global air navigation services performance report 2017 air navigation service... · global air...

civil air navigation services organisation

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 20172012 - 2016 ANSP Performance Results

The ANSP View

2

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

The CANSO Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 is a collective and entirely voluntary benchmarking effort of CANSO Member air navigation service providers (ANSPs) which covers data from the ANSPs’ 2016 fiscal year and trend data between the 2012 and 2016 fiscal years.

Editorial TeamPaul Cripwell, NAV CANADA, current Chair of the Global Benchmarking Workgroup (GBWG)Siree Vatanavigkit, Aeronautical Radio of Thailand (AEROTHAI), incoming Chair of the GBWGHelios - CANSO Performance Benchmarking Project Team

ContributorsNigel Fitzhardinge, Airways NZKunthinee Karunratanakul, AEROTHAIKrishnan Udayabhanu Rao, Airports Authority of India (AAI)Kanhaya Lal, AAICarol Teo, Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS)Edmund Heng, CAASChristopher Gregg, Federal Aviation Administration - Air Traffic Organization (FAA-ATO)Dina Dolan, FAA-ATOAleksandra Damsz, FAA-ATOKristin Stadum, FAA-ATODiana Galgoczi, HungaroControlLivia Cseh, HungaroControlSigurleifur Kristjansson, ISAVIAAslaug Adalsteinsdottir, ISAVIAYoshiaki Dei, Japan Air Navigation Service (JANS)Liva Krigere, Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme (LGS)Bill Clark, NAV CANADAAna Pinto, NAV PortugalJolanta Wakulicz, Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA)Mindaugas Gustys, Oro NavigacijaTomas Tamašauskas, Oro NavigacijaAudrius Radzevičius, Oro NavigacijaTed Fudge, Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO)

DisclaimerThis report has been compiled using data provided by participating ANSPs. To facilitate comparability, data for each ANSP has been transformed to be consistent with standard definitions. The resulting data and comparisons have been produced solely for the use of ANSPs, and other interested parties, to assess and appraise performance in air navigation services (ANS) provision. It is not intended that the data from this report is used for any wider purpose, nor does the data provide a definitive assessment of any metric relating to ANSP processes.

December 2017

3


THE ANSP VIEW

Introduction: The ANSP View.......................................................................................................

Key Performance Indicators ........................................................................................................

Participants..................................................................................................................................

Methodology................................................................................................................................

Continental Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2016.....................................................................

Oceanic Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2016..........................................................................

Sources........................................................................................................................................

Acronyms and abbreviations.......................................................................................................

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Data definitions............................................................................................................

Annex 2: Contextual data...........................................................................................................

Annex 3: KPI Data.......................................................................................................................

page 4

page 5

page 6

page 8

page 10

page 19

page 26

page 68

page 27

page 29

page 56

page 6

page 7

page 9

page 10

page 11

page 12

page 13

page 14

page 15

page 16

page 17

page 18

page 19

page 20

page 21

page 22

page 23

page 24

page 25

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - List of participating ANSPs..........................................................................................

Figure 2 - Participating ANSPs Flight Hours................................................................................

Figure 3 - CANSO ANS performance framework........................................................................

Figure 4 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD).....................................................................................

Figrue 5 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)...............................

Figure 6 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, PPP adjusted (USD)........

Figure 7 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity.................................................................................

Figure 8 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)..............

Figure 9 - Annual ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD)............................................................

Figure 10 - Unit ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD) – PPP adjusted.....................................

Figure 11 - Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS.................................................................

Figure 12 - IFR hours per ATCO in OPS......................................................................................

Figure 13 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)...................................................................................

Figure 14 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD).............................

Figure 15 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) – PPP adjusted.....

Figure 16 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity...............................................................................

Figure 17 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)............

Figure 18 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)...................................................................................

Figure 19 - Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs.........................

4


Background

This is the second part of CANSO’s Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017.

It contains performance indicators for identified air navigation service providers (ANSPs) for the year 2016, along with trend data between the 2012 and 2016 fiscal years.

ANSPs also provided contextual comments, including any exceptional events during the year or items that may impact the comparability of their data. Additional comments on important events are provided with the contextual data that also provides insights on the results of the participating ANSPs.

For the key messages and an overview of the industry as a whole, please see the Executive Summary.

Introduction: The ANSP View

5


Key Performance Indicators

The following section presents 2016 and 2012-2016 trend data for both continental and oceanic activities in line with the CANSO ANS Performance Framework levels 1-3 (see page [12]), as well as an additional KPI on the employment cost of air traffic controllers (ATCOs) in operations (OPS) as a percentage of total cost.

