Ansichtssache: Performance der europäischen Flugsicherung

Ansichtssache: Performance der europäischen Flugsicherung Statements and facts concerning the alleged low performance of European ATM Jörg Buxbaum, Matthias Whittome, Christoph Czech Draft Version, Status Dec 2nd 2013 1

DFS: Key Performance Areas + KPI Safety Capacity Environment Cost Efficiency 2

Air traffic Management from the political point of view http://www.worldfootprints.com/europes-airspace-failure-5-billion-euro-damage Every intra-eu flight is 50km longer than necessary, which results in $6.53 billion ( EUR 5 billion) in additional costs every year. http://www.iata.org/publications/airlines-international/june-2013/pages/ceo-interviewlufthansa.aspx Inefficiencies in Europe's fragmented airspace bring extra costs of close to 5 billion Euros each year to airlines and their customers. They add 42 kilometres to the distance of an average flight forcing aircraft to burn more fuel, generate more emissions, pay more in costly user charges and suffer greater delays. The United States controls the same amount of airspace, with more traffic, at almost half the cost. http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pages/opinion-piece-spain.aspx http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_ip-13-523_en.htm http://www.iata.org/pressroom/speeches/pages/2013-04-12-01.aspx 3

Air traffic Management from the political point of view Currently the costs of providing air traffic control for one airplane per hour are almost twice as expensive in Europe than in the USA. We haven't even brought up Asia in the discussion. Costs arising from the provision of air navigation services in Europe run to about EUR 14 billion annually. Of these, 8.3 billion are air navigation services charges. The remainder is costs that the airspace user has to bear due to inefficiencies. Thus, delays cost about EUR 5.2 billion per year. Interview Frank Brenner, Flugrevue, February 2013 http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content/documents/media/dg-articles-2013/1302-lps-slovakia.pdf The Single European Sky is intended to harmonise air traffic control better, as they are fragmented and inefficient. EU airspace is in 27 national air traffic control systems, providing services from some 60 air traffic centres while the airspace is divided into more than 650 sectors. That means airspace is currently structured around national boundaries and so flights are often unable to take direct routes. http://www.dw.de/eus-single-sky-fights-national-delays/a-16682912 4

The essence of the assertions "Airlines and passengers annually incur financial damage of about EUR 5 billion due to the inefficiency of the fragmented European air traffic control system. These costs would be eliminated if the SES requirements were met." "The fragmented structure of airspace translates to additional unnecessary 42 km on average per flight in Europe." "The FAA in the USA controls more air traffic at about half the costs." 5

Motivation und Rahmenbedingungen 6

Where does the EUR-5-billion figure come from? Possible source: The Performance Review Commission in the Performance Review Report 2012 (PRR) quoted a sum of EUR 3.64 billion annually for "ANS-related inefficiencies in the gate-to-gate phase." According to the 2012 PRR, an additional EUR 850 million for ATFM delay (en-route and airport ATFM delay). EUR 500 million En-route ATFM delay + EUR 350 million Airport ATFM delay + EUR 790 million + EUR 1900 million + EUR 950 million = EUR 4.49 billion Taxi-out inefficiencies En-route inefficiencies Arrival and sequencemetering inefficiencies The Berechnung? report does not touch upon whether Datengrundlage? and how the delays responsible Zusammenhang for these mit costs einer can actually be influenced by the ANSPs. There is also no mention that überwiegend the fragmentation national of ATC in Europe contributes Tatsächliche Systemgedanke to these inefficiencies nor what SES measures orientierten should be Flugsicherung? implemented to achieve Beeinflussbarkeit? berücksichtigt? which potential improvements. Optimierungspotential? http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/prr-2012.pdf, page 33 Örtliche Ausprägung? 7

Can these delay costs be influenced? The share of ANSP delay minutes (ATFCM en-route) of this total primary delay (without reactionary delay) is about 8 percent. ATFCM Airport is not part of this as an ANSP has little influence on factors such as runway closures and night curfews. The airlines themselves were actually responsible for 54 percent of delay costs in 2012. In 2012, the delay caused by airlines resulted in costs of about EUR 3.4 billion. http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content/documents/official-documents/facts-and-figures/coda-reports/coda-digests- 2012/coda-digest-annual-2012.pdf http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/prr-2012.pdf ATFM En-Route: Standard demand/capacity problems, reduced capacity caused by industrial action or staff shortage, equipment failure, military exercise or extraordinary demand due to capacity reduction in neighbouring area ATFM Airport: Airport and/or runway closed due to obstruction, industrial action, staff shortage, political unrest, noise abatement, night curfew, special flights 8

