 are not the same as the figures in that year’s ACE report, and cannot legitimately be compared with another ANSP’s figures for the same year. Cross-sectional comparison using the figures in this report is only appropriate for 2009 data. The exchange rates used in this Report to convert the 2009 data in Euros are those provided by the ANSPs in their ACE data submission. The historical inflation figures used in this analysis were obtained from EUROSTAT (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home) or from International Monetary Fund (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/01/weodata/index.aspx), when data is not available in EUROSTAT. For the projections (2010-2014), the ANSPs’ own assumptions concerning inflation rates were used. Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) are currency conversion rates that are applied to convert economic indicators in national currency to an artificial common currency (Purchasing Power Standard (PPS) for EUROSTAT statistics). The PPPs data used to adjust most of the ANSPs employment costs in Chapter 5 of this report was extracted from EUROSTAT. For three countries (Armenia, Moldova and Ukraine), PPP data was not available in the EUROSTAT database. In these cases, the IMF database was used. Since in the IMF database, the PPPs are expressed in local currency per international Dollar rather than PPS, an adjustment has been made so that the figures used for Armenia, MoldATSA and UkSATSE are as consistent as possible with the data used for the rest of the ANSPs. The assumption underlying this adjustment is that the difference in PPPs between two countries shall be the same in the EUROSTAT and in the IMF databases. According to the IMF database, there is a factor of 3.46 between the PPPs for Ukraine (3.153 UAH per international dollar in 2009) and the PPPs for France (0.911 Euro per international Dollar). This factor is applied to the PPPs for France as disclosed in the EUROSTAT database (i.e. 1.165) to express the PPPs for Ukraine in PPS (4.03 = 1.165 × 3.46). A similar methodology is used to express Moldova PPPs in PPS.
Ann
ex 6
– K
ey d
ata
261
AC
E 2
009
Ben
chm
arki
ng
Rep
ort
AN
NE
X 6
- K
EY
DA
TA
AN
SP
s
Income from charges
Income for airport operator
Income received from other States for delegation of ANS
Income from the military
Income in respect of exempted flights
Other income from domestic government
Financial income
Other income
Exceptional revenue item
Total revenues
Income from charges
Income for airport operator
Income received from other States for delegation of ANS
Income from the military
Income in respect of exempted flights
Other income from domestic government
Financial income
Other income
Exceptional revenue item
Total revenues
Income from charges
Income for airport operator
Income received from other States for delegation of ANS
Income from the military
Income in respect of exempted flights
Other income from domestic government
Financial income
Other income
Exceptional revenue item
Total revenues
Ae
na79
2 98
90
00
16 0
47
6 49
11
115
2 64
10
819
28
219
1 02
90
00
00
545
5 1
790
196
753
984
018
00
016
04
76
491
1 6
607
820
01
016
036
AN
S C
R8
5 00
60
00
2 88
762
61
341
00
89 8
60
22
102
00
033
10
603
00
23 0
3610
7 10
80
00
3 21
86
261
944
00
112
896
AR
MA
TS
3 04
70
00
60
14
229
03
295
3 43
40
00
00
02
390
3 6
746
481
00
06
014
468
06
969
Au
stro
Co
ntro
l14
5 66
90
00
445
1 79
643
32
295
01
50 6
38
33
152
00
00
03
710
033
523
178
821
00
044
51
796
804
2 2
950
184
161
Avi
nor
86
549
00
00
00
00
86 5
49
08
0 55
50
00
00
3 9
340
84 4
898
6 54
98
0 55
50
00
00
3 9
340
171
038
Be
lgoc
ont
rol
161
876
00
00
9 09
81
179
4 73
03
011
77 1
83
25
473
640
00
02
971
400
5127
284
187
349
64
00
09
098
1 4
766
129
351
204
467
BU
LA
TS
A7
7 80
00
00
045
70
00
78 2
56
5 20
40
00
00
3 2
075
600
8 9
718
3 00
40
00
04
573
207
560
087
227
Cro
atia
Co
ntro
l5
5 84
10
6 31
00
00
00
062
15
17
501
00
00
00
00
7 5
016
3 34
20
6 31
00
00
00
069
652
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
37
726
00
00
00
00
37 7
26
00
00
07
605
00
07
605
37
726
00
00
7 6
050
00
45 3
31D
FS
629
858
00
00
042
31
10
06
72 1
69
188
904
00
00
012
812
00
201
716
818
762
00
00
055
123
00
873
885
DH
MI
204
038
00
08
123
1 74
50
00
213
90
79
9 73
90
00
00
00
099
739
303
778
00
08
123
1 7
450
00
313
646
DS
NA
1 01
7 78
00
00
19 6
48
00
2 92
60
1 0
40 3
55
212
866
00
039
02
80
02
926
025
4 8
211
230
646
00
058
67
70
05
853
01
295
176
EA
NS
12
524
00
00
00
00
12 5
24
951
00
00
00
00
951
13
475
00
00
00
00
13 4
75E
NA
V50
5 70
10
00
16 1
71
22 5
69
2 92
013
75
01
730
562
84
13
7 44
30
00
24 3
78
33 2
64
610
3 9
563
8410
0 0
3554
3 14
40
00
40 5
49
55 8
333
530
17 7
062
114
662
875
Fin
avi
a2
8 99
30
032
60
440
025
90
30 0
18
17
084
00
00
353
02
746
020
183
46
077
00
326
07
930
3 0
050
50 2
02H
CA
A17
8 02
50
00
00
00
01
78 0
25
00
00
00
00
00
178
025
00
00
00
00
178
025
Hun
garo
Co
ntro
l6
0 71
20
00
2 86
150
33
059
00
67 1
35
13
641
106
00
151
06
870
014
586
74
353
106
00
3 01
35
033
746
00
81 7
21IA
A10
2 78
60
00
2 48
80
153
00
105
42
72
1 30
90
00
00
690
021
378
124
095
00
02
488
02
220
012
6 8
05LF
V12
5 95
80
816
058
90
66
00
127
42
90
24
382
00
00
00
024
382
125
958
24
382
816
058
90
660
015
1 8
11LG
S1
7 87
60
00
00
20
1 87
30
19 7
68
2 13
90
00
00
101
050
2 2
542
0 01
40
00
00
301
978
022
022
LPS
41
228
00
705
142
210
61
1 38
90
43 7
34
5 74
90
00
109
05
121
05
984
46
977
00
705
250
210
661
510
049
718
LVN
L15
3 33
20
00
2 69
50
01
771
01
57 7
98
50
202
00
00
00
5 7
530
55 9
5520
3 53
40
00
2 69
50
07
524
021
3 7
53M
AT
S1
1 09
40
00
270
00
00
11 3
64
01
290
00
02
159
00
03
449
11
094
1 29
00
027
02
159
00
014
813
M-N
AV
10
133
00
00
00
00
10 1
33
697
00
00
046
50
748
10
830
00
00
046
50
10 8
81M
oldA
TS
A6
210
00
00
14
524
00
6 74
81
539
00
00
00
00
1 5
397
749
00
00
145
240
08
287
MU
AC
00
430
000
00
00
00
430
00
0n/
appl
n/ap
pln
/app
ln
/app
ln
/app
ln
/app
ln/
app
ln/
app
ln/
appl
n/ap
pl
00
430
00
00
00
00
043
0 0
00N
AT
A A
lban
ia1
5 04
50
00
00
3 83
822
90
19 1
11
1 14
70
00
00
625
370
1 8
091
6 19
20
00
00
4 4
6326
60
20 9
20N
AT
S55
8 27
40
00
00
1 16
90
-766
558
67
79
387
171
659
00
00
380
00
181
426
567
661
171
659
00
00
1 5
490
-766
740
104
NA
V P
ort
ugal
(F
IR L
isbo
a)
116
663
00
00
969
00
01
17 6
32
26
890
00
00
00
800
027
691
143
554
00
00
969
080
00
145
323
NA
VIA
IR7
4 54
60
00
2 39
10
42
00
76 9
80
27
426
3 49
20
00
014
00
30 9
3210
1 97
23
492
00
2 39
10
570
010
7 9
12O
ro n
avig
acija
16
532
00
131
43
073
915
80
17 6
02
2 11
70
01
717
70
9420
02
425
18
648
00
148
220
08
3317
80
20 0
28P
AN
SA
100
353
00
078
80
625
193
-1 6
041
00 3
55
21
174
00
052
40
3441
-269
21 5
0412
1 52
70
00
1 31
10
659
234
-1 8
7312
1 8
59R
OM
AT
SA
120
128
00
04
946
921
7 97
210
44
80
144
41
52
0 07
10
00
00
1 4
281
046
022
545
140
199
00
04
946
921
9 4
0011
495
016
6 9
60S
kygu
ide
104
623
03
7 67
70
02
306
013
45
380
150
12
06
3 42
40
00
00
03
442
3 1
6070
026
168
048
037
67
70
02
306
03
576
8 54
022
0 1
46S
love
nia
Con
tro
l2
4 62
60
00
156
02
308
-999
24 0
92
3 35
196
034
97
60
02
1488
4 1
742
7 97
69
60
349
232
02
522
-911
28 2
66S
MA
TS
A4
8 35
20
6 35
00
00
00
054
70
24
375
00
00
03
707
164
1 8
0610
052
52
727
06
350
00
03
707
164
1 80
664
754
UkS
AT
SE
139
010
00
00
00
00
139
01
02
2 63
00
00
00
00
022
630
161
640
00
00
00
00
161
640
En
-ro
ute
AN
S r
even
ue
s (i
n €
'000
)T
erm
ina
l AN
S r
even
ues
(in
€'0
00)
Gat
e-to
-gat
e A
NS
rev
enu
es
(in
€'0
00)
An
nex
6 -
Tab
le 0
.1:
Bre
akd
ow
n o
f to
tal A
NS
rev
enu
es (
en-r
ou
te, t
erm
inal
an
d g
ate-
to-g
ate)
, 200
9
Ann
ex 6
– K
ey d
ata
262
AC
E 2
009
Ben
chm
arki
ng
Rep
ort
AN
SP
s
ATM/CNS provision costs
MET costs
Payment for regulatory and supervisory services
Payment ot the State for provision of other services
Eurocontrol costs
Payments for delegation of ANS
Irrecoverable value added tax (VAT)
Total costs
ATM/CNS provision costs
MET costs
Payment for regulatory and supervisory services
Payment ot the State for provision of other services
Eurocontrol costs
Payments for delegation of ANS
Irrecoverable value added tax (VAT)
Total costs
ATM/CNS provision costs
MET costs
Payment for regulatory and supervisory services
Payment ot the State for provision of other services
Eurocontrol costs
Payments for delegation of ANS
Irrecoverable value added tax (VAT)
Total costs
Aen
a79
3 13
038
721
6 55
17
630
61 2
580
090
7 28
939
4 37
615
219
00
00
040
9 59
51
187
505
53 9
406
551
7 63
06
1 2
580
01
316
884
AN
S C
R83
619
1 96
20
06
225
810
09
2 61
624
017
515
00
00
024
532
107
636
2 4
770
06
225
810
011
7 14
8A
RM
AT
S3
199
00
023
80
03
436
3 08
50
00
00
03
085
6 2
840
00
238
00
6 52
2A
ustr
o C
ontr
ol
134
519
14 6
790
011
188
00
160
386
31 4
153
196
00
00
034
611
165
934
17 8
750
01
1 1
880
019
4 99
7A
vino
r77
122
1 44
352
30
7 81
10
08
6 89
880
900
1 3
4621
10
00
082
457
158
022
2 7
8973
30
7 8
110
016
9 35
5B
elgo
cont
rol
112
864
9 22
71
359
012
892
38 8
930
175
235
37 3
583
312
441
00
00
41 1
1115
0 2
2212
538
1 80
00
12
892
38 8
930
216
346
BU
LAT
SA
66 7
696
256
543
04
387
020
87
8 16
210
182
1 6
8021
30
00
2312
098
76 9
517
936
756
04
387
023
190
261
Cro
atia
Co
ntro
l55
982
3 88
00
00
549
06
0 41
08
341
00
00
00
8 3
4164
323
3 8
800
00
549
068
751
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
34 3
643
445
3 74
10
2 25
10
04
3 80
16
353
566
686
00
00
7 6
0540
717
4 0
114
427
02
251
00
51 4
06D
FS
687
908
32 6
210
00
00
720
529
199
686
8 6
0915
70
00
020
8 45
288
7 5
9441
230
157
00
00
928
981
DH
MI
186
275
17 1
702
153
016
793
00
222
391
56 2
330
00
00
056
233
242
508
17 1
702
153
01
6 7
930
027
8 62
4D
SN
A91
6 04
063
772
10
196
083
538
44 0
350
1 1
17
581
241
617
21 2
972
553
00
00
265
468
1 15
7 6
5885
069
12 7
490
83
538
44 0
350
1 38
3 04
