PRR Performance Review Report. An Assessment of Air Traffic Management in Europe during the Calendar Year 2014

Transcription

1 PRR 2014 Performance Review Report An Assessment of Air Traffic Management in Europe during the Calendar Year 2014 Performance Review Commission I May 2015 EUROCONTROL

2 Background This report has been produced by the Performance Review Commission (PRC). The PRC was established by the Permanent Commission of EUROCONTROL in accordance with the ECAC Institutional Strategy One objective of this strategy is to introduce a strong, transparent and independent performance review and target setting system to facilitate more effective management of the European ATM system, encourage mutual accountability for system performance All PRC publications are available from the website: Notice The PRC has made every effort to ensure that the information and analysis contained in this document are as accurate and complete as possible. Only information from quoted sources has been used and information relating to named parties has been checked with the parties concerned. Despite these precautions, 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 address is PRU@eurocontrol.int Copyright notice and Disclaimer EUROCONTROL European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL) This document is published by the Performance Review Commission in the interest of the exchange of information. It may be copied in whole or in part providing that the copyright notice and disclaimer are included. The information contained in this document may not be modified without prior written permission from the Performance Review Commission. 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. Printed by EUROCONTROL, 96, rue de la Fusée, B-1130 Brussels, Belgium. The PRC s website address is The PRU s address is PRU@eurocontrol.int.

3 DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION SHEET DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Document Title Performance Review Commission Performance Review Report covering the calendar year 2014 (PRR 2014) PROGRAMME REFERENCE INDEX: EDITION: EDITION DATE: PRC Performance Review Report Final report 21 May 2015 SUMMARY This report of the Performance Review Commission analyses the performance of the European Air Traffic Management System in 2014 under the Key Performance Areas of Safety, Capacity, Environment and Cost efficiency. Keywords Air Traffic Management Performance Measurement Performance Indicators ATM ANS CONTACT: Performance Review Unit, EUROCONTROL, 96 Rue de la Fusée, B 1130 Brussels, Belgium. Tel: , E Mail: pru@eurocontrol.int DOCUMENT STATUS AND TYPE STATUS DISTRIBUTION Draft General Public Proposed Issue EUROCONTROL Organisation Released Issue Restricted INTERNAL REFERENCE NAME: PRR 2014

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY European ATM Performance TRAFFIC IFR flights (million) Key Performance Indicator Feb Feb forecast ( before 1997, estimation based STATFOR (Feb. 2015) on Euro 88 traffic variation) % 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 2% 4% 6% % annual growth (bars) Source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR (ESRA2008) Data & commentary IFR flights Eurocontrol Variation M + 1.7% After the decrease between 2011 and 2013, average daily IFR flights in Europe increased by +1.7% in 2014 with notable regional variations. For 2015, the STATFOR 7 year forecast (2015) expects European flights to grow by +1.5% in the baseline scenario. COST EFFICIENCY ENVIRONMENT CAPACITY SAFETY En route ATFM delay/ flight (min.) inefficiency (%) Total commercial air transport (CAT) accidents and accidents with ANS 50 Number of accidents Source: EASA Source: PRU analysis Accidents with ANS contribution Average en route ATFM delay per flight (EUROCONTROL area) ATC Capacity & Staffing WEATHER IFR Traffic Real en route unit costs per SU for the EUROCONTROL Area ( 2009) Source: PRU analysis En route real cost per SU ( 2009) Traffic index (base: 1997) ATC Other (strike, equipment, etc.) OTHER (Special event, military, etc.) Source: Network Manager JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Actuals Actuals Flight plan Actual trajectory Actuals Actuals Actuals Forecasts En route SU index (2009) En route ANS cost index (2009) Accidents with ANS contribution Eurocontrol Variation Overall, safety levels in Europe continue to remain high, yet with scope for further improvements in some areas. Over the past five years, there were only two accidents where ANS was a factor in the causal chain of events. En route ATFM delay per flight Eurocontrol Variation After the best year on record in 2013, en route ATFM delays increased again to 0.61 minutes per flight in The most constraining ACCs in 2014 were Nicosia, Warsaw, Lisbon, Athinai/Macedonia, Canarias, Brest, Reims, and Marseille. En route flight efficiency (vs. flight plan) Eurocontrol Variation % 0.16%pt. En route flight efficiency continued to improve in The level of inefficiency in filed flight plans in Europe decreased from 4.86% to 4.70% and actual trajectories improved at an even higher rate from 3.14% to 2.72%. En route ANS costs per SU ( 2009) Eurocontrol Variation % In 2013, en route ANS costs decreased by 1.3% while en route service units grew by +2.1% leading to an overall decrease of en route unit costs by 3.3% compared to EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i PRR 2014