Notes on this year’s KPIs

This year Airways New Zealand provided data for two financial years (July 2016 - June 2017 and July 2015 - June 2016). This allows better alignment with localised reporting and provides more relevant benchmarking opportunities for other ANSPs. As the report’s trend data is between those two submissions, it is however not possible to compare trend data in this year’s report with the same metrics included in last year’s report, which were for July 2014 - June 2015 only.

Indicator KPI Numerator Denominator Figure References

Cost Efficiency and Productivity Performance IndicatorsContinental Oceanic

2016 / Trend

2016

1 Cost per IFR flight hour

Total Cost IFR flight hours Figure 4 Figure 13

2A ATCOs in OPS Employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour

Employment costs for ATCOs in OPS

ATCOs in OPS hours

Figure 5, 6 Figure 14, 15

2B ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

IFR flight hours ATCOs in OPS hours

Figure 7 Figure 16

2C Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour

Costs excluding employment costs for ATCOs in OPS

IFR flight hours Figure 8 Figure 17

3A Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS

Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS

ATCOs in OPS Figure 9, 10

3B Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS

ATCOs in OPS hours

ATCOs in OPS Figure 11

3C Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS

IFR flight hours ATCOs in OPS Figure 12

Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost Efficiency Performance IndicatorsContinental and Oceanic

2016 / Trend

CO1 Cost per IFR flight hour

Total Cost IFR flight hours Figure 18

CO2 Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs

Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS

Total Cost Figure 19

6


Participants

The following ANSPs opted into this report:

Note: ANSPs have the option to opt-in or opt-out of The ANSP View, which is why this list of participating ANSPs differs slightly from the participants list in the Executive Summary.

Region Member Label for Graphics

AfricaAir Traffic & Navigation Services ATNS

Civil Aviation Authority of Uganda CAUU

Kenya Civil Aviation Authority KCAA

AmericasCorporacion Centroamericana de Servicios de Navegacion COCESNA

Federal Aviation Administration – Air Traffic Organization FAA-ATO

NAV CANADA NAV CANADA

Servicios para la Navegación del Espacio Aereo Mexicano SENEAM

Asia Pacific Aeronautical Radio of Thailand AEROTHAI

Airports Authority of India AAI

Airways New Zealand Airways NZ

Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore CAAS

Japan Air Navigation Service JANS

Europe

Administration de la Navigation Aérienne ANA

Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic ANS CR

Devlet Hava Meydanları ččletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü DHMI

Estonian Air Navigation Services EANS

Finavia Finavia

HungaroControl Pte.Ltd. Co. HungaroControl

Isavia Ltd ISAVIA

Luftfartsverket LFV

Latvijas gaisa satiksme LGS

Letové Prevádzkové Služby LPS

Navegação Aérea de Portugal - NAV Portugal, E.P.E NAV Portugal

SE Oro Navigacija Oro Navigacija

PANSA Polish Air Navigation Services Agency PANSA

Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration ROMATSA

Sakaeronavigatsia Ltd Sakaeronavigatsia

Slovenia Control Slovenia Control

Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services SMATSA IIc SMATSA

Figure 1 - List of participating ANSPs

7


ANSP Total IFR Flight Hours 2016 (Continental)

Growth IFR Flight Hours (Continental)

Total IFR Flight Hours 2016 (Oceanic)

Growth IFR Flight Hours (Oceanic)

FAA-ATO 23,798,765 2% 1,985,454 5%

AAI 3,075,221 15%

NAV CANADA 2,901,807 1% 618,626 7%

JANS 2,261,685 4%

SENEAM 1,407,217

DHMI 1251491 -1%

AEROTHAI 748,521 11%

LFV 431,832 0%

CAAS 430,087 5%

PANSA 426,110 6%

NAV Portugal 398,024 11%

ROMATSA 338,782 -3%

ATNS 284,204 5% 8,879 -10%

Airways NZ 265,211 3% 117,212 9%

ANS CR 251,992 4%

HungaroControl 238,135 3%

SMATSA 237,951 5%

Finavia 105,306 -6%

LPS 97,738 4%

LGS 78,990 2%

KCAA 73,758 1%

EANS 67,869 1%

Oro Navigacija 54,469 -2%

Sakaeronavigatsia 50,914 0%

Slovenia Control 50,608 1%

Isavia 30,124 11% 260,088 11%

ANA 21,600

CAAU 18,448

COCESNA

Figure 2 - Participating ANSPs Flight Hours

8


Methodology

Data collection: CANSO ANSP Members provided data for this analysis. Data submission has been greatly simplified this year. The submission of data has initially focussed on the data required for this report, while additional data to support the trial KPIs is being collected on a different schedule.ANSPs are able to revise data submitted in previous years. The data submission workbook includes validation calculations that ANSPs are encouraged to consult in the data collection phase.