9E
AN
S7
749
510
00
00
7 80
02
077
142
00
00
02
219
9 8
2619
30
00
00
10 0
19E
NA
V53
4 48
445
020
00
51 4
1094
50
631
859
114
126
4 5
670
00
00
118
693
648
610
49 5
870
05
1 4
1094
50
750
552
Fin
avia
24 4
951
601
279
03
648
237
03
0 26
032
623
3 2
1875
50
00
036
596
57 1
184
819
1 03
40
3 6
4823
70
66 8
56H
CA
A15
2 94
310
654
3 27
20
12 2
440
017
9 11
325
122
1 4
3376
90
00
027
324
178
065
12 0
874
041
01
2 2
440
020
6 43
7H
unga
roC
ontr
ol57
191
1 18
187
70
5 18
488
60
65
321
16 8
441
779
195
00
00
18 8
1874
035
2 9
611
073
05
184
886
084
139
IAA
87 4
836
649
1 65
21
630
7 78
60
010
5 20
019
439
1 6
6235
632
60
00
21 7
8310
6 9
228
311
2 00
81
956
7 7
860
012
6 98
3LF
V13
9 51
86
420
347
00
00
146
285
26 6
950
144
00
00
26 8
3916
6 2
136
420
491
00
00
173
124
LGS
13 1
2044
71
668
00
00
15
235
7 01
373
60
00
00
7 7
4920
134
1 1
821
668
00
00
22 9
84LP
S39
224
1 07
534
50
2 50
830
20
43
454
7 14
352
128
00
00
7 6
9246
367
1 5
9737
30
2 5
0830
20
51 1
46LV
NL
118
988
9 01
80
014
283
35 7
333
57
018
1 59
259
876
891
00
00
1 8
3562
602
178
864
9 9
090
01
4 2
8335
733
5 40
524
4 19
4M
AT
S10
211
585
00
750
00
11
546
3 28
813
70
00
00
3 4
2513
499
722
00
750
00
14 9
72M
-NA
V9
003
566
392
067
20
01
0 63
31
720
176
826
00
00
2 7
2210
722
743
1 21
80
672
00
13 3
55M
oldA
TS
A5
259
536
141
021
70
06
153
1 37
013
831
00
00
1 5
396
630
674
171
02
170
07
692
MU
AC
134
603
00
00
05
134
608
n/ap
pln
/ap
pln/
appl
n/ap
pln/
app
ln/
app
ln/
app
ln
/app
l13
4 6
030
00
00
513
4 60
8N
AT
A A
lban
ia14
113
252
331
092
80
01
5 62
42
350
770
00
00
2 4
2716
462
329
331
09
280
018
051
NA
TS
528
968
143
5 75
60
00
053
4 86
815
7 74
626
3 0
750
00
016
0 84
768
6 7
1416
98
831
00
00
695
715
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa
)10
8 29
05
285
334
09
312
00
123
220
25 9
790
00
00
025
979
134
269
5 2
8533
40
9 3
120
014
9 20
0N
AV
IAIR
82 4
394
333
784
817
682
04
36
69
9 68
429
570
00
40
00
029
611
112
009
4 3
3378
412
17
682
04
366
129
295
Oro
nav
igac
ija15
936
439
284
01
104
00
17
764
2 76
868
550
00
02
892
18 7
0450
734
00
1 1
040
020
656
PA
NS
A92
238
3 67
81
832
08
617
550
010
6 91
425
747
2 1
6453
70
00
028
448
117
984
5 8
422
369
08
617
550
013
5 36
2R
OM
AT
SA
126
566
6 05
83
671
08
902
00
145
197
21 2
011
238
104
00
00
22 5
4414
7 7
677
296
3 77
60
8 9
020
016
7 74
1S
kygu
ide
154
110
8 24
40
00
00
162
354
63 7
053
641
00
016
60
67 5
1221
7 8
1511
88
50
00
166
022
9 86
5S
love
nia
Co
ntro
l20
624
1 19
232
20
1 35
714
80
23
643
3 60
042
849
00
00
4 0
7724
224
1 6
2137
10
1 3
5714
80
27 7
20S
MA
TS
A57
305
4 00
80
00
00
61
313
12 1
9785
30
00
00
13 0
5069
502
4 8
610
00
00
74 3
63U
kSA
TS
E11
2 86
61
179
00
6 43
00
012
0 47
524
248
00
00
00
24 2
4813
7 1
141
179
00
6 4
300
014
4 72
3
Gat
e-to
-gat
e A
NS
co
sts
(in
€'0
00)
En
-ro
ute
AN
S c
ost
s (i
n €
'000
)T
erm
inal
AN
S c
ost
s (i
n €
'000
)
An
nex
6 -
Tab
le 0
.2:
Bre
akd
ow
n o
f to
tal A
NS
co
sts
(en
-ro
ute
, ter
min
al a
nd
gat
e-to
-gat
e), 2
009
Ann
ex 6
– K
ey d
ata
263
AC
E 2
009
Ben
chm
arki
ng
Rep
ort
AN
SP
s
Staff costs
Non-staff operating costs
Depreciation costs
Cost of capital
Exceptional items
ATM/CNS provision costs
Staff costs
Non-staff operating costs
Depreciation costs
Cost of capital
Exceptional items
ATM/CNS provision costs
Staff costs
Non-staff operating costs
Depreciation costs
Cost of capital
Exceptional items
ATM/CNS provision costs
Ae
na
53
4 8
83
11
9 4
31
88
19
53
3 5
54
17
06
67
93
13
02
98
61
532
81
335
18
32
1 0
38
6 7
27
394
37
68
33
49
81
52
24
41
23
37
85
4 5
912
3 7
931
18
7 5
05
AN
S C
R4
2 6
46
14
01
12
0 9
03
6 0
59
08
3 6
191
6 1
43
3 6
76
2 7
65
1 4
33
02
4 0
17
58
78
91
7 6
87
23
66
87
492
01
07
63
6A
RM
AT
S1
58
97
29
35
45
06
21
3 1
99
1 4
56
74
33
56
50
92
13
08
53
04
51
47
27
10
1 0
154
26
28
4A
ust
ro C
on
tro
l1
00
96
91
6 0
18
15
11
22
42
00
13
4 5
19
20
68
93
55
65
99
31
17
70
31
41
51
21
65
81
9 5
74
21
10
53
597
01
65
93
4A
vin
or
52
81
01
7 6
20
4 6
87
2 0
04
07
7 1
225
2 5
00
22 5
00
3 9
36
1 9
64
08
0 9
00
10
5 3
10
40
12
08
62
33
968
01
58
02
2B
elg
oco
ntr
ol
84
31
61
0 9
14
11
54
83
18
12
90
51
12
86
42
6 7
33
3 8
01
5 6
47
28
98
88
37
35
81
11
04
81
4 7
15
17
19
53
470
3 7
94
15
0 2
22
BU
LA
TS
A3
7 0
71
7 5
47
11
66
61
0 4
85
06
6 7
696
99
01
21
91
47
25
02
01
0 1
82
44
06
18
76
51
3 1
37
10
987
07
6 9
51
Cro
atia
Co
ntr
ol
34
74
81
1 9
46
7 5
32
1 7
55
05
5 9
825
19
91
50
71
13
1 5
22
08
34
13
9 9
47
13
45
37
64
53
277
06
4 3
23
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
11
06
01
4 5
22
4 8
36
3 9
46
03
4 3
642
34
52
47
96
51
87
80
6 3
53
13
40
51
7 0
01
5 4
87
4 8
240
40
71
7D
FS
41
8 9
42
94
14
47
0 8
58
69
90
53
4 0
59
68
7 9
08
12
0 6
33
21 9
56
27 9
44
18
00
81
1 1
45
199
68
65
39
57
51
16
10
09
8 8
02
87
913
45
204
88
7 5
94
DH
MI
70
69
35
9 4
49
24
10
93
2 0
24
01
86
27
51
9 9
56
17 8
72
9 9
04
8 5
01
05
6 2
33
90
65
07
7 3
21
34
01
34
0 5
250
24
2 5
08
DS
NA
63
2 2
35
16
4 2
11
95
95
22
3 6
42
09
16
04
01
53
35
754
58
027
39
56
28
50
241
61
77
85
59
32
18
79
11
23
34
72
9 9
270
1 1
57
65
8E
AN
S3
78
91
66
71
43
38
60
07
74
91
11
53
81
41
91
62
02
07
74
90
32
04
91
85
21
022
09
82
6E
NA
V2
69
54
91
40
13
89
4 1
41
28
90
01
75
65
34
48
45
4 2
82
28 4
94
24 7
45
6 2
50
35
411
4 1
26
32
3 8
31
16
8 6
32
11
8 8
87
35
150
2 1
11
64
8 6
10
Fin
avi
a1
4 7
52
6 4
50
2 4
60
83
30
24
495
23
06
43
91
53
57
22
07
20
32
62
33
7 8
16
10
36
56
03
22
905
05
7 1
18
HC
AA
12
8 6
98
13
78
07
32
93
13
60
15
2 9
43
16
11
16
71
41
26
61
03
10
25
12
21
44
80
92
0 4
94
8 5
95
4 1
670
17
8 0
65
Hu
nga
roC
on
tro
l3
1 4
97
13
78
78
07
23
83
50
57
191
9 0
43
4 1
21
2 4
94
1 1
85
01
6 8
44
40
54
11
7 9
08
10
56
65
020
07
4 0
35
IAA
50
80
01
9 6
55
11
47
55
55
30
87
483
9 3
01
4 1
99
4 1
42
1 7
97
01
9 4
39
60
10
12
3 8
54
15
61
77
350
01
06
92
2L
FV
78
16
93
9 3
34
16
70
55
31
00
13
9 5
18
22
06
84
62
70
00
26
69
51
00
23
64
3 9
61
16
70
55
310
01
66
21
3L
GS
6 5
87
2 9
64
2 3
08
1 2
62
01
3 1
202
34
51
10
12
30
61
26
10
7 0
13
8 9
31
4 0
65
4 6
14
2 5
230
20
13
4L
PS
19
68
21
0 0
01
5 7
54
3 7
87
03
9 2
244
00
01
55
29
17
67
40
7 1
43
23
68
21
1 5
53
6 6
71
4 4
610
46
36
7L
VN
L9
2 5
68
16
82
36
85
52
74
20
11
8 9
88
45
11
88
73
43
36
42
66
00
59
87
61
37
68
62
5 5
57
10
21
95
402
01
78
86
4M
AT
S3
52
84
65
11
65
73
75
01
0 2
111
73
21
02
94
39
88
03
28
85
25
95
68
02
09
74
630
13
49
9M
-NA
V5
56
61
25
91
66
75
10
09
00
31
29
81
40
22
55
80
1 7
20
6 8
64
1 3
99
1 8
92
567
01
0 7
22
Mo
ldA
TS
A2
22
07
56
83
11
45
30
5 2
59
62
34
27
15
21
68
01
37
02
84
31
18
39
83
1 6
210
6 6
30
MU
AC
10
3 9
36
14
85
51
4 0
58
1 7
54
01
34
60
30
00
00
01
03
93
61
4 8
55
14
05
81
754
01
34
60
3N
AT
A A
lba
nia
2 5
52
6 3
45
2 8
61
2 3
54
01
4 1
131
06
89
04
22
81
50
02
35
03
62
07
24
93
08
92
504
01
6 4
62
NA
TS
27
8 2
57
77
63
47
4 3
39
71
13
12
7 6
06
52
8 9
68
11
0 9
05
38 0
89
4 1
04
1 8
67
2 7
81
157
74
63
89
16
21
15
72
47
8 4
43
72
999
30
387
68
6 7
14
NA
V P
ort
uga
l (F
IR L
isb
oa
)8
4 1
18
14
80
57
12
12
24
50
10
8 2
90
22
78
61
21
21
65
73
24
02
5 9
79
10
6 9
04
16
01
88
77
82
569
01
34
26
9N
AV
IAIR
48
81
31
6 3
06
11
19
26
12
70
82
439
19
25
34
11
64
13
12
07
10
29
57
06
8 0
66
20
42
21
5 3
23
8 1
970
11
2 0
09
Oro
nav
iga
cija
9 8
06
2 9
11
2 3
14
90
50
15
936
1 6
52
51
64
31
16
90
2 7
68
11
45
83
42
82
74
51
073
01
8 7
04
PA
NS
A6
8 7
79
11
82
07
84
53
79
40
92
238
18
57
73
70
92
20
71
25
40
25
74
78
7 3
56
15
52
81
0 0
52
5 0
480
11
7 9
84
RO
MA
TS
A7
2 9
18
29
05
78
52
89
38
36
68
01
26
56
61
2 4
60
4 1
55
1 2
78
1 4
06
1 9
02
21
20
18
5 3
78
33
21
29
80
51
0 7
898
58
31
47
76
7S
kygu
ide
97
59
31
8 1
04
31
80
24
93
21
67
91
54
11
04
1 6
52
7 1
72
11 9
88
1 9
06
98
66
3 7
05
13
9 2
45
25
27
64
3 7
90
6 8
382
66
52
17
81
5S
love
nia
Co
ntr
ol
14
32
53
03
42
26
05
88
41
82
0 6
242
90
34
29
17
94
64
33
60
01
7 2
28
3 4
63
2 4
39
634
461
24
22
4S
MA
TS
A3
1 0
42
11
02
36
04
79
07
01
22
57
305
5 6
19
1 9
95
2 0
12
2 5
45
26
12
19
73
6 6
61
13
01
88
05
91
1 6
151
486
9 5
02
UkS
AT
SE
59
52
23
1 2
75
5 7
82
15
27
51
01
21
12
86
61
3 4
80
6 3
66
1 1
58
3 0
36
20
72
4 2
48
73
00
33
7 6
41
6 9
40
18
312
1 2
19
13
7 1
14
To
tal
3 6
01
02
91
03
8 9
77
69
0 5
89
37
5 5
95
93
32
55
79
9 5
151
16
5 0
73
300
80
11
94 7
71
94
28
62
5 0
81
1 7
80
01
24
76
6 1
02
1 3
39
77
78
85
36
04
69
88
21
18
40
67
57
9 5
26
En
-ro
ute
AT
M/C
NS
co
sts
(in
€'0
00)
Ter
min
al A
TM
/CN
S c
ost
s (i
n €
'000
)G
ate
-to
-gat
e A
TM
/CN
S c
ost
s (i
n €
'000
)
An
nex
6 -
Tab
le 0
.3:
Bre
akd
ow
n o
f A
TM
/CN
S p
rovi
sio
n c
ost
s (e
n-r
ou
te, t
erm
inal
an
d g
ate-
to-g
ate)
, 200
9
Ann
ex 6
– K
ey d
ata
264
AC
E 2
009
Ben
chm
arki
ng
Rep
ort
AN
SP
s
NBV fixed assets in operation
NBV fixed assets under construction
Long-term financial assets
Current assets
Total assets
Capital and reserves
Long-term liabilities
Current liabilities
Total liabilities
Ae
na7
54
980
30
3 59
316
2 6
271
51 1
13
1 3
72
313
273
257
781
17
73
17
879
1 3
72
313
AN
S C
R1
16
292
18
472
035
13
01
69
894
153
546
5 0
04
11
343
16
9 89
4A
RM
AT
S5
626
97
03
25
08
973
6 7
561
28
693
18
974
Au
stro
Co
ntr
ol
17
9 23
58
524
24
755
100
10
83
12
622
49
209
202
40
66
1 00
73
12
622
Avi
no
r5
2 67
24
8 65
50
01
01
327
Be
lgoc
on
tro
l1
96
865
1 86
94
9975
90
42
75
137
199
980
32 8
52
42
305
27
5 13
7B
UL
AT
SA
10
7 92
89
871
071
83
11
89
630
161
631
6 4
32
21
567
18
9 63
0C
roat
ia C
ontr
ol
55
640
1 00
24
941
31 9
84
93
567
57
100
24 6
80
11
787
93
567
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
51
957
00
28 4
43
80
400
53
136
27 2
64
08
0 40
0D
FS
69
7 01
85
5 65
75
0 3
708
36 6
36
1 6
39
681
430
375
937
43
32
71
873
1 6
39
681
DH
MI
43
4 17
61
16
720
794
113
47
16
65
161
576
948
42 1
25
46
087
66
5 16
1D
SN
A6
64
033
16
3 99
81
673
43 8
96
1 1
72
093
265
085
749
18
61
57
823
1 1
72
093
EA
NS
10
328
1 61
60
3 0
03
14
946
13