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction PRR 2014 presents an assessment of the performance of European Air Navigation Services (ANS) for the calendar year ANS in European Air Transport After the decrease between 2011 and 2013, flights in Europe increased again by +1.7% in 2014 with a positive medium term outlook. According to the latest STATFOR 7 year forecast (2015), flights are expected to grow by 1.5% in 2015 and to continue with an annual average growth rate of 2.5% between 2014 and However, despite the positive growth in 2014 and the promising outlook, the impact of the economic crisis on the industry is still prominent. At European level, there were almost three million flights less in 2014 than initially predicted before the economic crisis in Whereas the number of flights still remains below 2008 levels in 2014, there has been a continuous increase in average aircraft size and passenger numbers during the period which suggests that airlines responded to the crisis with a reduction in the number of services but with, on average, larger aircraft. Hence, as a result of the increase in average aircraft weight and longer flights, en route service units (+5.9%) grew notably stronger than flights (+1.7%) in With the exception of Albania, Armenia, Malta, Moldova and Ukraine, all EUROCONTROL states showed a positive growth in 2014, with Turkey remaining the main contributor to the growth in Europe. Four of the five largest States (Germany, Italy, UK, and Spain) experienced a traffic growth close to the high forecast scenario in 2014 and traffic was even higher than predicted in the high forecast scenario in Greece and Cyprus. European traffic was affected by a number of foreseen and unforeseen events in The tragic loss of MH17, in Ukrainian airspace in July was undoubtedly the most significant event in European airspace during As a result, there was a notable shift of traffic. While traffic in Ukraine and Moldova dropped by 36.9% and 24.2% respectively, traffic in Bulgaria (24.1%), Romania (16.6%), Hungary (11.6%), Turkey (11.2%), and Slovakia (9.8%) increased far beyond forecast levels but could be accommodated without noteworthy delays. Worldwide, airline safety improved to the best level on record with a rate of one fatal accident per 2.38 million flights in In the EUROCONTROL area safety levels remain high although preliminary 2014 data suggests a slight increase in total commercial air transport accidents and ANS related incidents in 2014 following the lowest level on record in Compared to 2013 (which was the best year on record), arrival punctuality in Europe decreased slightly from 84.0% to 83.7% in Reactionary delay, caused by delay which could not be absorbed on subsequent flight legs, remains the largest single delay group (44.5%) in 2014, followed by delays due to turn round issues (37%). The ANS related share (en route and airport combined) in total departure delays was 13.3% in Although the decrease in arrival punctuality in 2014 was mainly driven by a deterioration in turn round performance at airports, en route ATFM delays also increased compared to Due to this increase in en route ATFM delay in 2014 and an increase in flights at slightly better efficiency levels (taxi out, en route, terminal) than in 2013, estimated total additional ANS related operating time increased by 2.4% in The total economic evaluation of ANS performance presents a consolidated view of direct ANS costs and estimated indirect ANS related costs (ATFM delays, additional taxi out and ASMA time, horizontal en route flight efficiency) borne by airspace users. In the Single European Sky (SES) area, actual en route and terminal ANS costs in 2013 were lower than initially projected in last year s PRR, suggesting that ANSPs were able to adjust their costs to the 1.3% decline in traffic in Hence, combined with the notable lower delay related costs observed in 2013, total economic costs decreased by 3.5% compared to 2012 (initial projection for 2013 was +0.9%). Based on the latest available ANS cost projections for 2014, estimated total economic ANS related costs in the SES area are estimated to increase by 2.4% compared to The increase is mainly driven by the projected increase in en route and terminal ANS costs and the notable increase in en route ATFM delays in EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii PRR 2014

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Safety (2013/2014) Overall, safety levels in Europe continue to remain high, yet with scope for further improvements in some areas. Over the past four years ( ) there were no fatal ANS related accidents and only one accident with ANS contribution (MET related) in The number of serious incidents with ANS contribution continued the positive trend observed since 2010 and decreased further in 2014 to the lowest level on record. Separation minima infringements remained the single largest category for serious ANS related incidents, followed by runway incursions. Although considerable progress has been made over the past years, there is still a need to further improve safety data quality and completeness. After the continuous increase in reporting levels between 2004 and 2012, the total number of incidents reported fell again by 17% in However, with the available data it is difficult to differentiate whether the decrease in 2013 is due to genuine safety performance improvements or a drop in the level of reporting. Overall, final 2013 data was received from 36 the reporting from EUROCONTROL Member States via the Annual Summary Template (AST) reporting mechanism and the preliminary 2014 data was submitted by a record number of 40 States. Although already flagged up as a crucial area for improvement in previous PRRs, the share of unclassified incidents, as reported through the AST mechanism, remained unacceptably high in 2013 even though improvements are visible. There is an urgent need for further action in order to closely monitor trends and to support the prevention of similar incidents. Lastly, more effort should be put in place by the Member States to ensure that the number of ATM related occurrences not severity classified, continues to decrease. The need to accelerate the deployment of automatic safety data monitoring to complement manual reporting was also already addressed in last year s report. The latest available information from the Network Manager suggests that 14 Member States now use ASMT which represents an increase of two States compared to However, there is a concern that the implementation of A SMGCS Level 1 (improved surveillance) lags behind. By 2014, only 52% of the 46 airports have achieved full operational capability. Being a prerequisite for the implementation of A SMGCS Level 2 (Surveillance + Safety Nets), this indicates that additional work is still needed in order to achieve the objectives set in the ATM Master Plan by the end of 2017 and avoid delayed implementation of Level 2. The use of A SMGCS or other equivalent runway safety programmes to improve reporting and safety performance is strongly encouraged by the PRC. To ensure that safety remains an integral part in the evolution of the more and more complex aviation system, States and service providers are encouraged to proactively engage in safety risk modelling. The improved understanding of how the various elements of the ATM system contribute to overall safety levels not only helps to better identify risk areas today but also how modifications to the system could improve performance in the future. Operational En-route ANS Performance (2014) After the continuous improvement between 2010 and 2013, (reaching the lowest level of en route ATFM delay per flight on record in 2013 (0.53 minutes per flight)), en route ATFM delays in the EUROCONTROL area increased again to 0.61 minutes per flight in The performance deterioration in 2014 was mainly attributed to ATC capacity issues confirming concerns already highlighted in PRR 2013 that ATFM delays could spike, when traffic grows again, unless sufficient attention is focussed on capacity planning and deployment. In 2014, European traffic flows and capacity management were affected by a number of significant events including the downing of Malaysian Airline MH17 in Ukrainian airspace in July. The ensuing total closure of airspace in the eastern part of Ukraine generated many re routings in that region. Traffic in Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Turkey, and Slovakia increased far beyond forecast levels but, thanks to the efforts of those ANSPs, they were accommodated without significant delays. While capacity constraints can occur from time to time, area control centres (ACCs) should not generate high delays on a regular basis. In 2014, the most constraining ACCs were Nicosia (failure to implement capacity plans), Warsaw (issues with the implementation of the new PEGASUS 21 system), Lisbon (reoccurring issues in November), Canarias (capacity planning and delay classification issues), Athinai/Macedonia (insufficient capacity EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii PRR 2014