The entire dataset is available to all participating ANSPs to enable closer analysis and evaluation of performance trends.

Data processing: Data has been processed by Helios. It was subject to a one-step quality check for significant changes, potential errors or omissions and is subject to continued revision by participating Members.

Separation of continental and oceanic data: Information is provided both for continental and oceanic air navigation services, where applicable. Each of these environments has different challenges associated with providing ANS. For example, it is more straightforward to provide ground infrastructure for communications and surveillance services in continental airspace than it is over vast oceans.

Exchange rate conversion: ANSPs submit data in their chosen currency. For KPI comparison, data is presented in USD. 2016 KPI data is converted using the Bank of England 2016 exchange rates (average rate during the year) – where available – and supplemented with the data available at currency and foreign exchange rate website, XE.com.

For ANSPs that operate in a currency other than the USD, the assumption of lower cost may be caused in part by the strengthening USD. Between 2012 and 2016, the USD appreciated against most other world currencies, meaning each USD buys more foreign currency. This change in the relative value of the dollar effectively lowers the price that ANSPs incur in USD.

Growth rates: Data is presented from 2016 and then for the one-year and four-year trends. The four-year trend1 is calculated as the compound annual growth rate (CAGR)2. The use of a CAGR shows clearly the overall trend between 2012 and 2016. However, it masks the fluctuations that may have taken place over the intervening years, which are also important in understanding performance trends. In addition, if 2012 was an outlier, this trend may not be representative of the trend over this timeframe.

The trend analysis is presented above the 2016 KPI data, and is based on the data submitted in the ANSP’s chosen currency. As a result, it is impossible to reverse engineer the USD metrics in 2016’s report, using this report.

PPP correction: Salaries and the cost of living vary extensively around the world. One way to correct for this is by using purchasing power parity (PPP). Employment costs for ATCOs in OPS are corrected using the International Monetary Fund (IMF) PPP conversion rates. There are, of course, limitations to this approach, as the cost of living can vary widely within a country and may be higher or lower in the region where ANS offices are located.

Q1 and Q3: The first quartile (Q1) is defined as the middle number between the smallest number and the median of the data set and the third quartile (Q3) is the middle value between the median and the highest value of the data set. The median is defined as the value separating the upper half of the data from the lower half.

1The four-year trend uses five years of data and four years in growth terms.2The compound annual growth rate is calculated by taking the nth root of the total percentage growth rate, where n is the number of years in the period being considered.

9


CANSO ANS Performance Framework

The cost efficiency and productivity indicators for continental and oceanic services in line with the CANSO ANS Performance Framework.

It is important to note the dependence of the higher tier metrics on the lower tier ones. This can be established as follows:

Figure 3 – CANSO ANS performance framework

1= 2A2B

+ 2C

2A= 3A3B

2B= 3C3B

10


Figure 4 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)

Continental Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2016

2016 Continental – Cost efficiency

Indicator 1: Cost per IFR hour (USD)

Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours

The 2016 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 416.

The main driver behind CAAS’ increase in this metric was an influx of ATCOs employed in preparation for Singapore’s new three-runway system and anticipated increase in traffic at Changi Airport. This led to increased employment and training costs.

It should be noted that, regarding depreciation, JANS accounts for the cost of facilities, systems and equipment related to air navigation services, and this affects this indicator as well as indicators 2C, CO1 and CO2.

Isavia’s costs were driven up by a new salary agreement with the ATCOs, which resulted in an increase in total salary cost of approximately 25% for 2016 compared with 2015.

11


2016 Continental - Cost efficiency

Indicator 2A: ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD)

Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS hours

Figure 5 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)

The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour is USD 80.

AAI’s reduction in this metric is due to a policy decision to increase the working hours of ATCOs in OPS, which drove a 16% increase in ATCO hours.

The increase in ANS CR’s metric is a result of bonuses that were paid to ATCOs due to their higher workload and additional effort resulting from the increase in air traffic recorded in 2016 in the airspace of the Czech Republic. All the bonuses were paid in accordance with a collective agreement. Moreover, the increase in air traffic led to more overtime work by ATCOs in 2016.

12


The reason for the significant change in Sakaeronavigatsia’s metric from last year is a decrease in ATCO hours, driven by a new order issued by the Georgian Civil Aviation Agency decreasing annual working hours from 1728 to 1452, coupled with an increase in ATCO employment costs. This was a result of inflation in 2016 and, an increase in the number of employees; 12 ATCOs were recruited in FY2016.

Isavia’s increase is driven by the new salary agreement that was mentioned after Figure 4.