377
18
91
383
14
948
EN
AV
83
2 23
74
49
406
114
817
725
16
12
12
1 62
11
244
185
286
79
15
90
645
2 1
21
621
Fin
avi
a1
8 31
00
4 6
2421
84
04
4 77
42
3 4
0917
36
83
997
44
774
HC
AA
13
7 72
30
00
13
7 72
3H
ung
aro
Con
trol
57
492
5 26
71
1 3
9247
05
41
21
205
81
543
18 8
03
20
860
12
1 20
5IA
A7
6 43
74
3 57
70
40 2
52
16
0 26
612
1 2
921
59
23
7 38
21
60
266
LFV
11
6 09
73
6 30
42
3 3
5727
12
82
02
885
181
324
3 6
68
17
893
20
2 88
5LG
S2
6 25
61
892
217
06
63
5 23
52
7 3
064
42
23
506
35
235
LPS
33
635
3 50
90
30 0
92
67
236
59
538
2 1
24
5 57
36
7 23
6LV
NL
93
267
4 53
00
35 4
30
13
3 22
7-4
2 4
411
24 6
21
51
047
13
3 22
7M
AT
S5
461
4 78
00
5 5
13
15
753
5 2
914
99
65
466
15
753
M-N
AV
11
331
00
8 2
45
19
577
10
985
4 7
61
3 83
01
9 57
7M
oldA
TS
A6
485
1 37
01
953
27
51
1 32
51
0 6
840
641
11
325
MU
AC
79
364
3 00
80
32 6
09
11
4 98
10
82 3
72
32
609
11
4 98
1N
AT
A A
lba
nia
19
555
10
868
131
45 2
30
75
784
38
446
36 3
22
1 01
57
5 78
4N
AT
S6
47
121
29
9 96
648
6 4
903
80 7
95
1 8
14
373
605
966
939
95
62
68
451
1 8
14
373
NA
V P
ort
uga
l (F
IR L
isb
oa)
49
742
16
053
6 4
382
00 6
49
27
2 88
38
5 9
651
26 9
19
59
999
27
2 88
3N
AV
IAIR
12
3 82
23
0 54
12
5 6
8622
36
72
02
416
8 0
141
52 1
01
42
301
20
2 41
6O
ro n
avig
aci
ja2
9 15
75
101
011
71
44
5 97
24
4 3
756
98
899
45
972
PA
NS
A1
07
180
20
616
8 3
1234
72
61
70
833
128
091
20 1
32
22
610
17
0 83
3R
OM
AT
SA
10
9 59
59
225
095
00
52
13
825
175
284
18 4
55
20
087
21
3 82
5S
kygu
ide
26
5 68
71
5 65
63
1 5
171
20 6
03
43
3 46
419
5 8
741
37 2
62
10
0 32
74
33
464
Slo
veni
a C
ont
rol
13
942
4 23
22
634
49
52
2 93
13
603
14 0
66
5 26
22
2 93
1S
MA
TS
A6
1 60
23
3 19
80
31 7
86
12
6 58
68
4 6
7929
68
71
2 22
01
26
586
UkS
AT
SE
60
082
19
170
1 9
0593
31
61
74
472
158
584
4 7
86
11
102
17
4 47
2
To
tal
6 3
08
329
1 7
48
343
959
301
3 8
19 1
17
12 8
35
090
5 49
2 3
964
841
93
72
26
1 70
912
59
6 04
2
AN
SP
BA
LA
NC
E S
HE
ET
in
(€
'00
0)
An
nex
6 -
Tab
le 0
.4:
Bal
ance
Sh
eet
dat
a at
AN
SP
leve
l, 20
09
Ann
ex 6
– K
ey d
ata
265
AC
E 2
009
Ben
chm
arki
ng
Rep
ort
AN
SP
s
ATCOs in OPS
ATCOs on other duties
Ab-initio trainees
On-the-job trainees
ATC assistants
OPS support (non-ATCO)
Technical support staff for operational maintenance
Technical support staff for planning & development
Administration
Staff for ancillary services
Other
Total staff
ACC ATCOs in OPS
ACC ATCO-hours on duty
APPs+TWRs ATCOs in OPS
APPs+TWRs ATCO-hours on duty
Employment costs for ATCOs in OPS (€'000)
Aen
a2
004
144
047
211
35
533
304
555
2925
94
121
1 12
21
872
304
882
1 50
2 10
864
9 8
09A
NS
CR
187
101
718
953
912
32
726
131
728
8087
132
834
100
151
914
21 4
84A
RM
AT
S95
270
00
17
194
054
3478
499
344
8 96
06
191
500
786
Aus
tro
Con
trol
266
226
135
196
711
29
391
109
08
7611
616
9 22
115
023
9 37
160
754
Avi
nor
356
950
291
820
215
28
3342
221
001
174
290
232
182
303
576
50 6
59B
elgo
cont
rol
216
380
1048
43
179
58
163
107
759
3786
117
961
131
182
843
38 1
80B
ULA
TS
A21
652
13
2337
30
459
15
137
150
771
209
9912
9 19
511
715
5 84
414
421
Cro
atia
Con
tro
l22
026
027
472
510
92
014
711
90
740
8311
3 87
613
719
0 29
318
948
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
689
30
410
20
4029
01
9246
128
386
22
52 9
988
032
DF
S1
714
1313
944
359
467
753
549
496
143
371
5 0
471
345
1 50
7 34
436
943
5 89
627
1 8
14D
HM
I77
134
34
3637
182
1 29
52
01
107
492
989
4 9
9738
671
7 18
838
571
5 33
032
862
DS
NA
2 6
773
9244
927
31
321
079
1 38
643
495
325
90
8 0
341
377
1 79
7 38
11
300
1 69
4 04
231
9 6
94E
AN
S37
35
02
13
24
27
170
01
2818
30
240
19
31 9
202
506
EN
AV
1 2
331
803
245
00
97
233
570
381
232
795
834
1 18
6 78
239
959
6 50
517
3 1
51F
inav
ia19
422
02
240
85
16
3095
134
8161
88
000
133
199
052
18 1
25H
CA
A53
01
500
00
46
466
88
900
500
1 8
7023
534
5 45
029
543
3 65
059
294
Hun
garo
Con
trol
172
138
998
45
113
14
141
6919
701
8312
8 56
78
913
7 14
918
829
IAA
231
252
620
241
23
71
777
163
488
159
250
584
72
114
048
31 1
53L
FV
500
110
040
447
29
25
391
440
1 0
4624
039
8 40
026
041
6 52
060
307
LG
S73
00
00
31
105
268
309
318
386
4 44
83
558
625
2 7
72L
PS
101
214
1049
10
120
11
116
290
471
537
3 76
44
874
453
8 9
45L
VN
L17
741
24
2884
167
85
155
158
80
927
609
7 68
011
719
0 47
635
612
MA
TS
560
00
140
43
329
10
146
285
2 74
82
850
915
2 2
90M
-NA
V67
100
147
84
70
4552
272
7736
52
704
31
45 3
842
680
Mol
dAT
SA
5610
01
51
16
97
4138
683
0633
48
510
23
34 2
2481
8M
UA
C21
836
30
4157
103
103
25
530
06
6621
829
1 26
5n/
appl
n/ap
pl42
663
NA
TA
Alb
ania
417
00
150
68
056
3021
238
182
9 94
32
339
976
755
NA
TS
1 4
131
559
214
84
8341
583
320
794
816
04
709
948
1 18
2 05
646
557
9 85
518
2 0
73N
AV
Por
tuga
l (F
IR L
isbo
a)
201
400
129
66
86
65
162
4520
715
8715
2 59
811
420
3 60
446
338
NA
VIA
IR19
486
39
111
080
97
30
105
180
688
107
166
685
87
136
834
27 4
73O
ro n
avig
acija
8013
00
02
67
87
8128
03
1233
53
560
47
71 6
484
243
PA
NS
A38
413
44
5782
259
352
60
321
116
01
689
109
129
758
275
327
008
32 7
17R
OM
AT
SA
513
390
70
039
70
431
208
451
640
292
404
405
221
312
353
36 9
49S
kygu
ide
324
595
456
6018
115
012
719
090
01
291
201
254
975
124
159
891
48 0
30S
love
nia
Con
trol
909
67
125
31
030
250
215
527
4 31
53
955
479
9 1
95S
MA
TS
A22
568
10
3038
43
139
62
8215
60
853
152
203
072
73
98 1
1213
413
UkS
AT
SE
936
322
039
9712
62
773
39
723
221
720
5 9
9657
170
2 90
136
544
9 31
512
569
To
tal
16 8
372
293
1 09
01
107
2 53
93
624
11
850
2 79
68
693
3 25
93
411
57 5
009
621
13
488
291
7 21
710
532
709
2 3
60 3
45
An
nex
6 -
Tab
le 0
.5:
To
tal s
taff
an
d A
TC
Os
in O
PS
dat
a, 2
009
Ann
ex 6
– K
ey d
ata
266
AC
E 2
009
Ben
chm
arki
ng
Rep
ort
AN
SP
s
Size of controlled airspace
Number of ACC operational units
Number of APP operational units
Number of TWR operational units
Number of AFIS
Total IFR flights controlled by the ANSP
Total IFR km controlled by the ANSP
Total flight-hours controlled by the ANSP
IFR Airport mov controlled by the ANSP
Composite flight-hours
Aen
a2
190
00
05
23
380
1 6
81 6
3989
3 1
85 6
271
270
17
81
830
254
1 75
1 60
0A
NS
CR
78 6
00
14
40
629
249
156
707
958
218
76
91
80 1
5226
6 15
5A
RM
AT
S29
80
01
12
248
120
8 3
18 0
8911
40
818
698
16
326
Aus
tro
Con
tro
l80
40
01
66
08
88 7
3219
6 9
42 8
912
89 2
79
369
881
386
571
Avi
nor
719
00
03
17
172
85
27 5
5516
0 6
15 7
023
02 9
27
601
428
461
124
Bel
goco
ntro
l39
50
01
45
05
42 4
0457
154
446
111
41
63
50 0
8120
3 50
0B
ULA
TS
A1
45 1
20
13
50
485
313
127
105
882
161
23
193
814
185
907
Cro
atia
Con
tro
l1
58 0
00
19
100
420
613
125
887
778
168
60
586
246
191
291
DC
AC
Cyp
rus
174
00
01
22
02
67 5
9195
385
712
121
51
662
146
137
863
DF
S3
89 0
00
40
160
2 7
27 6
5487
6 3
72 1
931
333
21
42
005
398
1 86
0 70
6D
HM
I9
82 0
00
21
736
22
828
059
553
038
745
716
73
36
82 5
9089
6 27
9D
SN
A1
000
00
05
12
790
2 7
00 2
621
458
123
059
2 1
28 6
51
1 8
25 9
552
608
943
EA
NS
77 1
02
11
10
150
624
39 6
11 5
2152
57
029
074
60
218
EN
AV
734
00
04
22
281
11
532
885
742
049
656
1 0
35 6
26
1 1
28 4
211
332
441
Fin
avia
415
00
02
719
62
30 0
9766
831
268
108
44
92
53 6
1517
5 15
9H
CA
A5
38 0
00
11
618
15
637
923
349
609
574
471
70
42
05 5
6652
5 77
5H
unga
roC
ontr
ol93
00
01
11
16
07 4
5214
9 5
16 2
311
95 0
11
109
203
223
735
IAA
457
00
02
33
05
25 8
1019
8 0
39 4
382
55 7
10
233
641
317
166
LF
V6
25 0
00
22
635
26
50 6
6426
5 2
22 4
493
99 6
70
507
838
533
250
LG
S94
00
01
22
02
04 0
1244
296
203
61 0
23
59 8
587
6 76
8L
PS
48 7
00
12
60
336
097
57 2
82 9
6075
82
040
382
86
442
LV
NL
51 2
00
13
42
529
600
67 1
84 8
971
42 4
42
452
659
261
508
MA
TS
230
00
01
21
185
294
31 7
69 7
0241
34
629
115
49
004
M-N
AV
24 8
00
12
21
125
148
15 8
42 6
5421
09
012
441
24
362
Mo
ldA
TS
A33
70
01
04
343
778
8 7
53 8
9711
47
512
184
14
680
MU
AC
260
00
01
00
01
484
804
438
881
465
531
87
3n/
app
l53
1 87
3N
AT
A A
lban
ia35
90
01
11
11
61 4
4427
305
199
34 6
24
20 5
834
0 03
8N
AT
S8
77 0
00
31
616
02
230
255
834
313
840
1 3
09 8
34
1 7
88 6
871
780
323
NA
V P
ortu
gal (
FIR
Lis
boa)
665
00
01
46
04
02 0
5219
3 3
11 9
822
58 9
15
258
820
326
994
NA
VIA
IR1
58 0
00
17
71
587
298
132
657
260
197
21
83
28 7
8828
3 70
1O
ro n
avi
gaci
ja75
50
01
34
01
57 4
0429
402
617
43 0
52
31 6
425
1 37
5P
AN
SA
334
00
01
411
05
52 1
7323
3 4
75 3
583
24 9
66
283
303
399
485
RO
MA
TS
A2
55 0
00
12
160
433
848
202
321
570
263
73
61
67 8
6030
7 88
9S
kygu
ide
73 4
00
24
70
1 1
54 6
4922
3 5
61 0
503
27 6
31
451
172
446
306
Slo
ven
ia C
ontr
ol
19 6
00
13
30
233
298
28 3
43 7
1440
94
140
235
51
524
SM
AT
SA
144
67
61
88
05
05 8
8916
5 8
75 7
672
07 8
00
62 9
4222
4 35
6U
kSA
TS
E7
76 4
42
61
228
03
77 6
1623
6 3
40 4
673
07 5
91
164
641
350
897
To
tal
6524
94
519
69
490
638
820
13 5
54 0
45
14 7
79 3
131
7 44
1 53
3
An
nex
6 -
Tab
le 0
.6:
Op
erat
ion
al d
ata
(AN
SP
an
d S
tate
leve
l), 2
009
Annex 7 – Fact Sheets 267 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ANNEX 7 - ANSP FACT SHEETS
ANSP name Country Page
Aena Spain 269 ANS CR Czech Republic 270 ARMATS Armenia 271 Austro Control Austria 272 Avinor Norway 273 Belgocontrol Belgium 274 BULATSA Bulgaria 275 Croatia Control Croatia 276 DCAC Cyprus Cyprus 277 DFS Germany 278 DHMİ Turkey 279 DSNA France 280 EANS Estonia 281 ENAV Italy 282 Finavia Finland 283 HCAA Greece 284 HungaroControl Hungary 285 IAA Ireland 286 LFV Sweden 287 LGS Latvia 288 LPS Slovak Republic 289 LVNL Netherlands 290 MATS Malta 291 M-NAV F.Y.R. Macedonia 292 MoldATSA Moldova 293 MUAC 294 NATA Albania Albania 295 NATS United Kingdom 296 NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) Portugal 297 NAVIAIR Denmark 298 Oro Navigacija Lithuania 299 PANSA Poland 300 ROMATSA Romania 301 Skyguide Switzerland 302 Slovenia Control Slovenia 303 SMATSA Serbia and Montenegro 304 UkSATSE Ukraine 305
Annex 7 – Fact Sheets 268 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Aena, Spain