5 Mrd EUR Schaden pro Jahr : Résumée Perspektive 2: 1 Mrd EUR Perspektive 1: 5 Mrd EUR + Betrachtung Gesamtkostenoptimum 9

Source of the "42 additional unnecessary km" Flight path in km Possible source: When this "fact" is stated, the source is not given. The latest horizontal en-route flight efficiency is of about 3.17 percent in Europe (direct route extension), which, however, only amounts to 28 km. Origin airport = optimal routing? 1000 900 800 Mean route flown in Europe (without TMA) Route extension = 3.17% or 28 km 700 600 Optimum (great circle) 500 400 300 Destination airport 200 100 Direct Route extension = A : D 0 http://atmseminar.eurocontrol.fr/past-seminars/5th-seminar-budapest-hungary-june-2003/papers/paper_023 http://www.kolloquium-flugfuehrung.de/pdf/2011-01-18%20manfred%20dieroff%20dfs%20-%20kolloquium%20flugfuehrung.pdf http://www.atmseminar.org/seminarcontent/seminar6/papers/p_055_mpm.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/transport/media/consultations/doc/2013-07-03-sesrp2/report.pdf, Page 34 10

Reasons for Flight Extensions Separation Airspace availability (e.g. military airspace) Airspace structure (disentangling traffic flows, TMA design) En-route weather Flight planning optimised with regard to ANS costs Flight planning optimised with regard to wind 11

How to influence Flight Extension Flight Efficiency Some possibilities for improvement: Free route in upper airspace Relocation of military exercise areas Optimized FUA Optimised flight route designs Uniform ANSP unit rates in Europe Current goals and limits to optimisation: Currently, according to the PRB assessment, the assumption is that flight efficiency in Europe (KEA) can at best be improved from the current 3.17% to 2.5% by 2019. Per flight this would mean future flight paths that are shorter by about 0.6 percent or 6 km (which equals about 25 seconds of flying time). Further improvements are not visible at the moment. 4% 3% 2% 1% 0 % Europe 2012 2019? Potentially achievable flight efficiency without active measures, such as relocation of military exercise areas Increase in air traffic density and complexity A reduction to 0 km is not possible. http://atmseminar.eurocontrol.fr/past-seminars/5th-seminar-budapest-hungary-june-2003/papers/paper_023 http://www.caa.lv/upload/userfiles/files/ses%20performance%20targets%20_%20achievements.pdf 12

Possible measures to increase en-route Flight Efficiency En-route efficiency Europe (KEA) 3% 2% 1% Joint activities of NM and European ANSPs Contributing FABEC measures: IP South East Phase 1 & 2 Free Route Step 1 CBA Land Central West XMAN/AMAN Basic? Joint activities of NM and European ANSPs Contributing FABEC measures: Free Route Step 2 & 3?? Potential relocation of military airspace out of the core area (impact on Military Mission Effectiveness?)? Absolute limit for busy airspace? 0% 2012 2016 2019 2030? (Schematic representation, effects of the measures would have to be calculated at European level.) 13

42 unnötige Kilometer pro Flug : Résumée Perspektive 1: Optimierungspotential 42 km pro Flug Marathon Perspektive 2: Optimierungspotential Von 28 km auf 22 km = 6 km pro Flug Athen + Betrachtung Gesamtkostenoptimum 14

A comparison of ATM in the USA and Europe (Continental) airspace U.S.A. Europe 10.4 million km 2 11.5 million km 2 Sectors (max) 955 a 679 a Controlled flights per day 43,600 b 26,000 b Pax per day 2.2 million c 2.2 million c Pax miles per day 1.07 billion d 1.18 billion d ATCOs 16,793 e 16,700 e Cost of ATM per year... in EUR 2013 EUR 8.3 billion g... in PPP EUR 8.6 billion h $ 10.7 billion f EUR 8.0 billion f EUR 8.0 billion g EUR 8.0 billion h EUR/US Dollar 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2001 2013 USD 1,500 1,375 1,250 1,125 1,000 0,875 a 2008 U.S./Europe Comparison of ATM-related Operational Performance b 2010 U.S./Europe Comparison of ATM-Related Operational Performance c Amount of IFR Passenger Flights x average amount of seats x SLF d Pax x average distance (from 2010 U.S./Europe Comparison of ATM-Related Operational Performance) e FAA Air Traffic Controller Workforce Plan 2012 2021, 2010 U.S./Europe Comparison of ATM-Related Operational Performance (EUROCONTROL) f Cost USA: Budget FAA ATO FY 2012, Cost Europe: Eurocontrol PRR 2010 g Exchange Rate 1,3 $/EUR h Purchasing Power Parities for GDP, according OECD value 2005 2012 for Europe vs US$ 15