The increase in DHMI’s ATCO costs last year was due to the decision taken by the Ministry of Labor and Social Security during the Collective Labor Agreement Debates regarding an additional payment to staff of all public entities. This decision was also binding on DHMI due to which payment was made to all staff including ATCOs

Figure 6 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, PPP adjusted (USD)

The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, after PPP adjustment is USD 127.

13


2016 Continental - Productivity

Indicator 2B: ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours

Figure 7 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS hour productivity is 0.71.

Within Europe, traffic growth continued in 2016 with a shift towards the South-West axis. Consequently, one of the highest increases in overall traffic was observed in Portugal and NAV Portugal faced an increase in en-route traffic and high arrival/departures at airports of both FIRs. This has driven the increase in this metric.

For Isavia, the increase is a result of traffic increasing, while ATCO hours went down due to industrial action.

14


Figure 8 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)


Indicator 2C: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD)

Formula: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs / IFR flight hours

The 2016 average cost excluding ATCOs in operations employment cost per IFR flight hour is USD 296.

ATNS’ decrease in this metric is due to a deliberate cost containment decision, made in anticipation of zero increase in tariffs.

15


Figure 9 - Annual ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD)


Indicator 3A: Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS (USD)

Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / No. ATCOs in OPS

The 2016 average unit ATCO in OPS employment cost is USD 121,021.

The increase in employment cost for NAV CANADA is related to the increase in traffic that resulted in an increase in the number of shifts required to meet this demand and the use of overtime to fill these shifts.

16


Figure 10 - Unit ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD) – PPP adjusted

The 2016 average unit ATCO in OPS employment cost, after PPP adjustment, is USD 192,241.

17


Figure 11 - Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS

The 2016 average annual working hours per ATCO in OPS is 1,593 hours.

The reduction in Sakaeronavigatsia’s metric is due to a new order issued by the Georgian Civil Aviation Agency decreasing annual working hours from 1728 to 1452.

AAI’s change in this metric is due to the policy decision to increase the working hours of ATCOs in OPS.

The change in Isavia’s metric is due to industrial action.

The 3% growth in AEROTHAI’s metric corresponds to the 11% growth in IFR flight hours.


Indicator 3B: Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS

Formula: ATCOs in OPS hours / No. ATCOs in OPS

18



Indicator 3C: Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS

Formula: IFR flight hours / No. ATCOs in OPS

Figure 12 - IFR hours per ATCO in OPS

The 2016 average annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS is 1,101 IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS.NAV Portugal’s increase in this metric was, as before, driven by a significant increase in traffic.

19


Oceanic Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2016

2016 Oceanic - Cost efficiency

Indicator 1: Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)

Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours


The 2016 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 90. For comparison, this figure for continental flights is USD 416.

20


2016 Cost efficiency - Oceanic

Indicator 2A: ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs hour (USD)

Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS Hours

Figure 14 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)

The 2016 oceanic average employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is USD 122. For comparison, the figure for continental airspace is USD 79. This figure is, however, skewed by the smaller number of ANSPs participating in this report that service oceanic airspace. For comparison, the average figure for continental airspace for the ANSPs above is USD 113.

The explanation for Isavia’s increase is the same as for the continental indicator: the new salary agreement with the controllers.

Note, the fact that FAA-ATO ATCO in OPS employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is higher for oceanic than continental stems from the higher cost of living in the areas that cover oceanic traffic.

21


Figure 15 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) – PPP adjusted

The 2016 oceanic average employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is USD 118. For comparison, the average figure for continental airspace is USD 127.

22


2016 Oceanic - Productivity

Indicator 2B: ATCOs in OPS hour productivity


Figure 16 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS hour productivity is 4.1 IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS hours, significantly higher than the continental figure of 0.71.

As would be expected, traffic volumes in oceanic airspaces vary considerably between flight information regions (FIR). NAV CANADA and FAA-ATO exhibit the higher volumes, while ATNS has very little oceanic traffic but must still provide basic coverage at all times.

23


Figure 17 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)

The 2016 average cost excluding ATCOs in operations employment cost per IFR flight hour is USD 65. ATNS is not included on this graph, as it does not separately calculate costs for oceanic flights, and thus it is impossible to obtain an accurate picture of what costs – excluding ATCO costs – for oceanic flights.

2016 Oceanic - Cost efficiency

Indicator 2C: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD)

Formula: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs / IFR flight hours

24


Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost efficiency: 2016


2016 Continental and Oceanic - Cost efficiency

Indicator CO1: Cost per IFR hour (USD)

Formula: Total costs /IFR flight hours

The 2016 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 409. Compare this average value to that from Figure 4 – Cost per IFR flight hour (continental) – where the average value is USD 416, which, as last year, reflects the influence of a small number of ANSPs that have oceanic services with significantly lower unit costs.