www.aena.es
Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea
2 190 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
BOARD OF DIRECTORS Chairman + 13 members + Secretary
Chairman is the CEO
MANAGEMENT BOARDChairman + 12 members + Secretary
Chairman is the CEO
Ministry of Development
State Secretariatof Transport
Spanish Civil Aviation Authority
(DGAC)
Spanish Aviation Safety State Agency
(AESA) NSA
AENA
Spanish Airports
Air Navigation
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
Aena (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Business Public Entity attached to Ministry of Development- A company with specific status (governed by Private Law, except when acting in its administrative capacity)- 100% State-owned
Spanish Civil Aviation Authority - GovernmentAESA - Government
Spanish Civil Aviation Authority - GovernmentAESA - Government
Government
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):- AESA (Spanish Aviation Safety State Agency) (for AENA)- Spanish Air Force Staff (for MIL)- General Secretariat for the Climate Change and Pollution Prevention (for MET)
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Juan Ignacio Lema Devesa
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Juan Ignacio Lema Devesa
DIRECTOR OF AIR NAVIGATION:Carmen Librero Pintado
5 ACCs (Barcelona, Madrid, Canarias, Sevilla, Palma)23 APPs36 TWRs
- Operation of 47 airports and 2 heliports in Spain- Participation in the management of 12 airports in Mexico, 3 in Colombia, 1 in Cuba, 3 in United Kingdom, 1 in Sweden, 4 in USA and 3 in Bolivia
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
1 016Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
1 299Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
1 188Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
1 007
161Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
2 004ATCOs in OPS
1 270Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
1 830IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
67En-route sectors
1 483Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
4 121Gate-to-gate total staff
269ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ANS CR, Czech Republic
www.rlp.cz
Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic
78 600
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
DIRECTOR GENERAL appointed by the M of T
SUPERVISORY BOARD (6 members)
Chairman + 5 membersMembers appointed by:
4 M of T2 ANS CR employees
Ministry of Transport (M of T)
Civil Aviation Department
AirportAuthority
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)
NSA
Private Providers of ATS
Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic
(ANS CR)
Ministry of Defence (M of D)
Military Aviation Department
FUALevel 1
Body for Strategic ASM
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
ANS CR (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- State-enterprise founded under the State Enterprise Act in 1995- 100% State-owned
Civil Aviation Authority
Body for Strategic ASM
Ministry of Transport
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Lukáš Hampl
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Jan Klas
1 ACC (Praha)4 APPs (Praha, Karlovy Vary, Brno, Ostrava)4 TWRs (Praha, Karlovy Vary, Brno, Ostrava)1 AFIS (located in Praha ACC)
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
113Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
117Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
108Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
135
19Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
187ATCOs in OPS
219Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
180IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
8En-route sectors
154Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
880Gate-to-gate total staff
270ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ARMATS, Armenia
www.armats.com
Armenian Air Traffic Services
29 800
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARDChairman is GDCA DG
EXECUTIVE BODYChairman + 3 members appointed by the stockholders
Chairman is ARMATS DG
ARMATS
Ministry ofEnvironment
Ministry ofDefence
General Departmentof Civil Aviation
(GDCA)
Air Force Air DefenceAviation
MetereologicalCentre
Government
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
ARMATS (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Joint-stock company as of 1997- 100% State-owned
General Department of Civil Aviation (GDCA)
General Department of Civil Aviation (GDCA) and Ministry of Defence
Tax Authorities
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Not applicable since Armenia is not bound by SES Regulations
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:To be nominated
CHAIRMAN OF THE EXECUTIVE BODY:Eduard Musoyan
DIRECTOR OF AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES:Artur Gasparyan
1 ACC (Yerevan)2 APPs (Yerevan, Gyumri)2 TWRs (Shirak, Zvartnots)
- Armenia is member of EUROCONTROL since 1 March 2006
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
7Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
7Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
6Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
5
1Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
95ATCOs in OPS
11Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
19IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
1En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
499Gate-to-gate total staff
271ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Austro Control, Austria
www.austrocontrol.at
Österreichische Gesellschaft für Zivilluftfahrt mbH
80 400
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
GENERAL ASSEMBLY - M of TIT
SUPERVISORY BOARD (9 members)Chairman + 8 members
All members are appointed by M of TIT.Members represent: 1 from M of Finance,1 from M of TIT,
2 from the field of aviation, 1 from the fieldof consulting, 3 from works council.
MANAGING BOARD 2 members
Members appointed by M of TIT.
Federal Ministry of Defence (M of D)
Air Division
Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technologyas supreme CAA (M of TIT)
NSA
AUSTROCONTROL
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
Austro Control (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Private limited company as of 1994- 100% State-owned (Law makes provision for Austrian Airports to own up to 49 %)
The power for regulatory decisions including safety oversight lies within the M of TIT
M of TIT, normally on basis of proposals of Austro Control
Covered by the Commercialisation Act, the Managing Board, and Federal Acts relating to procurement and accounting
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology (M of TIT)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Gaston Glock
MANAGING BOARD:Dr. Heinz SommerbauerMag. Johann Zemsky
1 ACC (Wien)6 APPs (Wien, Graz, Innsbruck, Klagenfurt, Linz, Salzburg)6 TWRs
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
184Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
195Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
166Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
146
19Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
266ATCOs in OPS
289Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
370IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
12En-route sectors
830Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
876Gate-to-gate total staff
272ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Avinor, Norway
www.avinor.no
AVINOR
2 169 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARD (10 members )Chairman + 9 members
Members represent: 6 M of TC, 4 staff
EXECUTIVE BOARD (8 members)CEO + 7 members
CEO appointed by Supervisory Board
Ministry of Transport and Communications (M of TC)
General AssemblyCivil AviationAuthority Norway
(CAA)NSA AVINOR
Air NavigationServices
Airports
Airport Parkings(APAS)
Oslo Airport(OSL AS)
FleslandEiendom AS
VaernesEiendom AS
Sola HotelEiendom AS
Oslo LufthavnEiendom
AS (OSLE)
Continental: 719 000 km² - Oceanic:1 450 000 km²
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
Avinor (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- State owned limited company.- Civil ANSP and airport owner/ operator- Independent of CAA
Civil Aviation Authority Norway
Civil Aviation Authority Norway
Aeronautic charges are set annually by the Ministry of Transport and Communications
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Authority Norway (CAA)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Ola Mørkved Rinnan
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER:Nic Nilsen (acting until February 2011) Dag Falk-Petersen (from 1 March 2011)
3 ACCs Oslo (ACC + APP), Stavanger (ACC), Bodo (ACC + APP + Oceanic)17 APPs (1 APP combined with Oslo ACC+16 TWRs/APPs)17 TWRs 28 AFISs
- AVINOR owns and operates 46 airports, 12 in association with Armed Forces
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
171Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
169Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
158Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
95
n/aGate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
356ATCOs in OPS
303Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
601IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
15En-route sectors
83Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 001Gate-to-gate total staff
273ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Belgocontrol, Belgium
www.belgocontrol.be
Belgocontrol
39 500
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARD (10 members)Chairman + CEO + 8 members
Members appointed by Ministry of MobilityCEO represents staff.