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY in summer), Reims (capacity planning), Brest and Marseille (ATC industrial action) which accounted together for more than half of all European en route ATFM delays (54.6% ) but only for 17.8% of total flight hours controlled. It is essential, particularly in view of the considerable lead times, to carefully plan and also deploy capacity in line with projected traffic growth. Over conservative capacity planning removes buffers against unexpected traffic increases and increases the risk of significant disruption to aircraft operations. Although the unexpected changes in traffic flows in 2014 had a moderate negative effect on European flight efficiency in 2014, overall, there was a notable improvement in 2014, confirming the positive trend observed over the past years. Coordinated by the Network Manager, 30 of the 64 ACCs had implemented various steps of Free Route Operations by the end of 2014 with clear benefits in terms of flight efficiency. In 2014, the level of inefficiency in filed flight plans in Europe decreased from 4.86% to 4.70% and actual trajectories improved at an even higher rate from 3.14% to 2.72%. Whereas the stronger improvement in actual trajectories is positive in terms of fuel burn and CO 2 emissions, the widening of the gap between planned and actual flown trajectories needs to be monitored closely as it has a negative impact on network predictability. A voluntary review of only three Member States identified significant differences, not only between the national arrangements and the FUA specification but also between the individual Member States, in how the airspace is managed to provide the optimum benefit for civil and military airspace users. A wider review could help to better identify and understand existing shortcomings and identify best practice for the future benefit of all airspace users. Operational ANS Performance at Airports (2014) In 2014, IFR movements at the top 30 airports increased by +2.7% compared to the previous year, which is stronger than the European traffic growth in 2014 (+1.7% vs. 2013). Despite the growth in 2014, traffic at the top 30 airports remains 3.3% below 2008 levels. Compared to 2013, the number of passengers at the top 30 airports increased by +5.8% in 2014 (9.9% above 2008 levels). There were notable differences in growth between airports in The Turkish airports continued their remarkable growth already observed in previous years and, following a traffic decrease at Paris Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt airport, London Heathrow now ranks first in terms of average daily movements in Europe. Operational cancellations at airports were included for the first time in this year s report. Overall, around 1.5% of the flights confirmed by the air carrier the day before operations were cancelled in Data on cancellations were not available from all airports and thus limit the scope of the analysis of this report. With the on going establishment of the airport operator data flow specification, the level of reporting will improve in the future. In order to avoid excessive disruptions in daily operations, demand at larger airports is already regulated strategically in terms of volume and concentration through the airport capacity declaration process. On the day of operations, ANS plays a key role in balancing traffic with available capacity at airports within the given infrastructural and environmental constraints and in the integration of airports in the European network. In view of the considerable downward adjustment of airport expansion plans in Europe, the optimised use of available capacity is crucial to keep delays to a minimum. The indicators used for the evaluation of ANS related performance relate to the management of the inbound (i.e. arrival ATFM delay and ASMA additional time) and outbound (i.e. ATC pre departure delay and additional taxi out time) traffic flow and are consistent with the SES performance scheme. In 2014, the average additional time for ASMA and taxi out improved slightly at the top 30 European airports whereas airport ATFM arrival delays and ATC pre departure delays increased at the same time. London Heathrow, Frankfurt, Amsterdam Schiphol, Rome Fiumicino, Zurich, and the two Istanbul airports had the most notable impact on the network in The underlying reasons differ by airport and range from the airport scheduling process to the ability to sustain declared capacity in various circumstances on the day of operations. Improved data exchange fostered by A CDM implementation and increased situation awareness are key enabler for performance improvements at airports. However the mere availability of information does not automatically resolve issues without proactively addressing relevant optimisation processes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv PRR 2014