25


2016 Continental and Oceanic - Cost efficiency

Indicator CO2: Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs

Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / Total costs

Figure 19 - Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs

The 2016 average employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs is 29%.

26


Sources

Definitions: EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V2.6 EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V3.0

Exchange rate data:

IMF World Economic Outlook database:

www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/index.asp?Travel=NIxIRx&levels=2&XNotes=Y&A3790XNode3790.x=7&A3790XNode3790.y=5&Nodes=&SectionRequired=I&HideNums=-1&ExtraInfo=true#BM

www.xe.com/currencytables/

www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/index.aspx

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/index.aspx

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/index.asp?Travel=NIxIRx&levels=2&XNotes=Y&A3790XNode3790.x=7&A3790XNode3790.y=5&Nodes=&SectionRequired=I&HideNums=-1&ExtraInfo=true#BM



http://www.xe.com/currencytables/

27


Annex 1: Data Definitions

Contextual Data Element Definitions

Data Element DefinitionsIFR hours per sq. km This is the result of dividing the number of IFR hours for the

current year of data by surface area (in square kilometres).

Sq. km – oceanic and continental The size (the surface area) of the airspace for which an ANSP is responsible. This should include the area where ANS have been delegated to the ANSP by another provider, and exclude the area in which ANS have been delegated to another ANSP. The sq. km here should be consistent with ACC coverage with respect to total area. Differentiation for facilities controlling only upper or lower airspace will be addressed by item 3 below. (Source: PRU D1).

% surveillance coverage @ 30,000ft radar and ADS-B only

Surveillance coverage from radar and ADS-B.

% surveillance coverage @ 30,000ft radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

Surveillance coverage from radar, ADS-B and ADS-C.

Number of FIRs A Flight Information Region is airspace of defined dimensions within which flight information service and alerting service are provided.

Number of ACC facilities ACC facilities are the ATC units providing ATC services to en-route traffic in control areas under its jurisdiction. Part of an ACC may also provide approach services.

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

An ACC unit is described above. An approach control unit is an ATC unit providing ATC services to arriving, departing and over-flying flights within the airspace in the vicinity of an airport.

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

Definition of an approach control unit is above.

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

Definition of an approach control unit is above. A tower control unit is an ATC unit at an airport responsible for the provision of ATC services in respect of flights that are landing and taking off and other traffic that is on the active runway(s).

Number of co-located approach, tower and ACC facilities

For definitions see above.

Number of stand-alone towers Definition of a tower control unit is above.

28


Input Data Definitions

Data Element DefinitionsTotal Costs The sum of operating costs, depreciation/amortisation and cost

of capital related to providing continental and oceanic ATC/ATFM services. Meteorological costs and EUROCONTROL costs (if applicable) are not included.

IFR flight hours Total number of controlled IFR flight hours in continental and oceanic airspace.

ATCO hours Total annual working hours for ATCOs in operations – including breaks and overtime. Holiday is not included.

ATCO employment cost Total employment costs including gross wages and salaries, payments for overtime and other bonuses, employer contribution to social security scheme and taxes, pension contributions and other benefits for ‘ATCOs in operations’. This excludes: mission related expenditures, including travel expenditures and training fees, as these are considered operating costs.

Other costs Total Costs - ATCO in OPS employment costs.

Number of ATCOs The number of FTE ATCOs – whose employment costs were included in ‘ATCO employment cost’ – participating in an activity that is either directly related to the control of traffic or is a necessary requirement for ATCOs to be able to control traffic.

29


Annex 2: Contextual Data

ANSP: AEROTHAI

In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?

The traffic growth along with limitations in airspace infrastructure are the main drivers for operational/airspace organisation improvements, air traffic flow management and increased safety measures.

What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?

Thailand Modernization CNS/ATM System (TMCS) project which is a nation-wide ANS infrastructure enhancement, and deployment of service improvement projects in accordance with applicable Aviation System Block Upgrades (ASBU) strategies and APAC Seamless ATM Plan.

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.

Slower traffic growth rate compare to 2015 was due to the limited capacity of the airspace and infrastructure. AEROTHAI is working on enhancing capacity while maintaining and improving safety standard.

Legal status:

A company established as a public-private partnership to provide the services on behalf of the government, and part-owned by the government.

Contextual data element Continental Comments

Operational data

IFR hours per sq. km. 0.9624

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 777,760

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities

Number of ACC facilities 1


0


1


6

Number of stand-alone towers 14 The number of co-located approach/tower and stand-alone towers and their respective numbers of ATCOs do not reflect actual facilities. These numbers are split by the currently available data, of which some physical stand-alone towers may be represented

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

30


ANSP: Airports Authority of India


Traffic growth, availability of technology, and government initiatives for structural reform in civil aviation by converting it into mass transportation.