EXECUTIVE BOARD (4 members)CEO + 3 members
Ministry of Defence(M of D)
CAA
Belgocontrol
BelgianAirspace
Committee (BELAC)
Federal Public ServiceMobility & Transport
Belgian Supervisory Authority – Air
Navigation Services(BSA-ANS)NSA
COMOPSAIR
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
Belgocontrol (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Public Autonomous Enterprise as of 1998 under a management contract- 100% State-owned
Civil Aviation Authority
Belgian Airspace Committee
Federal Public Service of Mobility and Transport
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Belgian Supervisory Authority - Air Navigation Services (BSA-ANS)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Charles-Louis d’Arenberg
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Jean-Claude Tintin
1 ACC (Brussels)4 APPs (Brussels, Liege, Charleroi, Oostende)5 TWRs (Brussels, Antwerp, Liege, Charleroi, Oostende)
- Belgocontrol controls lower airspace up to FL 245, including Luxembourg airspace above FL 135- Upper airspace (> FL 245) is controlled by Maastricht UAC
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
204Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
216Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
150Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
182
16Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
216ATCOs in OPS
111Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
350IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
7En-route sectors
246Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
937Gate-to-gate total staff
274ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
BULATSA, Bulgaria
www.atsa.bg
Bulgarian Air Traffic Services Authority
145 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
MANAGEMENT BOARD (3 members) DG + 2 members
All members appointed by the MTITC.
Ministry of Transport,InformationTechnology
and Communications (MTITC)
Civil Aviation Administration
NSA
AirportOperators
Ministry of Defence(M of D)
Air Traffic Services Authority of Bulgaria
AirspaceManagement
Board
117 000 km² plus 28 000 km² over the Black Sea.
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
BULATSA (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- State enterprise as of April 2001 (Art 53 §1 of the Civil Aviation Law)- 100% State-owned
Civil Aviation Administration (Ministry of Transport, Information Technology and Communications (MTITC))
Airspace Management Board
Ministry of Transport, Information Technology and Communications (MTITC)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Administration
CHAIRMAN OF THE MANAGEMENT BOARD:Iskra Angelova
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Diyan Dinev
1 ACCs (Sofia)3 APPs (Sofia, Varna, Burgas)5 TWRs (Sofia, Varna, Burgas, Gorna Oriahovitza, Plovdiv)- Training of ATCOs
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
87Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
90Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
77Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
115
3Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
216ATCOs in OPS
161Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
94IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
6En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 209Gate-to-gate total staff
275ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Croatia Control, Croatia
www.crocontrol.hr
Croatia Control Ltd, Croatian Air Navigation Services
158 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
ASSEMBLY (3 members) The President represents Ministry of STI (Minister), the other
Two members represent M of D (Minister) and M of F (Minister).
MANAGEMENTDirector General
The DG is appointed by the Supervisory Board for a 5-yearperiod, following an open competition and under the conditions
stipulated by the Company Statute.
SUPERVISORY BOARD (5 members) The Chairman + 4 members
The members represent the M of STI, M of D, M of F, andemployees. They are appointed for a 4-year period. The memberrepresenting the employees is elected and appointed pursuant to
the Company Statute and Labour Relations Act.
Croatian Civil Aviation AgencyNSA
Ministry of Defence(M of D)
Croatia Control Ltd
Ministry of Sea Transport and Infrastructure
(M of STI)
Accident Investigation
Agency
Directorate General for
Civil Aviation
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
Croatia Control (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Limited liability company as of 1 January 2000- 100% State-owned- Integrated civil/military ANSP
Directorate General for Civil Aviation
M of STI
State Law and Croatia Control Ltd
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Croatian Civil Aviation Agency (CCAA)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Ante Cajic
DIRECTOR GENERAL:Dražen Ramljak
1 ACC (Zagreb)7 APPs (Zagreb, Pula, Split, Dubrovnik, Rijeka, Zadar, Osijek)2 APP/TWRs (Brac, Losinj)8 TWRs (Zagreb, Pula, Split, Dubrovnik, Rijeka, Zadar, Osijek, Lucko)1 AFIS (to be opened soon and located as a sector at Zagreb ACC)
- ATS provision in Sarajevo FIR (Bosnia & Herzegovina) within FL 100 to FL 285 and FL 285 to FL 660
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
70Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
69Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
64Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
54
2Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
220ATCOs in OPS
169Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
86IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
7En-route sectors
209Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
740Gate-to-gate total staff
276ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DCAC Cyprus, Cyprus
www.mcw.gov.cy
Department of Civil Aviation of Cyprus
174 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
Minister of Communications and Works
Director DCAC, Head of ANS Section, Head of T&A Section, Head of Aviation Security Section
and Head of Safety Regulation Unit are nominated by the CivilService. The Head of the NSA is nominated by the Council of
Ministers.
Ministry of Defence
Cyprus Telecom. Authority (CYTA)
Department of Civil Aviation(DCA)
Ministry of Communications
and Works
Ministry of
Foreign Affairs
Air Transport
and AirportsDepartment
SafetyRegulation
Unit
AviationSecuritySection
National SupervisoryAuthorityNSA
Air Navigation
Services Department
Ministry of
Finance
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
DCAC Cyprus (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- State body- 100% State-owned
Department of Civil Aviation of Cyprus
Department of Civil Aviation of Cyprus
Ministry of Finance
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Department of Civil Aviation
DIRECTOR OF DCAC:Leonidas Leonidou
HEAD OF NSA:Panayiota Demetriou
HEAD OF ANS SECTION (COO):Nicos Nicolaou
HEAD OF AIR TRANSPORT AND AIRPORTS SECTION:Iacovos Demetriou
1 ACC (Nicosia)2 APPs (Larnaca, Paphos)2 TWRs (Larnaca, Paphos)
- DCAC Cyprus owns and operates 2 airports
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
45Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
51Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
41Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
52
3Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
68ATCOs in OPS
122Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
62IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
3En-route sectors
545Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
192Gate-to-gate total staff
277ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DFS, Germany
www.dfs.de
Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH
389 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SHAREHOLDER Meeting with M of TBU
Supervisory Board (12 Members)Chairman + 11 Members
Chairman appointed by the GovernmentMembers represent: 1 (Chairman) from M of TBU
1 M of TBU2 M of D, 1 M of F, 1 KFW*, 6 staff reps
Chairman has a double voting right
EXECUTIVE BOARD (3 members)CEO + 2 members
Executive Board is appointed by the Supervisory Board.
* KFW = KFW-Bankengruppe
DFS
Joint Ministerial Steering Group
Federal Ministry of Defence(M of D)
Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and
Urban Development (M of TBU)
Federal Supervisory Authority for Air
Navigation ServicesNSA
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
DFS (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Limited liability company as of 1993, governed by Private Company Law- 100% State-owned- Integrated civil/military ANSP
Federal Supervisory Authority for Air Navigation Services (NSA)
Federal Supervisory Authority for Air Navigation Services (NSA)
Federal Supervisory Authority for Air Navigation Services (NSA)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Federal Supervisory Authority for Air Navigation Services
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Prof. Klaus-Dieter Scheuerle
CHAIRMAN OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD:Dieter Kaden
1 UAC (Karlsruhe)1 ACC/UAC/APP (München)2 ACCs/APPs (Bremen, Langen)1 ACC (co-located with Maastricht UAC) for OAT in upper airspace in North- Western Germany16 TWRs (Berlin Tempelhof closed in Nov.08)
- DFS controls both upper and lower airspace, except GAT for the upper airspace in North-Western Gerrmany- Other ANS- Consulting, training, engineering & maintenance services
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
874Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
895Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
888Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
640
115Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
1 714ATCOs in OPS
1 333Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
2 005IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
104En-route sectors
2 570Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
5 047Gate-to-gate total staff
278ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DHMI, Turkey
www.dhmi.gov.tr
General Directorate of State Airports Authority
982 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARD (6 members)Chairman + 5 members
3 members represent DHMI, 2 represent the M of TC,
1 represents the Turkish Treasury. The Chairman is the CEO.
EXECUTIVE BOARDDirector General (CEO) + 3 Deputy Director
Generals and affiliated units.CEO is appointed by the M of TC.
Prime MinistrySenior AuditBoard
Ministry of Transport and
Communication (M of TC)
DirectorateGeneral of
Civil Aviation
Ministry of Defence(M of D)
DHMICivil MilitaryCo-ordination
GroupANSDivision
AirportsDivision
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
DHMI (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Autonomous State body- 100% State-owned
Directorate General of Civil Aviation
General Directorate of DHMI
General Directorate of DHMI
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Not applicable since Turkey is not bound by SES Regulations
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Mr. Orhan Birdal
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Mr. Orhan Birdal
DIRECTOR ANS DIVISION:Mr. Mustafa Kiliç
2 ACCs (Ankara, Istanbul)17 APPs36 TWRs 44 AFISs- DHMI is responsible for the administration of 44 State
Airports. ATS services are provided by DHMI in 36 Airports
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
314Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
279Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
243Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
551
141Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
771ATCOs in OPS
717Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
683IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
21En-route sectors
893Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
4 997Gate-to-gate total staff
279ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
DSNA, France
www.aviation-civile.gouv.fr
Directorate of Air Navigation Services
1 000 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
Minister in charge of Transport
EXECUTIVE BOARD (DSNA)• Director of DSNA• Deputy Director for Finance• Deputy Director for Planning & Strategy• Deputy Director for Human Resources• Director of Operation Department (DO)• Director of Technical Department (DTI)
Director General for Civil Aviation
Ministry in charge of Transport(M of T)
Ministry of Defence(M of D)
Operation Department (DO)ACCs, APPs & TWRs, AIS
Technical DepartmentOperational Systems, R&D
Air ForcesGeneral Directorate for Civil Aviation
(DGAC)
Military Air NavigationDirectorate
Directorate for
Airspace
Air NavigationServices
Directorate(DSNA)
Air Transport
Directorate (DTA)
Civil Aviation Safety
Directorate(DSAC)NSA
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
DSNA (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- DSNA is a division of DGAC- 100% State-owned
Air Transport Directorate (DTA)
Air Transport Directorate (DTA) Direction de la circulation aérienne militaire (DIRCAM)
Air Transport Directorate (DTA)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Directorate for Civil Aviation Safety (DSAC)
DIRECTOR OF DSNA:M. Georges
DIRECTOR OF OPERATION DEPARTEMENT (DO):M. Bruneau
DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL DEPARTEMENT (DTI):P. Planchon
5 ACCs12 APPs/TWRs (i.e. Paris Orly, Paris CDG, Marseille, Lyon, Nice, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Clermont Ferrand, Montpellier, Strasbourg, Bâle-Mulhouse, Nantes)67 TWRs
- Delegation of airspace to Skyguide and Jersey
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
1 295Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
1 383Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
1 158Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
803
145Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
2 677ATCOs in OPS
2 129Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
1 826IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
88En-route sectors
977Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
8 034Gate-to-gate total staff
280ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
EANS, Estonia
www.eans.ee
Estonian Air Navigation Services
77 102
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARD (6 members) Chairman + 5 members
Members: 3 appointed by M of EC, of which 1 is electedChairman by members of the Supervisory Board; 3 appointed
by M of F, of which one represents M of D.
EXECUTIVE BOARD (3 members) CEO + 2 members
CEO appointed by the Supervisory Board
CivilAviation
AdministrationNSA
EANS
Ministry ofDefence
Ministry ofFinance
Ministry of EconomicAffairs and
Communications
Government
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
EANS (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Joint-stock company as of 1998- 100% State-owned
Government of the Republic of EstoniaSafety Supervision is done by the Civil Aviation Administration (CAA)
Government of the Republic of Estonia
Government of the Republic of Estonia(Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications & Ministry of Finance)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Administration
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Andres Uusma
CHAIRMAN OF THE MANAGEMENT BOARD & CEO:Tanel Rautits
1 ACC (Tallinn)2 APPs/TWRs (Tallinn, Tartu)
- Tech. serv. (NAV/COMM/SUR), Aeronautical info serv.- Consultancy services- Control Tallinn Aerodrome- Estonia is not member of EUROCONTROL - Estonia belongs to IFPS zone
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
13Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
10Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
10Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
12
2Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
37ATCOs in OPS
53Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
29IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
3En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
128Gate-to-gate total staff
281ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ENAV, Italy
www.enav.it
Company for Air Navigation Services
734 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
ADMINISTRATION BOARD:Chairman + CEO + 5 members.
The Administration Board has been appointed by the Ministry of Economy in consultation with
the Ministry of Transport.
Reciprocal obligations between the Ministry of Transport and ENAV are regulated through programme
contract and service contract.
National Agency
for Flight Safety
(ANSV)
OperationalCo-ordinationCommittee
(CCO)
Italian Civil Aviation Authority
(ENAC) NSA
Ministry ofEconomy
Government
Ministry ofDefence
Ministry of Transport
(Dept. Civil Aviation)
Company for Air Navigation
Services(ENAV S.p.A.)