8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For example, initial work on XMAN demonstrated positive improvements in term of reducing the additional ASMA time for London Heathrow. The better use of cross border arrival management (linking the terminal approach and en route function), is a key enabler for the absorption of possible holdings in a more environmental friendly manner, as the absorption takes place in the en route phase through reduced cruise speed. On the other hand, local constraints at Rome Fiumicino pose a challenge to take advantage of the benefits of A CDM with a view to the optimisation of departure sequencing process. The evaluation of daily taxi out performance shows that the current performance framework does not sufficiently address the impact of adverse weather on the performance indicators. Future work is required in order to better evaluate the level of efficiency in such conditions (e.g. de icing conditions). ANS Cost-efficiency (2013) PRR2014 analyses performance in 2014 for all KPAs, except for cost efficiency, which analyses performance in 2013 as this is the latest year for which actual financial data are available. The pan European system en route cost efficiency performance improved in Real en route costs per service unit decreased by 3.3% compared to 2012, reflecting a decrease of 1.3% in total costs and an increase of +2.1% in SUs. Total en route costs were also 5.6% lower than planned, responding to SUs which were 5.3% lower than forecast. However, costs can be significantly impacted year on year by changes in (accounting) provisions for future liabilities (mainly for pensions). As highlighted in PRR 2013, the volatility of these (accounting) provisions raises concerns in the context of charging and performance, as changes in these provisions, which can be significant, do not necessarily represent costs directly attributable to the provision of ANS in the year in which they are recorded. For the SES States, 2013 is the second year of application of the determined costs method with specific risksharing arrangements. For the other nine EUROCONTROL States participating in the Route Charges System, the full cost recovery method continued to apply in The evaluation between SES states and the 9 other states does not yet show clear trends. Under the determined costs method, the amounts ultimately paid by the airspace users differ from the actual costs due to the traffic risk sharing, cost sharing and other adjustments provided in the Charging Regulation. The PRC computes that, in 2013, these true costs for users are +3.5% higher than the actual costs of States/ANSPs but 2.0% lower than the determined costs provided for 2013 in the RP1 performance plans. This should be seen in the context of actual costs in 2013 which are 5.9% lower than planned in the RP1 performance plans. The fact that several States/ANSPs demonstrated lower costs than planned was duly considered during the RP2 assessment process in order to ensure that users benefit from the cost reductions achieved during RP1. The outlook for suggests that the recent improved cost performance will not continue. Instead current plans/forecasts show costs stabilizing over the period. The forecast decrease in en route unit cost ( 2.2% per year on average between 2013 and 2019) is due to the forecast increase in SUs. Terminal ANS unit costs (TNSUs) decreased by 3.6% between 2012 and 2013 reflecting a reduction of 3.9% in terminal ANS costs in real terms and a small traffic decrease ( 0.3%, TNSU). The outlook for shows a slower rate of decline in costs. Terminal ANS unit costs are forecast to decrease by 2.4% per year on average, reflecting an average reduction of 0.5% p.a. in costs and an average increase of +2.0% p.a. in TNSUs Gate to gate unit economic costs (i.e. en route plus terminal ATM/CNS provision costs plus taking account of the cost of delay) decreased by 3.6% in 2013, reflecting both the reduction in ATFM delays unit costs compared to 2012 ( 18.2%) and a decrease in gate to gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs ( 1.9%). However the increased levels of ATFM delays observed in 2014 suggests that unit economic costs could be higher in The benchmarking analysis of gate to gate unit ATM/CNS provision costs indicates that the reduction of 1.9% in 2013 compared to 2012 is mainly due to the reduction of 3.0% in support costs (70% of total costs). Over the period, pan European unit ATM/CNS provision costs significantly reduced by 2.2% p.a., reflecting a gradual decrease in unit support costs and increasing ATCO productivity while ATCO employment costs remained fairly constant. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v PRR 2014

9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PRC Recommendations 2014 Rationale for the recommendation a. The PC is invited to note the PRC s Performance Review Report for 2014 (PRR 2014) and to submit it to the Permanent Commission. b. The PC is invited to request the Director General EUROCONTROL to investigate the factors contributing to the high number of poorly coded, unclassified and undetermined safety occurrences and to propose lines of action to PC 44 (December 2015) on how to improve the situation. c. The PC is invited: i. to request Member States, to task their ANSPs to develop and implement capacity plans which are, at a minimum, in line with the Reference Capacity Profile (from the NOP); and to ensure that capacity is made available during peak demand, ii. to ask the Director General EUROCONTROL to report on those States that have insufficient capacity plans compared to the Reference Capacity Profile to PC 44 (December 2015). d. The PC is invited: i. to request the PRC, in accordance with Article 10h of the PRC s Terms of Reference, to review arrangements for civil military coordination and cooperation in the Member States by the end of 2015; ii. to request the civil and military authorities in the Member States to assist the PRC to conduct this review; iii. to ask the PRC to report to PC 44 (December 2015). Although already flagged up as a crucial area for improvement in previous PRRs, the share of unclassified incidents, as reported through the AST mechanism, remained unacceptably high even though improvements are visible. Sufficient capacity plans must be developed and implemented in advance of traffic demand. It is evident that several Member States have downgraded and postponed existing capacity plans despite the predicted rise in future traffic figures. This short sighted behaviour promises serious disruption to the network and to aircraft operations, especially during peak traffic periods. Review of only three Member States identified significant differences, not only between the national arrangements and the FUA specification but also between the individual Member States, in how the airspace is managed to provide the optimum benefit for civil and military airspace users. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi PRR 2014

10 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... I INTRODUCTION... II ANS IN EUROPEAN AIR TRANSPORT... II SAFETY (2013/2014)... III OPERATIONAL EN ROUTE ANS PERFORMANCE (2014)... III OPERATIONAL ANS PERFORMANCE AT AIRPORTS (2014)... IV ANS COST EFFICIENCY (2013)... V PRC RECOMMENDATIONS VI PART I BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE REPORT KEY EVENTS IN CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS ON PRR STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT REPORT SCOPE IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF PRC RECOMMENDATIONS PRC AS PERFORMANCE REVIEW BODY OF THE SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY ANS IN EUROPEAN AIR TRANSPORT INTRODUCTION EUROPEAN AIR TRAFFIC DEMAND SAFETY SERVICE QUALITY ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ANS PERFORMANCE CONCLUSIONS...19 PART II KEY PERFORMANCE AREAS SAFETY INTRODUCTION ACCIDENTS AND SERIOUS INCIDENTS (ANS RELATED AND WITH ANS CONTRIBUTION) ATM RELATED INCIDENTS REPORTING AND INVESTIGATION AVIATION SAFETY RISK CONCLUSIONS OPERATIONAL EN ROUTE ANS PERFORMANCE INTRODUCTION EN ROUTE ATFM DELAYS...32 vii