Technological upgradation, human capital improvements, optimisation of resources.

Legal status:

A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.

Contextual data element Continental Oceanic Comments

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 3,570,000 6,400,000


100% 0%


100% 100% ADS-C

Number of FIRs 1 3 Partially continental, partially oceanic

Facilities



0


0


49

Number of stand-alone towers 7


12

31


ANSP: Airways New Zealand


Upgrading of aircraft sizes and a recent increase in total traffic.


Continuing increase in capital spend. Ongoing development of ops strategy programme to provide resilience and service using a 1 centre, 2 locations concept.


No exceptional events.

Legal status:

A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).


Operational dataIFR hours per sq. km. 0.3073 0.0041

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 863,100 28,790,000


100% 100% Oceanic: FANS1A equipped aircraft


100% 100% Oceanic: FANS1A equipped aircraft

Number of FIRs 1 1

Facilities

Number of ACC facilities 0 1


1 0


0 0


7 0

Number of stand-alone towers 10 0


0 0

32


ANSP: Administration de la navigation aérienne


Single European Sky (SES) performance targets and regulation; functional airspace block (FAB) performance targets and projects; and European SES Implementation Plan (ESSIP).


Annual setting / reviewing of KPI´s and PI´s as per service areas in KPAs: safety, capacity, environment, and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF); specific targets and actions are monitored.


2015 = first year of applying SES performance plan and establishing a full set of KPIs helped to improve performance.

Legal status:

A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions


Operational data IFR hours per sq. km. 5.4



0%


0%

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



0


1


1



0

33


ANSP: Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic

Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

Yes, objectives are stated in the corporate Business Plan developed currently for years 2015 to 2019. Objectives cover 4 KPAs: safety, environment, capacity and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF).


EU regulations on Performance and Charging Scheme.


Internal performance monitoring system with predefined objectives to be met.


No factors or exceptional events were noticed in 2016.

Legal status:






100%


100%

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



1



3



34


ANSP: Air Traffic & Navigation Services


To provide safe, expeditious and efficient air traffic management solutions and associated services, whilst ensuring long-term economic, social and environmental sustainability.

Legal status:



Operational data IFR hours per sq. km. 0.0304 0.0008



0% 0%


95% 0%

Number of FIRs 2 1 Oceanic services are provided by ATSO and not ATCO

Facilities



0 0


0 0


9 0



2 0 Oceanic is provided in one the centres

35


ANSP: Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore

Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.





69%


100%

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



0


1


0



0

36


ANSP: Civil Aviation Authority of Uganda


Yes. It aims at delivering a range of services to ensure the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic within the Ugandan airspace.


Business, tourism and UN operations.


Airspace redesign, installation/modification of ANS facilities, training of staff and airport expansion to comply with ICAO ASBU and implementation of performance based navigation (PBN).

Legal status:






100% radar coverage within 180 nautical miles (NM) radius from NN and 90% coverage outside 180NM


100% radar coverage within 180 NM NN and 90% radar coverage beyond 180 NM NN

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities

Number of ACC facilities 1 Located at Entebbe


None


1 Entebbe airport


1

Number of stand-alone towers 2 Entebbe and Gulu airports


37


ANSP: Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü


Overflights continued to rise in a context of important changes in traffic patterns due to airspace closures in Iraq and Syria. New procedures for approach, arrival and departure were implemented at 8 airports.

Legal status:






100%


Number of FIRs 2

Facilities



2



44

Number of stand-alone towers


38


ANSP: Federal Aviation Administration – Air Traffic Organization

Legal status:

A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions.





100%


Number of FIRs 21 5

Facilities



3


27


132

Number of stand-alone towers 131 Excludes federal contract towers


1

39


ANSP: Finavia


SES-regulation/performance requirements.

In your opinion what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?

1. FAB co-operation projects, 2. For Finavia rostering principles review, 3. Investment / procurement programmes, 4. Staff reductions.


Preparation of corporatisation (separate ANS and airports businesses in individual companies in 2017).


Less traffic than expected resulting in less income.

Legal status:

A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government





100%


0%

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities

Number of ACC facilities 1 ACC facilities at two sites (Tampere and Helsinki) operated dynamically by common management.


1


0


5



1

40


ANSP: HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co


The main driver of European performance is the performance scheme. The ANSPs have to bear cost and traffic risk, however they do not have influence on traffic. Continuously changing legal framework.