Italian Air Force
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
ENAV (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Joint-Stock Public Corporation as of 2001 under contract management- 100% State-owned by Ministry of Economy
Italian Civil Aviation Authority (ENAC) and Ministry of Transport (M of T)
Italian Civil Aviation Authority (ENAC)
Ministry of Transport and ENAC review annually ANS charges in co-operation with Ministry of Economy and Ministry of Defence
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Italian Civil Aviation Authority (ENAC)
CHAIRMAN OF ADMINISTRATION BOARD:Luigi Martini
CEO:Guido Pugliesi
DIRECTOR GENERAL:Massimo Garbini
4 ACCs (Milan, Padua, Rome, Brindisi)18 APPs + 4 APPs combined with ACCs28 TWRs (including 16 low traffic airports which are not included in ACE data analysis)11 AFISs (low traffic airports not included in ACE data analysis)
- Aeronautical Information service- Training and licensing of ATCO’s- R&D consultancy services- Aerodrome weather services, ATM and CNS- Flight inspection
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
663Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
730Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
649Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
1 084
225Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
1 233ATCOs in OPS
1 036Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
1 128IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
61En-route sectors
320Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
2 795Gate-to-gate total staff
282ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Finavia, Finland
www.finavia.fi
Finavia
415 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
The BOARD (6 members)Chairman + 5 members (1 member represents staff)All members are appointed by the Council of State.
Chief Executive Officer of Finavia is not a member of the Board.
Chief Executive Officer
COUNCIL of STATE(Government)
Chaired by the Prime Minister
Finnish Transport Safety Agency
NSA
Ministry of Transport andCommunication (M of TC)
Finavia
Air NavigationServices (ANS)
AirportServices
CommercialServices
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
Finavia (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Public Limited Company - Integrated civil/military ANSP- 100% State-owned
Finnish Transport Safety Agency
Finnish Transport Safety Agency
Finnish Transport Safety Agency
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Finnish Transport Safety Agency
CHAIRMAN OF THE FINAVIA BOARD:Seppo Paatelainen
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER:Samuli Haapasalo
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT) - AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES:Anne Ilola
1 ACC (Tampere - from end of November 2010) 5 APPs (Helsinki, Jyväskylä, Kuopio, Tampere-Pirkkala, Rovaniemi) 2 Mil-APPs (Halli, Kauhava)19 TWRs 6 AFISs (Enontekiö, Kittilä, Kajaani, Savonlinna, Kuusamo, Varkaus)
- Finavia owns and operates 25 airports- Partly internal MET provision, partly outsourced- Delegation of ATS in certain areas to LFV and Avinor- 194 ATCOs in OPS reported below do not include those providing services to military OAT flights
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
50Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
67Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
57Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
18
20Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
194ATCOs in OPS
108Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
254IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
5En-route sectors
11Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
481Gate-to-gate total staff
283ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
HCAA, Greece
www.hcaa.gr
Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority
538 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
Governor HCAA
Air Navigation Directorate:• ATS Division.• Telecoms Division.• Electronics Division.• Electric Instal. & Application Centre.• Flight Inspection Unit.
2 Deputy Governors in charge with Directorates
Air NavigationAirspace Committee- Reps from HCAA,
HAF andGeneral Staff
Ministry of Infrastructure,Transport and Networks
(M of ITN)
Ministry of Defence(M of D)
Hellenic Civil AviationAuthority (HCAA)
Air NavigationDirectorate
AdministrativeSupport
Directorate
AirTransport
Directorate
Hellenic NationalMeteorological
Service (HNMS)
Hellenic Air NavigationSupervisory Authority
(HANSA)
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
HCAA (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- State body - 100% State-owned
Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority
Air Navigation Airspace Committee
The Ministry of Finance is responsible for HCAA Budget
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):NSA established
DIRECTOR GENERAL (GOVERNOR) OF HCAA:Fofi Papadimitropulou
DEPUTY GOVERNORS OF HCAA:Dimitrios KatounisVassilios Iliou
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF AIR NAVIGATION:Marinos Kardaris
1 ACC16 APPs 18 TWRs15 AFISs
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
178Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
206Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
178Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
138
15Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
530ATCOs in OPS
472Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
206IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
12En-route sectors
1 208Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 870Gate-to-gate total staff
284ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
HungaroControl, Hungary
www.hungarocontrol.hu
Hungarian Air Navigation Services
93 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARDPresident + 5 members
The President and all members are appointed by the Minister responsible for transport
2 members are representatives of the employees
SHAREHOLDERThe Minister responsible for transport exercises the rights
of the shareholder on behalf of the State
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERThe CEO is appointed by the Minister
responsible for transport
Ministry ofNational
Development
National TransportAuthority
AviationAuthorityNSA
Ministry of Defence(MoD)
National Airspace
CoordinationCommittee
(NACC)
HungaroControlPte. Ltd. Co.
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
HungaroControl (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- HungaroControl was set up on January 1st 2002- Registered as Private Limited Company as of 22 November 2006- Operates as a Private Limited Company as of 1 January 2007- 100% State-owned
Ministry of National Development
Govt., Ministry of National Development
Govt., Ministry of National Development
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Aviation Authority
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO):Kornél Szepessy
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Zoltán Schváb
1 ACC (Budapest)1 APP (Budapest)2 TWRs (Budapest and Sármellék)1 AFIS (Sármellék)- HungaroControl provides Training activities (ATM
training courses, language courses) in its Civil Aviation Training Centre (CATC)
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
82Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
84Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
74Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
n/a
6Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
172ATCOs in OPS
195Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
109IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
7En-route sectors
29Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
701Gate-to-gate total staff
285ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
IAA, Ireland
www.iaa.ie
Irish Aviation Authority
457 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
BOARD OF THE AUTHORITY (9 members)Chairman + CEO + 7 members
EXECUTIVE BOARD (Senior Management Board) (8 members)
CEO + 7 senior executives
Departmentof Defence
Irish Aviation Authority
Departmentof Transport
(D of T)
Commission for Aviation Regulation
Departmentof Finance(D of F)
Safety RegulationDivisionNSA
OperationalDivision
TechnicalDivision
Standing CivilMilitary ANS
Committee
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
IAA (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Commercial company as of 1994 governed by Companies Acts, 1963 to 2006- 100% State-owned (Department of Finance) - IAA receives no funding or loans from the exchequer
IAA Safety Regulation Division
IAA Safety Regulation Division
NSA responsible for Economic Regulation in the context of en-route charges
Commission for Aviation Regulation (established under the Aviation Regulation Act in 2001)
The Act requires the Commission to make a determination specifying the maximum levels of terminal navigation charges
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Safety Regulation Division
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF AUTHORITY:Anne Nolan
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER:Eamonn Brennan
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS DIVISION:Donie Mooney
DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL DIVISION:Philip Hughes
2 ACCs (Dublin, Shannon)3 APPs (Dublin, Shannon, Cork)3 TWRs (Dublin, Shannon, Cork)
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
127Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
127Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
107Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
120
27Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
231ATCOs in OPS
256Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
234IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
13En-route sectors
20Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
488Gate-to-gate total staff
286ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LFV, Sweden
www.lfv.se
LFV, Swedish Air Navigation Services
625 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
BOARD OF DIRECTORS (8 members) Chairman + DG + 6 members
6 members (Chairman + DG + 4 members) are appointed bythe Government; 2 members are appointed by Trade Unions.
EXECUTIVE BOARD (13 members) DG + 12 members
DG appointed by the Government
Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and
Communications (M of EEC)Swedish
Transport AgencyNSA
Ministry of Defense
ProductionTerminal
ProductionEn-route
Products&
Services
BusinessSupport
LFV holding(Subsidiaries)
LFV
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
LFV (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Public Enterprise- 100% State-owned
Swedish Transport Agency
Swedish Transport Agency
Swedish Transport Agency
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Swedish Transport Agency
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Nils Gunnar Billinger
DIRECTOR GENERAL:Thomas Allard
2 ACCs (Stockholm and Malmö) 26 APPs (2 APPs combined with ACCs + 24 APPs combined with TWRs)35 TWRs2 AFISs
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
152Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
173Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
166Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
152
33Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
500ATCOs in OPS
400Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
508IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
22En-route sectors
31Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 046Gate-to-gate total staff
287ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LGS, Latvia
www.lgs.lv
SJSC Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme
94 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SHAREHOLDER Meeting (M of T).
MANAGEMENT BOARD (5 members)Chairman of the Board + 4 members
All appointed by the shareholder (M of T).
Ministry of Transportof the Republic of Latvia
(M of T)NSA
Air Transport Department
LGSCivil Aviation
AgencyNSA
Airports
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
LGS (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Joint-stock company since 1997- 100% State-owned
Civil Aviation Agency
Civil Aviation Agency
Air Transport Department
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):- MoT (for policy and economic issues)- Civil Aviation Agency (for safety, operationalaspects, certification and licensing issues)
SHAREHOLDER'S REPRESENTATIVE:Aivita Lublina - Goldmane
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD:Davids Taurins
1 ACC (Riga)2 APPs (Riga, Liepaja)2 TWRs (Riga and Liepaja)In Liepaja APP and TWR are combined in one ATS unit.- ATC services delegated to Latvia by Lithuania over a part of
the Baltic Sea- Latvia is a EUROCONTROL member since January 2011
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
22Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
23Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
20Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
27
2Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
73ATCOs in OPS
61Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
60IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
3En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
318Gate-to-gate total staff
288ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LPS, Slovak Republic
www.lps.sk
Letové Prevádzkové Služby Slovenskej Republiky
48 700
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARD (9 members) Chairman + 8 members
Members represent: 5 MoT,3 staff reps., 1 trade union association rep.
EXECUTIVE BOARD (9 members) CEO + 8 members
The CEO is appointed by the MoT.
Ministry of Transport, Construction and
Regional Development(MoT)NSA
Directorate General of Civil Aviation
and Water Transport
Divisionof Civil Aviation
Directorate ofCivil AviationNSA
Ministry ofDefence (M of D)
Inter-MinisterialCommission
Defence-Transports
AirportsAir Traffic Services
of the SlovakRepublic (LPS SR)
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
LPS (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- State-owned enterprise as of January 2000- 100% State-owned
Civil Aviation Authority
Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development
Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):- Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development- Civil Aviation Authority
CHAIRPERSON OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Peter Horal (from 18 March 2011)
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Miroslav Bartoš
1 ACC (Bratislava)2 APPs (Bratislava, Kosice)5 TWRs (Bratislava, Kosice, Piestany, Poprad and Zilina)1 Central ATS Reporting Office (Bratislava)
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
50Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
51Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
46Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
37
6Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
101ATCOs in OPS
76Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
40IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
5En-route sectors
13Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
471Gate-to-gate total staff
289ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
LVNL, Netherlands
www.lvnl.nl
Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland
51 200
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY DIRECTORS BOARD (6 members )Chairman + 5 members + 1 observer
Members comprise representatives from: Ministry of Defence, and members nominated by Dutch scheduled airlines (KLM),
Dutch charter airlines (Transavia) and Dutch airports (Amsterdam Schiphol)
EXECUTIVE BOARD (2 members)Chairman + 1 member
Executive Board is appointed by the M of TPWWM, on therecommendation of the Supervisory Board.
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and WaterManagement (M of TPWWM)
LVNL
Transport and Water Management Inspectorate
(IVW)NSA
Directorate- General for Civil Aviation and
Maritime Affairs(DGLM)
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
LVNL (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Corporate Entity as of 1993 (by Air Traffic Law)- 100% State-owned
Directorate-General for Civil Aviation and Maritime Affairs (DGLM)
Directorate-General for Civil Aviation and Maritime Affairs (DGLM)
Directorate-General for Civil Aviation and Maritime Affairs (DGLM)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Transport and Water Management Inspectorate (IVW)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:G.J.N.H. Cerfontaine
CHAIRMAN OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD (CEO):Ir. P. Riemens (CEO)
1 ACC (Amsterdam)3 APPs (Schiphol, Eelde, Beek)4 TWRs (Schiphol, Rotterdam, Eelde, Beek)
- New Millingen ACC (Military ACC) is not included in ACE data analysis- Rotterdam APP has been located in Schiphol since 2002
- Controls lower airspace up to FL 245
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
214Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
244Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
179Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
95
8Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
177ATCOs in OPS
142Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
453IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
6En-route sectors
119Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
927Gate-to-gate total staff
290ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
MATS, Malta
www.maltats.com
Malta Air Traffic Services Limited
230 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
BOARD of DIRECTORS (5 members) Chairman + 4 Directors
Members appointed by the Government, representingthe MFEI.
The Board of Directors appoints the CEO.
Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport & Communications
(MITC)
Civil AviationDirectorateNSA
Malta Air Traffic Services Ltd (MATS)
Ministry of Finance,Economy and Investment
(MFEI)
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
MATS (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Malta Air Traffic Services Ltd (Reg. no. C27965) is a fully Government owned company. MATS has been operating as the sole ANSP for Malta since the 1st January 2002
Civil Aviation Directorate
Civil Aviation Directorate
Civil Aviation Directorate
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Directorate Malta (CADM)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Maj. Vanni Ganado
CEO:Brig. Carmel Vassallo
HEAD OF ATS DIVISION:Robert Sant
1 ACC (Malta)1 APP (Malta)1 TWR (Luqa)
- MATS controls portions of airspace delegatedto Malta ACC by Rome ACC
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
15Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
15Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
13Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
10
6Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
56ATCOs in OPS
41Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
29IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
2En-route sectors
1Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
146Gate-to-gate total staff
291ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
M-NAV, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
www.dgca.gov.mk
Air Navigation Services
24 800
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARD (3 members appointed by the Government)
MANAGEMENT BOARD (3 executive directors appointed by the Government)
Government
PublicEnterprisefor Airport
Services
Ministry of Transport Ministry of
Defence
M-NAV
Civil Aviation Agency (CAA)NSA
Air Force and Defence
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
M-NAV (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Joint-stock company - 100% State-owned
Safety Dept. of Civil Aviation Agency
ATM Dept. of Civil Aviation Agency
Government, Civil Aviation Agency
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Agency (CAA)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Dragan Andreevski
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CAA:Dejan Mojsoski
DIRECTOR OF ANS DEPARTEMENT:Nikolet Tagarinski
1 ACC (Skopje)2 APPs (Skopje and Ohrid)2 TWRs (Skopje and Ohrid)1 AFIS (Skopje)
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
11Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
13Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
11Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
11
0Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
67ATCOs in OPS
21Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
12IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
3En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
277Gate-to-gate total staff
292ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
MoldATSA, Moldova
www.moldatsa.md
Moldavian Air Traffic Services Authority
33 700
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
Management Board:Director General MoldATSA
SUPERVISORY BOARD (7 members)Chairman + 6 members
All members are appointed by the Ministry of Transport and Road Infrastructure
Members represent Ministry of Transport and Road Infrastructure (1), MoldATSA management (2),
Ministry of Finance (2), Ministry of Economy and Commerce (2)
Ministry of Transport and Road Infrastructure
Civil Aviation Administration
(CAA) NSA
AirportOperator
Ministry of Defence
MoldATSAAircraftOperator
Government
Economy Ministry
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
MoldATSA (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- State enterprise since 1994 (by Government Regulation Nr.3 from 12.01.1994)- 100% State-owned
Ministry of Transport and Road Infrastructure
Ministry of Transport and Road Infrastructure
Ministry of Transport and Road Infrastructure
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Administration (CAA)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Ion Savitchi
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Cornelia Vasilita-Barbaros
HEAD OF ATM DIVISION:Andrei Istrati
1 ACC (Chisinau)1 APP (Chisinau)3 TWRs (Chisinau, Balti, Cahul)
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
8Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
8Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
7Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
8
2Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
56ATCOs in OPS
11Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
12IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
2En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
306Gate-to-gate total staff
293ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
MUAC, Maastricht
www.eurocontrol.int EUROCONTROL
Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre
260 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
Permanent Commissionof EUROCONTROL
Director General ofEUROCONTROL
Director of MUAC
CoM
MCG
PermanentCommission of
EUROCONTROL
EUROCONTROL Agency
Maastricht UpperArea Control Centre
(MUAC)
EUROCONTROLCommittee of
Management (CoM)
Maastricht Co-ordination Group (MCG)
Senior officials from Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg and Germany.
Four States National
SupervisoryCommitteeNSA
(including representatives of the 4 states
NSA’s)
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
MUAC (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- EUROCONTROL: International Organisation established under the EUROCONTROL Convention of 13.12.1960 and amended on 12.2.1981. At the request of the Benelux States and Germany, MUAC is operated as a EUROCONTROL Agency’s Service according to the Maastricht Agreements of 25.11.1986
Maastricht Agreements Art. 1.2: each of the 4 States retains its competence and obligations in respect of regulations
The MCG determines a common position for the 4 States in all matters relating to the operation of ATS by MUAC concerning, inter alia, airspace organisation and sectorisation
Financial arrangements for the exploitation of MUAC are adopted by the Committee of Management. EUROCONTROL DG seeks approval of the budget, which contains a special budgetary Annex for MUAC, with the Permanent Commission
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Four States National Supervisory Committee
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EUROCONTROL:David McMillan
DIRECTOR OF MUAC:Karl - Heinz Kloos
1 ACC (Maastricht)
- Controls GAT in the upper airspace (>FL245) above Benelux and North-Western Germany- A German ATC unit responsible for handling OAT above North-Western Germany and managed by the DFS is co-located at MUAC
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
430Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
135Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
135Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
75
10Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
218ATCOs in OPS
532Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
n/applIFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
16En-route sectors
54Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
666Gate-to-gate total staff
294ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NATA Albania, Albania
http://www.anta.com.al/
National Air Traffic Agency
35 900
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY BOARD (6 members) Chairman + 5 members
Chairman is the Director of Transport and Telecommunications (MPATT)
All 6 members are nominated by the METE,4 members are proposed by the MPATT, 2 members by the METE.
MANAGEMENT BOARD (3 members) Director General + 2 Vice-Directors
Director General appointed by MPATT through the Supervisory Board of NATA
Ministry of Public Affairs,Transport and
Telecommunications(MPATT)
Civil Aviation Agency (CAA)NSA
Ministry of Economy,Trade and Energy
(METE)
National Air TrafficAgency (NATA)
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
NATA Albania (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Since May 1999 NATA is a joint-stock company- 100% State owned
MPATT and Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)
MPATT and Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Energy (METE)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Agency (CAA)
CHAIRMAN OF SUPERVISORY BOARD:Ervin Minarolli
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO) OF NATA:Petrit Sulaj
DIRECTOR OF THE ATS DEPARTMENT:Edmond Metaj
1 ACC (Tirana)1 APP (Tirana)1 TWR (Tirana)1 AFIS (Tirana)
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
21Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
18Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
16Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
30
8Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
41ATCOs in OPS
35Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
21IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
3En-route sectors
14Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
238Gate-to-gate total staff
295ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NATS, United Kingdom
www.nats.co.uk
NATS Ltd
2 997 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
SUPERVISORY DIRECTORS BOARD (14 members)
Chairman + 13 members. Chairman is appointed by the Airline Group. Out of the 13 members,
9 are non-executive directors (5 appointed by the Airline Group +3 partnership directors appointed
by the Govt + 1 by BAA);4 are executive directors (CEO NATS,
Finance Director NATS, MD NERL andOperations Strategy & Standards Director NERL).
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE of NERLExecutive directors are appointed
by the Airline Group
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE of NSL
Ministry of Defence (M of D)
NATS Holdings Ltd
Private Owners
UK CAANSA
Contract for provision
of services
Department for Transport
(DfT) The AirlineGroup
UK NATSEmployees
SRGERGDAP
NATS Ltd
NATS (En-route) Plc (NERL) Regulated subsidiary for
En-route and Oceanic ANS
NATS (Services) Limited (NSL) Airport ANS
+ New Business
BAA
Continental: 877 000 km² - Oceanic: 2 120 000 km²
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
NATS (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Public Private Partnership as of 2001 - 49% State-owned (Govt retains a Golden Share) - 51% private-owned (42% by the Airline Group, 4% by BAA and 5% by UK NATS employees)- The Airline Group comprises 7 UK airlines: BA, Virgin Atlantic, BMI, EasyJet, Thomas Cook, Thomson Airways and Monarch Airlines
UK CAA, Safety Regulation Group (SRG)
UK CAA, Directorate of Airspace Policy (DAP)
UK CAA, Economic Regulation Group (ERG) which sets charges through a formula linked to the Retail Price Index (RPI) where "RPI minus X" targets for En-route and Oceanic Charges are set for 5 years at a time
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):UK CAA
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:John Devaney
CEO of NATS and NERL:Paul Barron (until 31 March 2010)Richard Deakin (from 1st April 2010)
CEO of NSL:Paul Reid
1 OAC (Shanwick) 3 ACCs (London AC, London TC, Prestwick (i.e. replacing Manchester and Scottish))16 APPs 16 TWRs (including Gibraltar TWR) 2 AFISs
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
740Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
696Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
687Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
789
144Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
1 413ATCOs in OPS
1 310Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
1 789IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
70En-route sectors
943Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
4 709Gate-to-gate total staff
296ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NAV Portugal, Portugal
www.nav.pt
Navegação Aérea de Portugal - NAV Portugal, E.P.E.
5 855 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION (5 members)Chairman + 4 members
All members are appointed by the M of T for a 3 year term.Each member has executive functions within NAV Portugal.
Each member is responsible to supervise one or several NAV Portugal Directorates and Advisory Bodies to the Board.
There are 8 Directorates and 5 Advisory Bodies.
NAV Portugal has also a Board of Auditors composed of 3members who are appointed by M of T for a 3 year term.
Ministry of Transport (M of T)
Secretary of State
Ministry of Finance(M of F)
National Institute forCivil Aviation (INAC)
NSA
Aircraft AccidentPrevention and
Investigation(GPIAA)
Airports of Portugal
(ANA SA)
Air Navigation of Portugal
NAV Portugal E.P.E.
Continental: 665 000 km² - Oceanic: 5 190 000 km²
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
NAV Portugal (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Public Entity Corporation as of December 1998- 100% State-owned
National Institute of Civil Aviation (INAC)
INAC+FA (Portuguese Air Force) + NAV Portugal in close permanent co-ordination
National Institute of Civil Aviation (INAC)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):National Institute for Civil Aviation (INAC)
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION:Acting Chairman Carlos Beja
CEO:Acting CEO Carlos Beja
2 ACCs (Lisboa, Santa Maria) 8 APPs (Lisboa, Porto, Faro, Madeira, Santa Maria, Ponta Delgada, Horta, Flores)10 TWRs (Lisboa, Cascais, Porto, Faro, Funchal, Porto Santo, Ponta Delgada, Santa Maria, Horta, Flores)
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
145Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
149Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
134Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
38
10Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
201ATCOs in OPS
259Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
259IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
7En-route sectors
38Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
715Gate-to-gate total staff
297ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
NAVIAIR, Denmark
www.naviair.dk
Air Navigation Services
158 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
EXECUTIVE BOARD (3 members)CEO + 2 members
The CEO is appointed by the Supervisory Board.
SUPERVISORY BOARD1 Chairman + 8 Members
Ministry of Transport(MoT)
Air NavigationService (NAVIAIR)
Danish CAA(Trafikstyrelsen)
NSA
Bornholm Airport
AccidentInvestigation Board
(AIB)
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
NAVIAIR (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Company owned by the state- 100% State-owned
Civil Aviation Administration (Trafikstyrelsen)
Civil Aviation Administration (Trafikstyrelsen
Civil Aviation Administration (Trafikstyrelsen)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Danish CAA (Trafikstyrelsen)
CHAIRMAN OF SUPERVISORY BOARDAnne Birgitte Lundholdt
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Morten Dambæk
(excluding Greenland)1 ACC (Copenhagen)7 APPs7 TWRs1 AFIS
- ANS Greenland upper airspace is delegated to Isavia and NAV Canada
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
108Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
125Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
112Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
153
16Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
194ATCOs in OPS
197Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
329IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
7En-route sectors
39Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
688Gate-to-gate total staff
298ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Oro Navigacija, Lithuania
www.ans.lt
State Enterprise Oro Navigacija
75 500
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
MANAGEMENT BOARDDuties taken up by Director General
DG is appointed by Minister.
SUPERVISORY BOARD (5 members)Chairman + 4 members
(Chairman + 3) represent M of TC1 represent Oro Navigacija.
Ministry of Transportand Communications
(M of TC)
Civil AviationAdministration
NSA
Oro Navigacija Airlines Airports
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
Oro Navigacija (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Since July 2001- 100% State-owned Enterprise (SOE)
Lithuania CAA
Oro Navigacija in coordination with CAA and M of TC
Oro Navigacija in coordination with CAA and M of TC
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Administration
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Tomas Karpavičius
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Algimantas Raščius
DIRECTOR ATM:Sergej Smirnov
1 ACC (Vilnius)3 APPs4 TWRs
- Air Navigation Services are delegated to LGS (Latvia) above some part of the Baltic sea
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
20Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
21Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
19Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
34
9Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
80ATCOs in OPS
43Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
32IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
2En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
312Gate-to-gate total staff
299ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
PANSA, Poland
www.pansa.pl
Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA)
334 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
ADMINISTRATIONAccording to the Act establishing PANSA, the Agency is managed
by the President and his two Vice-Presidents. The President is nominated by the Prime Minister. The two Vice-Presidents are nominated by the MoT
NO SUPERVISORY BOARD
Ministry of Infrastructure(M of I)
Polish Air Navigation Services
Agency (PANSA)
Polish AirportsState Enterprise
(PPL)
Civil AviationOffice (CAO)NSA
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
PANSA (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- PANSA has been operating as an independent entity as from 1st April 2007, separated from the Polish Airports State Enterprise (PPL)- State body (acting as a legal entity with an autonomous budget)- 100% State owned
Civil Aviation Office (CAO)
Civil Aviation Office (CAO)
Civil Aviation Office (CAO)
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Office (CAO)
PRESIDENT OF PANSA:Krzysztof Banaszek
VICE PRESIDENT- AIR NAVIGATION DEPARTMENT:Maciej Rodak
VICE PRESIDENT- FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT:Maciej Piotrowski
1 ACC with 8 sectors4 APPs (Warszawa, Gdańsk, Kraków, Poznań) providing radar control5 TWRs (Warszawa, Gdańsk, Kraków, Poznań, Katowice) providing aeodrome control6 TWRs (Wrocław, Szczecin, Rzeszów, Łódź, Zielona Góra, Bydgoszcz) providing aeodrome control and non-radar approach control4 FIS units (Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk, Poznań)
- APP Kraków is providing ATC services for Kraków and Katowice- Katowice TWR is providing only aerodrome control when APP Kraków is providing radar services for Katowice
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
122Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
136Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
118Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
126
20Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
384ATCOs in OPS
325Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
283IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
8En-route sectors
701Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 689Gate-to-gate total staff
300ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
ROMATSA, Romania
www.romatsa.ro
Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration
255 000
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
ADMINISTRATION BOARD (7 voting members) Chairman + 6 members
Chairman is CEO.Members represent: MoT, M of Public Finance, MoD
and other entities + additional non voting participants representing staff.