11 4.3 EN ROUTE FLIGHT EFFICIENCY THE EFFECT OF THE UKRAINIAN CRISIS ON NETWORK CAPACITY & NETWORK FLIGHT EFFICIENCY FLEXIBLE USE OF AIRSPACE EUROPEAN ATFM PERFORMANCE (NETWORK LEVEL) CONCLUSIONS OPERATIONAL ANS PERFORMANCE AT AIRPORTS INTRODUCTION TRAFFIC EVOLUTION AT THE MAIN EUROPEAN AIRPORTS CANCELLATIONS AT EUROPEAN AIRPORTS BALANCING CAPACITY WITH DEMAND AT AIRPORTS MANAGEMENT OF THE ARRIVAL FLOW MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTURE FLOW CONCLUSIONS ANS COST EFFICIENCY INTRODUCTION EN ROUTE ANS COST EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE TERMINAL ANS COST EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE ANSPS GATE TO GATE ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE CONCLUSIONS...87 ANNEX I IMPLEMENTATION OF PC DECISIONS ANNEX II ACC TRAFFIC AND DELAY DATA ( ) ANNEX III TRAFFIC COMPLEXITY SCORES IN ANNEX IV FRAMEWORK : SERVICE QUALITY ANNEX V FRAMEWORK: ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ANS PERFORMANCE ANNEX VI AVIATION RISK MODEL ANNEX VII AIRPORT TRAFFIC AND AIRPORT ANS PERFORMANCE RECORDS ANNEX VIII RECONCILIATION WITH PRB 2013 MONITORING REPORT ANNEX IX GLOSSARY ANNEX X REFERENCES viii

12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 1: EUROCONTROL States (2014)...2 Figure 2 1: Evolution of European IFR flights ( )...5 Figure 2 2: European traffic indices ( )...5 Figure 2 3: IFR flights by market segment ( )...6 Figure 2 4: Traffic variation by State (2014/2013)...6 Figure 2 5: Actual IFR traffic growth vs forecast growth by State...7 Figure 2 6: Forecast traffic growth Figure 2 7: Peak day vs. avg. day traffic (Europe)...8 Figure 2 8: Seasonal traffic variations at ATC Unit level (2014)...9 Figure 2 9: Complexity trend over time (Europe)...10 Figure 2 10: Structural complexity and adjusted density at ANSP level (2014)...10 Figure 2 11: Accidents in EUROCONTROL area with ANS contribution ( )...11 Figure 2 12: Serious Incidents in EUROCONTROL area with ANS contribution ( )...11 Figure 2 13: European On time performance ( )...12 Figure 2 14: Variability of flight phases ( )...13 Figure 2 15: Evolution of delays and block times ( )...13 Figure 2 16: Departure delays by cause ( )...14 Figure 2 17: Sensitivity to primary delays...14 Figure 2 18: Estimated ANS related impact on fuel burn/environment...16 Figure 2 19: Share of ANS charges in airline operating costs (2013)...17 Figure 2 20: Long term trend of traffic, unit costs and en route ATFM delay (summer)...17 Figure 2 21: Estimated total economic ANS related costs (SES States)...18 Figure 3 1: Sources and scope of ANS safety review in this chapter...21 Figure 3 2: Accidents (ANS related and with ANS contribution) in the EUROCONTROL area...22 Figure 3 3: ANS related accidents by occurrence category (EUROCONTROL area)...22 Figure 3 4: Serious incidents (ANS related and with ANS contribution) in the EUROCONTROL area...23 Figure 3 5: ANS related serious incidents by occurrence category (EUROCONTROL area)...23 Figure 3 6: Reported high risk SMIs in EUROCONTROL States ( P)...24 Figure 3 7: Reported high risk UPAs in EUROCONTROL States ( P)...25 Figure 3 8: Reported high risk RIs in EUROCONTROL States ( P)...25 Figure 3 9: Reported high risk ATM Spec. Occurrences in EUROCONTROL States ( P)...26 Figure 3 10: Total number of reports and level of reporting ( P)...27 Figure 3 11: Severity not classified or not determined ( P)...27 Figure 3 12: Completeness of AST reported data in Figure 3 13: States with automatic reporting tools (2014)...29 Figure 3 14: A SMGCS implementation status...29 ix