Effective resource allocation due to extra traffic and flexible sectorisation in order to minimise delay and overtime of ATCOs.


Increased traffic due to the Ukrainian situation.

Legal status:




Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 104,000 Hungarian airspace and the upper airspace over Kosovo


0% 0% ADS-B and ADS-C coverage but 100% radar coverage at 30,000ft


0% 0% ADS-B and ADS-C coverage but 100% radar coverage at 30,000ft

Number of FIRs 2

Facilities



1


0


0



0

41


ANSP: Isavia Ltd


Safety.


Upgrading of our flight data processing system (FDPS) and associated systems.

Legal status:



Operational data IFR hours per sq. km. 0.0632 Combined oceanic

and continental

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 5,400,000 Combined oceanic and continental


100% 30%


100% 80%

Number of FIRs 1 2 BIRD/BGGL

Facilities

Number of ACC facilities


1 1 Combined continental/oceanic/ approach



1



42


ANSP: Japan Air Navigation Service

In your opinion what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?

Drivers: Accommodating increasing air traffic demand particularly in Tokyo metropolitan region Issues: Restrictions on airspace/flight routes due to noise abatement.


Implementation of integrated ATC data processing system and airspace reformation.


The (actual) flight hours in Fukuoka FIR have increased 4% compared to the previous year. In particular, the international flights and over flights have grown 7% and 9% respectively.

Legal status:




Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 8,400,000



100% Radar except oceanic sectors.ADS-B: Installation ongoingADS-C: Applicable within oceanic sectors.

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



0


0


14



0

43


ANSP: Kenya Civil Aviation Authority


To plan, develop, manage, regulate and operate a safe, economically sustainable and efficient civil aviation system in Kenya, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act, 2013.


To provide a safe, efficient and effective civil aviation.


Implementation of SMS, upgrade of communication, navigation and surveillance (CNS) equipment.


N/A

Legal status:






100% radar


12.5% ADS-C

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



1


3


3



1

44


ANSP: Luftfartsverket (LFV)






Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



2


1


21

Number of stand-alone towers


45


ANSP: Latvijas gaisa satiksme


Volatility of traffic, uncertainty with traffic to/from Russian Federation. Territory, cost-effectiveness pressures.


No.

Legal status:






100%


100%

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



1


0


0



0

46


ANSP: Letové Prevádzkové Služby (LPS SR)


LPS pursues the following objectives:

1. To maintain the level of safety unchanged with the growing volume of traffic in the Slovak airspace.

2. To create an operational environment, mature enough to meet a long-term demand for air transport and maintain a safe, fast and orderly flow of air traffic at the same time

3. To minimise LPS SR’s negative impact on flight efficiency in Europe by minimizing ATFM delays in Slovak airspace.

4. To ensure economic efficiency of air traffic management in Slovakia

5. To minimise the negative impact of air traffic on the quality of environment


Severe impact of highly seasonal nature of air traffic volume in Slovak airspace peaking in the summer period.


The projects related to improvement of voice communication capabilities have been launched.

Procurement of the radio system for 8,33 kHz air - ground voice channel spacing and VoIP implementation started in 2015 and the pilot project for optimisation of voice communicationsystems and IP networks was initiated in 2016.


The Government elections followed by the change of Head of the Ministry of Transport.

Legal status:







Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



0


0


2



0

47


ANSP: NAV CANADA

Legal status:

A private sector company that is owned and/or operated by private interests to provide the service on behalf of the government, either by statute or contract.





100% 20%


100% 100%

Number of FIRs 7 1

Facilities



0


0


0



0

48


ANSP: NAV Portugal


Yes. We have a 5-year Business Plan with objectives and targets.


SES Regulations time frame and associated requirements and targets.


Developments in continental KPIs reflect the positive effects of cost containment efforts coupled with increased productivity.


Portuguese FIRs suffered significant and unexpected traffic increases again in 2016.

Legal status:

A company established as a public-private partnership to provide the service on behalf of the government, and part-owned by the government.



Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 671,000 5,180,000 Lisboa & Santa Maria FIRs


90.8% 26.3% Continental: radarOceanic: radar + ADS-B


Number of FIRs 1 1

Facilities



1 0


0 0


7 0



0 0

49


ANSP: Oro navigacija


Performance scheme, political situation (for example sanctions for Russia).

Legal status:






100%


100%

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities





3



50


ANSP: PANSA Polish Air Navigation Services Agency


Objectives related to the Performance Plan/SES Regulations and 4 key performance areas: safety, capacity, cost-effectiveness and environment.


SES Regulations, FABs Performance Plans requirements, Performance and Charging Scheme regulations; changes in traffic paths due to the Ukrainian situation. 2016 traffic growth (movements) 7.5% compared to 2.8% base forecast and 4.5% high forecast (statistics and forecast data for 2016).