STEERING COMMITTEEDuties taken up by DG.
DG is appointed by the MoT.DG + other directors.
Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure (MoT)
ROMATSA
Airports Operator (4 majorairports under responsibility
of the MoT + 12airports under local authorities)
Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority
(RCAA)NSA
Ministry of Defence(MoD)
AirspaceManagement
Council
Directorate Generalof Infrastructure and
Air TransportNSA
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
ROMATSA (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Autonomous and self-financing organisation as of 1991 (Government Resolution GR74/1991 ammended by GR731/1992, GR75/2005, GR1090/2006, GR1251/2007, GR741/2008)- 100% State-owned
Ministry of Transport and InfrastructureEnforcement and safety oversight is delegated and discharged through the RCAA
Both Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure and Ministry of Defence, and discharged through the RCAA and Air Force Staff
Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):- Directorate General of Infrastructure and Air Transport- Romanian Civil Aeronautical Authority (RCAA)
CHAIRMAN OF THE ADMINISTRATION BOARD:Bogdan Donciu
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Bogdan Donciu
1 ACC (Bucharest + 1 secondary location - Arad) 2 APPs16 TWRs
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
167Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
168Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
148Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
114
12Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
513ATCOs in OPS
264Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
168IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
17En-route sectors
0Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 640Gate-to-gate total staff
301ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Skyguide, Switzerland
www.skyguide.ch
Skyguide
73 400
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
GENERAL ASSEMBLY of the Shareholders
SUPERVISORY BOARD (7 members)Chairman + 6 members
All members are appointed by the General Assembly fortheir expertise.
EXECUTIVE BOARD (6 members)CEO + 5 members
The CEO is appointed by the Supervisory Board.
Ministry of Defence(M of D)
Federal Office for Civil Aviation (FOCA)
NSASwiss Air Force
(Swiss AF)
Skyguide
Ministry of Environment, Transport, Energy and
Communications (M of ETEC)
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
Skyguide (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Joint-stock company as of 1996. Currently 14 shareholders; 99,91% is held by the Swiss Confederation which by law must hold at least 51%- Integrated civil/military as of 2001
Federal Office for Civil Aviation
Federal Office for Civil Aviation
The Ministry of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Federal Office for Civil Aviation (FOCA)
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD:Guy Emmenegger
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Daniel Weder
2 ACCs (Geneva, Zurich)4 APPs (Geneva, Zurich, Lugano, Bern)7 TWRs (Geneva, Zurich, Lugano, Bern, Buochs, Altenrhein, Grenchen)- ATC services delegated to Geneva ACC by France
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
220Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
230Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
218Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
274
26Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
324ATCOs in OPS
328Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
451IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
16En-route sectors
599Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
1 291Gate-to-gate total staff
302ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Slovenia Control, Slovenia
www.sloveniacontrol.si
Slovenia Control Ltd
19 600
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
SUPERVISORY BOARD (6 members)Chairman (M of T) + 3 members (M of T, M of F and M of D)
appointed by the Government. 2 staff reps. appointed by “employees board”.
Director General (CEO) of Slovenia Control
Appointed by the government for a period of 5 years
Slovenia Control
Ministry of Transport(M of T)
Civil AviationDirectorate Aircraft Accident
and Incident Investigation Division
Division for ANSNSA
Air TrafficInspectorate
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
Slovenia Control (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Since May 2004, ANS is separated from the Slovenian Civil Aviation Authority (SCAA) and became a 100% State-owned Enterprise, Slovenia Control Ltd
Ministry of Transport
Ministry of Transport
Ministry of Finance
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Directorate (CAD)
CHAIRPERSON OF SUPERVISORY BOARD:Mirko Komac
DIRECTOR GENERAL (CEO):Franc Željko Županič
1 ACC (Ljubljana)3 APPs (Ljubljana, Portoroz, Maribor)3 TWRs (Ljubljana, Portoroz, Maribor)
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
28Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
27Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
24Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
18
8Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
90ATCOs in OPS
41Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
40IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
3En-route sectors
4Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
215Gate-to-gate total staff
303ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
SMATSA, Serbia and Montenegro
http://www.smatsa.yu
Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services Agency
144 676
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
ASSEMBLY
5 members representing founders(Government of the Republic of Serbia
and Government of Montenegro)selected from the Ministries in charge of transport and of finance,
as well as from other bodies, services and professional organisations.
MANAGEMENT BOARD
7 members appointed by the Assembly for a period of 5 years,upon proposals of the Government of the Republic of Serbia (5)
and Government of Montenegro (2)The President and CEO is appointed by the Management Board.
Government of theRepublic of Serbia
Civil AviationDirectorate of theRepublic of Serbia
Government ofMontenegro
Civil Aviation Agency of Montenegro
SMATSA
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
SMATSA (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Limited liability company founded in 2003- 92% owned by Serbia and 8% owned by Montenegro- Integrated civil/military ANSP
- Civil Aviation Directorate Of The Republic Of Serbia- Civil Aviation Agency of Montenegro
- Civil Aviation Directorate Of The Republic Of Serbia- Civil Aviation Agency of Montenegro
Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Serbia
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Civil Aviation Directorate Of The Republic Of SerbiaCivil Aviation Agency of Montenegro
PRESIDENT OF THE ASSEMBLY:Tatjana Isakovic
PRESIDENT OF THE MANAGEMENT BOARD & CEO:Nikola Stankov
1 ACC (Belgrade)8 APPs/TWRs (Belgrade, Batajnica, Kraljevo, Nis, Uzice, Vrsac, Podgorica, Tivat)
- ANS Services (ATM, CNS, MET and AIS)- SMATSA provides Air Traffic Services in the 55% of the upper airspace of Bosnia and Herzegovina- ANS personnel training, Flight Inspection Services, PANS-OPS and cartography
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
65Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
74Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
70Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
90
27Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
225ATCOs in OPS
208Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
63IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
8En-route sectors
2Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
853Gate-to-gate total staff
304ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
UkSATSE, Ukraine
www.uksatse.ua
Ukrainian State Air Traffic Service Enterprise
776 442
Operational ATS units:
SizeSize of controlled airspace: km²
MANAGEMENT BOARD
No Supervisory Board
DIRECTOR GENERAL
Ukrainian State Air Traffic Service Enterprise (UkSATSE)
• Regional branches• AIS• Ukraerocenter (civil/military integration)• Training & Certification Center of UkSATSE• « UkSATSE » airline• Medical Certification Center
Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine
(State Aviation Service)
Institutional arrangements and links (2011)
Corporate governance structure (2011)
Scope of services
Status (2011)
UkSATSE (2011)
Key financial and operational figures (2009)
- Self-financing enterprise- 100% State-owned
State Aviation Service
State Aviation Service
State Aviation Service
Safety Regulation
Airspace Regulation
Economic Regulation
Body responsible for:
National Supervisory Authority (NSA):Not applicable since Ukraine is not bound by SES Regulations
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF UkSATSE:Yuriy Cherednichenko
5 ACCs (Kyiv, Simpferopol’, Kharkiv, Odesa, L'viv)2 Auxiliary ACCs (Dnipropetrovs'k, Donets'k)12 APPs32 TWRs
Upper Airspace
Lower Airspace
GAT
OAT
Oceanic ANS
MET
162Gate-to-gate total revenues (M€)
145Gate-to-gate total costs (M€)
137Gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (M€)
78
10Gate-to-gate ANS total capex (M€)
936ATCOs in OPS
308Total IFR flight-hours controlled by ANSP ('000)
165IFR airport movements controlled by ANSP ('000)
36En-route sectors
12Minutes of ATFM delays > 15 min ('000)
Gate-to-gate total ATM/CNS assets(M€)
5 996Gate-to-gate total staff
305ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Annex 7 – Fact Sheets 306 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
Glossary 307 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
GLOSSARY
ACC Area Control Centre
ACE Air Traffic Management Cost-Effectiveness
ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast
Aena Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea, Spain
AFIS Airport/Aerodrome Flight Information Service
AIS Aeronautical Information Services
ANS Air Navigation Services
ANS CR Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic
ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider
APP Approach Control Unit
ARMATS Armenian Air Traffic Services
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATCO Air Traffic Control Officer
ATFM Air Traffic Flow Management
ATM Air Traffic Management
BULATSA Air Traffic Services Authority, Bulgaria
Austro Control Austro Control Österreichische Gesellschaft für Zivilluftfahrt mbH, Austria
Avinor Avinor, Norway
B Billion
Belgocontrol Belgocontrol, Belgium
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CEATS Central European Air Traffic Services
CFMU Central Flow Management Unit
CNS Communications, Navigation and Surveillance
CRCO Central Route Charges Office
Croatia Control Hrvatska kontrola zračne plovidbe d.o.o., Croatian Air Navigation Services
DCAC Cyprus Department of Civil Aviation of Cyprus
DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH, Germany
DHMİ Devlet Hava Meydanları İsletmesi, Turkey
DME Distance-Measuring Equipment
DSNA Direction des services de la navigation aérienne, France
EANS Estonian Air Navigation Services
EC European Commission
ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference
ENAV Ente Nazionale di Assistenza al Volo S.p.A., Italy
ERC EUROCONTROL Research Centre
EU European Union
FAB Functional Airspace Block
FDP Flight Data Processing system
Finavia Finavia, Finland
FIS Flight Information Service
FL Flight Level
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HCAA Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority, Greece
HMI Human-Machine Interface
HQ Headquarters
Glossary 308 ACE 2009 Benchmarking Report
HungaroControl HungaroControl, Hungary
IAA Irish Aviation Authority, Ireland
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
ILS Instrument Landing System
LFV Luftfartsverket, Sweden
LGS Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme, Latvia
LPS Letové Prevádzkové Služby Slovenskej Republiky, Státny Podnik, Slovak Republik
LVNL Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland, Netherlands
M Million
MATS Malta Air Traffic Services Ltd
MET Aeronautical Meteorology
M-NAV Air Navigation Services Provider of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
MoldATSA Moldavian Air Traffic Services Authority
MSSR Monopulse Secondary Surveillance Radar
MUAC Maastricht Upper Air Centre
NSA National Supervisory Authority
NATA Albania National Air Traffic Agency, Albania
NATS National Air Traffic Services, UK
NAV Portugal Navegação Aérea de Portugal, EPE
NAVIAIR Air Navigation Services – Flyvesikringstjenesten, Denmark
NBV Net Book Value
NDB Non-Directional Beacon
OAT Operational air traffic
OPS Operations
Oro Navigacija State Enterprise Oro Navigacija, Lithuania
PANSA Polish Air Navigation Services Agency
PPPs Purchasing power parities
PRB Performance Review Body
PRC Performance Review Commission
PRR Performance Review Report
PRU Performance Review Unit
RDP Radar Data Processing system
RP1 Reference Period 1
RPI Retail Price Index
ROMATSA Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration
SAR Search and Rescue
SES Single European Sky
SESAR IP1 Single European Sky ATM Research Implementation Package 1
SID Specification for Information Disclosure
Skyguide Skyguide, Switzerland
Slovenia Control Slovenia Control, Slovenia
SMATSA Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services Agency
TC Terminal Control
TWR Traffic Controlled Tower
UK CAA United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority
UkSATSE Ukrainian State Air Traffic Service Enterprise
VFR Visual Flight Rules
VOR Very high frequency Omni-directional Range
COPYRIGHT NOTICEAND DISCLAIMER
© European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)
This document is published by the Performance Review Commission and the Performance Review Body in the interest of the exchange of information.
It may be copied in whole or in part providing that the copyright notice and disclaimer are included.The information contained in this document may not be modified without priorwritten permission from the Performance Review Commission and the Performance Review Body.
The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of EUROCONTROL, which makes no warranty, either implied or express, for the informationcontained in this document, neither does it assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information.
Printed by EUROCONTROL, 96, rue de la Fusée, B-1130 Brussels, Belgium,Tel: +32 2 729 3956, Fax: +32 2 729 9108.