13 Figure 3 15: Airports late for A SMGCS Level 1 implementation...30 Figure 4 1: Average en route ATFM delay ( )...32 Figure 4 2: En route delay per flight by classification...33 Figure 4 3: Monthly evolution of en route ATFM delays ( )...33 Figure 4 4: Overview of most constraining ACCs...34 Figure 4 5: Delay categories for most constraining ACCs...34 Figure 4 6: Monthly ATFM en route delay 2014 and capacity planning (Nicosia)...35 Figure 4 7: Monthly ATFM en route delay and hourly traffic profile (Warsaw)...35 Figure 4 8: Monthly ATFM en route delay (Lisbon)...36 Figure 4 9: Evolution of actual capacity provided at Canarias ACC...37 Figure 4 10: Monthly ATFM en route delay 2014 and capacity planning (Canarias)...37 Figure 4 11: Monthly ATFM en route delay and hourly traffic profile (Athens)...38 Figure 4 12: Capacity planning at Reims ACC...38 Figure 4 13: Monthly ATFM en route delay and hourly traffic profile (Reims)...39 Figure 4 14: Monthly ATFM en route delay in 2014 (Brest & Marseille)...39 Figure 4 15: Changes in constraining ACCs ( )...40 Figure 4 16: Factors affecting flight efficiency...42 Figure 4 17: Free route airspace development (Map 2014)...43 Figure 4 18: Free route airspace implementation in 2014 by ACC...43 Figure 4 19: Europe wide horizontal en route flight efficiency ( )...44 Figure 4 20: Differences flight efficiency by State and FABs (2014)...45 Figure 4 21: Share of total actual additional distance by FAB (2014)...45 Figure 4 22: Actual additional distance per flight by FAB (2014)...46 Figure 4 23: Impact of the Ukrainian crisis on horizontal flight efficiency...46 Figure 4 24: Ratio of time airspace was used vs. allocated (pre tactically)...47 Figure 4 25: Criteria to effective cooperation/ coordination between civil and military stakeholders 49 Figure 4 26: ATFM performance (network indicators)...50 Figure 5 1: Traffic variation at the top 30 European airports (2014/2013)...53 Figure 5 2: Average daily operational cancellations in 2014 (24 airports included)...54 Figure 5 3: Operational cancellations at the top 30 airports in Figure 5 4: ANS related efficiency at airports...56 Figure 5 5: Average inbound and outbound delays at the top 30 airports in Figure 5 6: Peak declared arrival capacity and service rate...58 Figure 5 7: ANS related inefficiencies on the arrival flow at the top 30 airports in Figure 5 8: Airport contribution towards European network performance (arrival flow)...60 Figure 5 9: Performance drivers at London Heathrow airport...60 Figure 5 10: Capacity related ATFM regulations at Zurich airport...61 x

14 Figure 5 11: Traffic and arrival ATFM delays at Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen airport ( )...61 Figure 5 12: Average additional taxi in time (2014)...62 Figure 5 13: ATFM slot adherence at airports (2014)...64 Figure 5 14: ANS related inefficiencies on the departure flow at the top 30 airports in Figure 5 15: Airport contribution towards European network performance (Departure flow)...65 Figure 5 16: Additional Taxi out times at Rome Fiumicino airport...66 Figure 5 17: Impact of winter operations on additional taxi times...66 Figure 6 1: SES States (RP1) and non SES States in RP Figure 6 2: Real en route unit costs per SU for EUROCONTROL Area ( 2009 )...70 Figure 6 3: Difference between 2013 and 2012 costs by nature ( 2009 )...70 Figure 6 4: 2013 Real en route ANS costs per SU by charging zone ( 2009 )...72 Figure 6 5: En route costs and service unit growth (RP1 SES States and non SES States)...73 Figure 6 6: Real en route ANS costs per SU, 2013 Actuals vs. Forecasts (in 2009 )...74 Figure 6 7: 2013 Real en route ANS costs per SU: Actuals vs. Forecasts (in 2009 ) by charging zone...74 Figure 6 8: Pan European en route cost efficiency outlook (in 2009 )...76 Figure 6 9: Geographical scope of terminal ANS cost efficiency analysis...77 Figure 6 10: Real terminal ANS unit costs ( 2009 ) for reporting States...78 Figure 6 11: Comparison of 2013 terminal ANS unit costs by TCZ (SES States (RP1))...79 Figure 6 12: Comparison of 2013 terminal ANS actual costs vs forecasts (Nov. 2012)...80 Figure 6 13: 2013 Terminal ANS actual costs vs forecast costs at State Level...80 Figure 6 14: Real terminal ANS costs per TNSU, total costs ( 2009 ) and TNSUs...81 Figure 6 15: Change in real terminal ANS total costs (real 2009 )...81 Figure 6 16: Breakdown of gate to gate ATM/CNS provision costs 2013 ( 2013)...82 Figure 6 17: Conceptual framework for the analysis of economic cost effectiveness...83 Figure 6 18: Changes in economic cost effectiveness, ( 2013)...84 Figure 6 19: Changes in economic cost effectiveness by ANSP, ( 2013)...84 Figure 6 20: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs and traffic, ( 2013)...85 Figure 6 21: ATM/CNS cost effectiveness comparisons, ( 2013)...86 Figure 6 22: Breakdown of changes in cost effectiveness, ( 2013)...86 xi