Different working conditions / work methods Statistics relating to controllers USA / FAA Germany / DFS France / DSNA Annual leave 13-26 days 32-37 days 25-27 days Working hours per week 40 hrs 31 37 hrs (including breaks) 35 hrs (including breaks) Maternity leave Not standard practice 70 days per child 108-182 days per child Paid sick days Up to 13 days p.a. (cumulates, if not taken) 6 weeks to unlimited (depending on contract) Educational leave Not standard practice 5 days p.a. 6 days p.a. 3 months 100% paid sick leave, then 9 months at 50% Recuperation cures Not standard practice 3 7 days p.a. Not standard practice The higher traffic numbers per controller in the USA are connected with the working conditions and other work methods: Higher percentage of single sector operations (the concept that four eyes see more than two is not standard practice) Temporarily/Totally unmanned FAA towers Source for FAA data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Source of DFS data: DFS Source of DSNA Data: DSNA 16

Comparison between types of IFR flights in USA and Europe The most apparent difference is the large number of IFR general aviation flights in the USA. Source for FAA data: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, FAA ETMS, OPSNET, 2009 Source for European data: EUROCONTROL 2009 with deductions for IFR Cargo and GA IFR 17

Comparison of transport performance between USA and Europe 1.07 billion NM 1.18 billion NM The performance indicator for pax miles per day is higher in Europe than the USA. Source for FAA data: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, FAA ETMS, OPSNET Source for European data: EUROCONTROL with deductions for IFR Cargo and GA IFR Average Miles from 2010 U.S./Europe Comparison of ATM-Related Operational Performance Average Passengers per IFR Scheduled: 78 (USA) 91 (Europe); average pax per IFR GA: 2 18

Vergleich USA-Europa Flüge pro Fluglotse Anzahl kontrollierte Flüge pro Fluglotse (Europa) Weit häufiger Einfachbesetzung statt Vieraugenprinzip Unterschiedliche Bewertung der Sicherheitsrelevanz Arbeits- und Fehlzeiten Unterschiede größtenteils gesellschaftlich bedingt IFR GA generiert wenig Taskload (andere Lufträume, Flugplätze) Verkehrsmix (durch ANSP nicht zu beeinflussen) Luftfracht generiert wenig Taskload (Nachtflüge) Anzahl kontrollierte Flüge pro Fluglotse (USA) Die unterschiedliche, durchschnittliche Lotsenproduktivität in Europa und den USA liegt an Faktoren, die überwiegend außerhalb von SES-Arbeitsfeldern liegen. Diese Faktoren umfassen Arbeitsprinzipien, Arbeitsbedingungen sowie die Art und räumliche / zeitliche Verteilung des zu kontrollierenden Luftverkehrs. Darstellung schematisch auf Basis der Ausgangsdaten von kontrollierten Flügen und Anzahl der Fluglotsen. 19

ATM costs per passenger mile [Billion EUR PPP] [Billion Miles] : = When the costs of ATM (PPP) are looked at in relation to passenger miles, the unit costs are 16% lower in Europe. Purchasing Power Parities for GDP, according OECD value 2005 2012 for Europe vs US$ 20

The FAA tax structure US Taxpayer 2012 FAA Funds 2 General Fund (US Treasury) $ 4.6 billion 2012 FAA Budget Passenger Tax Fuel Tax Earnings 2011 1 Transportation of Persons by Air $ 7.9 billion Use of Intern. Air Facilities $ 2.4 billion Transportation of Property $ 0.44 billion Aviation Fuel Commercial Use $ 0.35 billion Aviation Gas Non- Commercial $ 0.19 billion Airport and Airway Trust Fund $ 11.3 billion ATO Budget $ 10.7 billion Non-ATO Budget $ 5.2 billion (e.g. new Runways, aviation safety) FAA Budget Total: $ 15.9 billion 1 Share of earnings according FY 2012 2 Fund share for Essential Air Service ($ 0.14 billion in 2012) neglected http://www.aci-na.org/sites/default/files/airport_and_airway_trust_fund-july2013.pdf http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/media/aatf_fact_sheet.pdf http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/ http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/r41798.pdf 21