15 Chapter 1: Introduction PART I- BACKGROUND 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the report The purpose of this Performance Review Report (PRR 2014) is to provide policy makers and ANS stakeholders with objective information and independent advice concerning the performance of European Air Navigation Services (ANS) in 2014, based on research, consultation and information provided by relevant parties. This is because ANS are essential for the safety, efficiency and sustainability of civil and military aviation, and to meet wider economic, social and environmental policy objectives. PRR 2014 has been produced by the independent Performance Review Commission (PRC) which, with its supporting unit the Performance Review Unit (PRU), provides independent advice on ANS performance, and proposes recommendations, to the EUROCONTROL States. The PRC s purpose is to ensure the effective management of the European Air traffic management system through a strong, transparent and independent performance review, per Article 1 of its Terms of Reference [Ref. 1]. More information about the PRC is given on the inside cover page of this report. 1.2 Key events in 2014 The tragic loss of MH17 with no survivors, in Ukrainian airspace in July, was undoubtedly the most significant event in European airspace during Other notable events in 2014 included: January: industrial action across Europe on January. This caused minutes of delay and hundreds of flight cancellations; Georgia became the 40th EUROCONTROL Member State on 1 January 2014; March: Industrial action in France generated minutes of delay. Additional industrial action in Brest ACC on 20 March also generated delays; April: Reopening of the upper airspace in Kosovo for civilian overflights on 3 April; May: French industrial action generated significant delays in the five French ACCs; June: Industrial action in France and Belgium caused severe network disruption: half a million minutes of delay, fewer flights and an extra miles flown. On 05 June and 10 June Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and Slovakia experienced loss of secondary radar contact with several aircraft; August: the Bárðarbunga volcano showed signs of imminent eruption, which did not occur; September: Industrial action by Air France and Lufthansa pilots led to significant numbers of flight cancellations. Industrial action by Italian air navigation services on Saturday 6 September impacted local operations in Karlsruhe, Maastricht and Reims ACCs. October: strong winds due to remnants of Hurricane Gonzalo during the middle of the month caused high delays particularly at London/Heathrow and Amsterdam/Schiphol. October: Industrial action by Lufthansa pilots on October, and by Germanwings pilots on 15 October, resulted in the cancellation of approximately flights. November: The new Bosnia Herzegovina ACC opened successfully with no ATFM delay due to airspace changes in the region. December: Industrial action at Lufthansa in early December resulted in around fewer flights. Industrial action in Belgium on 8 and 15 December and Italy on the 12 December led to relatively few delays but it is estimated that hundreds of flights were cancelled. PRR 2014 Chapter 1: Introduction 1

16 1.3 Consultation with stakeholders on PRR 2014 Communication and consultation are major priorities for the PRC. The draft final report was made available to stakeholders for consultation and written comment from 27 February 20 March The PRC considered every comment received, and amended the final report where appropriate. The PRC s recommendations can be found in the Executive Summary. 1.4 Structure of the report PRR 2014 consists of two parts: Part I provides a consolidated high level view of four ANS Key Performance Areas (KPA) in the wider context of European General Air Traffic. The four KPAs are: Safety, Capacity, Environment and Cost efficiency. Part I also provides an overall economic evaluation of ANS performance. Chapter 1: Chapter 2: Introduction ANS in European Air Transport Part II gives a more detailed analysis of ANS performance by KPA. Chapter 3: Safety Chapter 4: Operational En route ANS Performance (Capacity/Environment) Chapter 5: Operational ANS Performance at Airports (Capacity/Environment) Chapter 6: ANS Cost efficiency 1.5 Report scope Unless otherwise indicated, PRR 2014 refers to ANS performance in the airspace controlled by the 40 Member States of EUROCONTROL 1 (see Figure 1 1), hereinafter referred to as Europe. EUROCONTROL 2014 Figure 1 1: EUROCONTROL States (2014) The data cited in PRR 2014 relates to the calendar year 2014, with the following exceptions: 1 Estonia became the 41st Member State on 01 January It is thus outside the temporal scope of PRR PRR 2014 Chapter 1: Introduction 2

17 Safety data (chapter 3): some of the 2014 data are still provisional; Cost efficiency data (chapter 6): these data relate to the calendar year 2013 which is the latest year for which actual financial data are available. 1.6 Implementation status of PRC recommendations The PRC tracks the follow up of the implementation of its recommendations, in accordance with Article 10.7 of its Terms of Reference [Ref. 1]. The EUROCONTROL States, at the 41st Session of the Provisional Council, (May 2014) accepted, unamended, all of the PRC s recommendations contained in PRR 2013 [Ref. 2]. The recommendations and the associated implementation status are detailed in Annex I on page 88 of this report. 1.7 PRC as Performance Review Body of the Single European Sky Since 2010, EUROCONTROL through its PRC supported by the PRU has been designated [Ref. 3] by the European Commission as the Performance Review Body (PRB) of the Single European Sky (SES). The PRB Chairman is appointed separately and is not a member of the PRC. The PRB advises and assists the European Commission in the implementation of the SES performance scheme through: Advising on the setting of performance targets; assessing the associated performance plans at State/Functional Airspace Block level, and; monitoring system performance under various key performance areas and indicators. The PRC uses common procedures, tools and data for the SES performance scheme and for the EUROCONTROL performance review system. These synergies avoid overlaps between the two systems and help to ensure consistency. The PRC s goal is to contribute to the improvement of the performance of pan European air navigation services, in the interests of all stakeholders. During 2014, the SES States undertook preparatory work for the 2 nd Reference Period of the SES performance scheme (RP2: ). PRR 2014 Chapter 1: Introduction 3