The FAA tax structure... adopted to Germany Funds Budget (ATM + Non-ATM Passenger Tax EUR 181 million Earnings Domestic Passenger ticket tax EUR 434 million Domestic Flight Segment Tax Use of Intern. Air Facilities EUR 663 million Overflight Fees Frequent Flyer Tax Domestic Cargo / Mail Taxpayer EUR 173 million EUR 83 million EUR 90 million Public Fund EUR 660 million* German Airport and Airway Trust Fund EUR 1,624 billion ATM Budget EUR 1.53 billion Non-ATM Budget EUR 0.75 billion (e.g. new Runways, aviation safety) EUR 110 million Adjusted DFS Budget EUR 1.42 billion Reimbursement for MUAC, EUROCONTROL, Weather Service, NAS * 28.9 % of FAA budget in 2012 was paid by the US treasury (tax money) Earnings from Fuel Tax und Trust Fund share for Essential Air Service neglected 22

The FAA tax structure applied to Germany 1 +32% The DFS budget would increase by 32 percent if the FAA tax structure were applied to Germany. Overall ATM charges for Germany would amount up to EUR 1.530 Mio - reimbursement of cost for MUAC, EUROCONTROL, weather services and NAS have been considered. 23

A comparison of air navigation costs The assertion that ATM per passenger and flight is cheaper in the USA is not necessarily so. The charges systems are, however, very difficult to compare. Kind of charges Charges are used for A passenger pays for a domestic flight over 560 km * if the one-way ticket costs $130 / EUR 100 ** USA Passenger-oriented charges per flight (ticket tax or overflight tax) FAA (ATO budget share approx. 67%) 1) Air transportation excise tax: 7.5% of ticket price 2) $3.70 segment fee $13.45 Ticket Tax + $ 5.47 General Tax = $18.92 equals $12,68 or EUR 9.75 for FAA/ATO (67% budget share) In this calculation, the passenger pays 37% more in the USA. Europe / DFS Aircraft-oriented charges per distance flown and aircraft mass ANSPs EUR 7.11 (EUR 5.00 en-route charge + EUR 2.11 approach fee)*** EUR 7.11 * Such as Munich-Hamburg ** Without additional fees for baggage etc. *** DFS 2013, Embraer 190, 86 pax Currency exchange rate JUL 2013: 1.30 $/ 24

A comparison of air navigation costs ATM Cost per Pax ATM Cost per Pax Airbus A320 / 165 pax Embraer 190 / 86 pax Cost parity at 1360 km Cost parity at 800 km FAA (ATO) FAA (ATO) En-Route Flight Distance [km] En-Route Flight Distance [km] While the cost per passenger in the USA (for domestic flights) is independent from the travel distance, it is not in Germany. Currency exchange rate JUL 2013: 1.30 $/ 25

Share of ANSP/FAA costs in operating costs / ticket prices Compared to total operating costs Europe 2011 (source: AEA) Compared to average domestic ticket price 2012 (source: FAA) The share of ATM costs in the operating costs and ticket prices shows as well that the costs of ATM in Europe are in no way twice as high as in the USA. Assumption Europe: No accounting for a profit margin per flight (about 5%, which would raise the share of costs of the ANSP to about 5.9%.) Assumption USA: Average domestic air fare Q IV 2012 round trip $374 according to DOT Bureau of Statistics http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/prr-2012.pdf http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/airfares http://web.mit.edu/tickettax/karlsson_incidence_of_ticket_taxes_and_fees_in_u.s._domestic_air_travel.pdf 26

General ATM Cost Comparison USA - Europe (PPP) FAA Europe D in% Cost per year 8.600.000.000 8.000.000.000-7% Cost per km 2 airspace 827 696-16% (continental) Cost per controlled Flight Cost per Scheduled Flight (no GA, MIL) Cost per controlled Mile (Scheduled Flights, no GA, no MIL) 540 843 56% 845 925 9% 1,72 1,69-2% Cost per Passenger 10,78 10,13-6% Cost per 100 Pax- 2,20 1,85-16% Miles Share in Total Operating / Ticket Costs for Airlines 9% 6% -33% Purchasing Power Parities for GDP, according OECD value 2005 2012 for Europe vs US$ 27

Vergleich USA-Europa Résumée Mehr Flüge Mehr Sektoren Keine Staatszuschüsse (DFS) Geringeres ATM-Budget Niedrigere Kosten pro Pax Wechselkurs? Höhere Lotsen- Arbeitszeiten Viel IFR-General Aviation Vieraugenprinzip Mehr Passagierkilometer 28

Kosten und Leistung eine Frage der Perspektive pro Passagierkilometer Prio 1: Sicherheit für die Nutzer des Luftverkehrsystems Personal Technik 29

Thank you for your attention 30