18 Chapter 2: ANS in European Air Transport 2 ANS in European Air Transport KEY POINTS KEY DATA 2014 After the decrease between 2011 and 2013, average daily IFR flights in Europe increased by +1.7% in 2014 with notable regional variations. Following the continuing increase in aircraft size and average flight distance, en route service units (+5.9%) grew notably stronger than flights in With the exception of Albania, Armenia, Malta, Moldova and Ukraine, all States showed a positive growth in The airspace closure following the downing of Malaysian Airlines (MH17) in Ukraine in July 2014 had a notable impact on traffic flows shifting flights from Ukraine to adjacent States. Compared to 2013 (which was the best year on record), arrival punctuality in Europe decreased slightly from 84.0% to 83.7% in Based on the latest available cost projections for 2014, estimated total economic ANS related costs in the SES area are estimated to increase by 2.4% compared to The increase is mainly driven by the projected increase in en route and terminal ANS costs in 2014 and the notable increase in en route ATFM delays in Traffic demand & Punctuality 2014 change vs IFR flights controlled M +1.7% Flight hours controlled M +2.5% Total distance in km M +3.8% En route Service Units M +5.9% Arrival punctuality (% of flights arriving within 15 min.. after their schedule) Economic evaluation (M 2009) (SES area) Projected total ANS costs (enroute + terminal) 83.7% 0.3%pt % Estimated cost of inefficiencies % in the gate to gate phase Estimated cost of en route and airport ATFM delay Total estimated ANS related economic costs (M 2009) % % 2.1 Introduction This chapter provides a high level view of ANS performance in the wider context of air traffic operating under Instrument flight rules (IFR) in Europe. It addresses the key performance areas Safety, Cost efficiency (ANS costs), Capacity (ATFM delays), and Environment (flight efficiency). After an overview of the evolution of European IFR traffic, the chapter provides a synthesis of key findings from the more detailed analyses of ANS performance in Chapters 3 6 in order to provide an overall economic evaluation of ANS performance in Europe at the end of the chapter. 2.2 European Air Traffic Demand After the decrease in the previous two years, average daily IFR flights increased by +1.7% in 2014, which is between the baseline (+1.2%) and the high (+2.3%) traffic scenario predicted for the ESRA 08 5 area in the STATFOR 7 year forecast, published in February 2014 [Ref. 4]. For 2015, the STATFOR 7 year forecast (2015 [Ref. 5]) expects European flights to grow by 1.5% in the baseline scenario. The average annual growth rate between 2014 and 2021 is forecast to be at +2.5%. Figure 2 1 shows the actual evolution of European IFR flights since 1990 together with selected traffic forecasts. As a result of the economic crisis in 2008, traffic forecasts have been continuously revised downwards and traffic is only expected to reach pre economic crisis levels (2008) by EUROCONTROL Statistical Reference Area (ESRA) 2008 (see Glossary). ESRA08 States, excluding Ukraine (see Glossary). The level of inefficiency is measured with respect to reference values which, in view of necessary (safety) or desired (capacity) limitations, are not achievable at system level. Hence, the ANS related inefficiencies cannot be reduced to zero. The EUROCONTROL Statistical Reference Area (ESRA) is designed to include as much as possible of the ECAC area for which data are available from a range of sources within EUROCONTROL (see also Glossary). PRR 2014 Chapter 2: ANS in European Air Transport 4

19 IFR flights (million) ( before 1997, estimation based on Euro 88 traffic variation) IFR Flights in 2014: 9.60 M (+1.7%) Feb Feb forecast STATFOR (Feb. 2015) 7 year forecast 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 2% 6 4% 5 6% % annual growth (bars) Figure 2 1: Evolution of European IFR flights ( ) Compared to the baseline scenario in the February 2008 forecast, there were almost three million IFR flights less in Europe in 2014 than predicted before the economic crisis. The evolution of key traffic indices 6 in Figure 2 2 also illustrates the effects of the crisis starting in Whereas the number of flights remains below 2008 levels in 2014, there has been an increase in average aircraft size (avg. weight) and passenger numbers. This suggests that airlines responded to the crisis with a reduction in the number of services but with, on average, larger aircraft. Index 100 = Figure 2 2: European traffic indices ( ) The continuous increase in passenger numbers shown in Figure 2 2 is also confirmed by the Association of European Airlines (AEA). According to initial estimates, AEA member airlines achieved a record load factor of nearly 81% in 2014 (79.9% in 2013) [Ref. 6]. It is also noteworthy to point out that en route service units (+5.9%) grew notably stronger than IFR flights (+1.7%) in 2014 as a result of the increase in average aircraft weight and longer flights Source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR (ESRA2008) En route service units A service unit is used for charging purposes. It is the multiplication of the Aircraft Weight Factor (based on maximum take off weight) by the Distance Factor (distance in chargeable airspace). What is also interesting to look at is the evolution of European IFR traffic by market segment between 2004 and 2014, as shown in Figure change vs (%) + 5.4% Passengers (ACI) + 6.1% En route Service Units + 3.8% Distance + 2.5% Flight hours + 1.7% Avg. weight (MTOW) + 1.7% IFR flights Sources: ACI; STATFOR (ESRA2008); CRCO 6 Please note that the individual indices can refer to slightly different geographical reference areas. PRR 2014 Chapter 2: ANS in European Air Transport 5

20 IFR flights (million) Evolution of market segments over time (STATFOR classification) 65.7% 10.6% % 26.9% % 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% market share (%) Traditional Scheduled Low Cost Charter Business Aviation Cargo Other (incl. military) Source: EUROCONTROL: STATFOR Figure 2 3: IFR flights by market segment ( ) Indeed, although traditional scheduled traffic still accounts for the majority of traffic (54%), a continuous decrease in market share since 2004 is notable. At the same time, the share of low cost carriers increased from 10.6% in 2004 to 26.9% in The other market segments such as business aviation and cargo remained relatively stable below the 10% mark over time. European traffic growth Figure 2 4 shows the number of average daily flights in 2014 by State (bottom of chart) and the changes compared to 2013 in absolute and relative terms. The figure is sorted according to the absolute change compared to the previous year. Information at ACC level can be found in Annex II on page 91 of this report. Figure 2 4: Traffic variation by State (2014/2013) In absolute terms, Bulgaria, Turkey, Romania and Hungary experienced the highest year on year growth in 2014 (left side of Figure 2 4 ). With the exception of Turkey, where a significant share of the growth originates from international and domestic traffic, the growth in the aforementioned States is mainly driven by an increase in overflights following changes in traffic flow patterns in PRR 2014 Chapter 2: ANS in European Air Transport 6