As a part of improving the comprehensive airspace management, the first stage of the vertical split in FIR Warsaw was implemented. It is based on current GAT ACC sectors in two layers. The expected outcome of implementing a vertical split: separation of air traffic flows, reducing delays, shortening the flight paths, reducing CO2 emissions and improving the competitiveness offered by the Polish Air Navigation Services Agency services for users of Polish airspace.

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic

Revision of the Baltic Functional Airspace Block Performance Plan for Air Navigation Services for second reference period (2015-2019) concerns only the cost-efficiency KPA. Following partial closure of the Ukrainian airspace, Poland lost a lot of overflying heavy traffic (A380, B747, B777) going from North/West to the South/East, crossing southern half of Warsaw FIR. Poland is still experiencing an increase in lighter traffic; however, there is a significant discrepancy between the dynamics of service units and movements due to the above-mentioned change in aircraft structure and routes used.

Legal status:

State body, acting as a legal entity with an autonomous budget.





100% Radar only


0%

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



1


3


0



51


ANSP: Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration


Yes.


Main issues: variability of traffic, EU/national regulatory constraints, significant deviation of inflation (actual vs. forecast).


Performance Scheme Regulation and associated KPAs/KPIs.

Legal status:






100%


Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



0


2


0



0

52


ANSP: Sakaeronavigatsia


Geopolitical situation.

Legal status:

A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government)





100% Radar only


100% Radar only

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



1


1


0



0

53






90% 0% Approximate


0% 0% Approximate

Number of FIRs 1 1

Facilities



4 2 APP facilities radar2 APP facilities non-radar


32 4 located within the ACC are not included


23



4

ANSP: Servicios a la Navegación en el Espacio Aéreo Mexicano


Safety and efficiency in operations.


Politics - SENEAM is subject to the government budget. The budget is based on previous years and does not take into consideration the cost of living increase.


Implementing new technologies and standards.


No.

Legal status:


54


ANSP: Slovenia Control


Changes in traffic flows.


Providing capacity and cost control.


No.

Legal status:



Operational data IFR hours per sq. km. 2.5304 Total IFR flight-hours controlled by the

ANSP used



100%


100%

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



1


0


2



0

55


ANSP: Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services SMATSA LLC


SES requirements.


No.

Legal status:

Limited liability company, 100% state-owned (92% owned by Serbia and 8% owned by Montenegro). Integrated civil/military ANSP.



Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 129,000 The size (the surface area) of the airspace for which SMATSA is responsible includes the airspace of Bosnia & Hercegovina within which SMATSA provides ATC services.


100%


100%

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



1



7



56


Annex 3: KPI Data

1: Continental Cost per IFR hour (USD)

Formula: Total costs (USD) / IFR flight hours

ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 453.28 0.00% -1.20%

AAI 62.65 1.34%

NAV CANADA 315.54 -2.48% 1.09%

JANS 551.46 -4.26%

SENEAM 100.71

DHMI 402.25 15.69%

AEROTHAI 333.63 -5.53%

LFV 507.53 -4.71% -0.12%

CAAS 355.59 13.20% 10.52%

PANSA 410.43 -1.93% 1.47%

NAV Portugal 339.68 -10.23% -8.66%

ROMATSA 528.07 9.60% 1.29%

ATNS 267.71 -1.68% 5.47%

Airways NZ 374.07 -1.21% 0.57%

ANS CR 533.85 -0.36% 1.44%

HungaroControl 451.49 2.56% -1.79%

SMATSA 338.45 -7.74% -1.21%

Finavia 658.47 2.61% 5.57%

LPS 674.80 -1.35% -1.51%

LGS 312.62 -2.84% 5.00%

KCAA 200.12 -9.75%

EANS 298.88 3.72% 6.96%

Oro navigacija 566.32 10.81% 2.56%

Sakaeronavigatsia 504.00 7.35% 6.14%

Slovenia Control 717.00 1.75% 2.63%

Isavia 159.76 22.91%

ANA 800.17

57


2A: Continental ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS hours

ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 119.31 1.51% 2.73%

AAI 16.25 -6.27%

NAV CANADA 113.76 7.39% 3.79%

JANS 40.39 -0.10%

SENEAM 36.08

DHMI 68.95 25.61%

AEROTHAI 28.18 6.49%

LFV 123.68 6.63%

PANSA 106.68 3.45% 0.54%

NAV Portugal 121.68 -4.87% -7.25%

ROMATSA 109.13 9.27% 12.35%

ATNS 34.24 13.44% 7.27%

Airways NZ 91.32 -1.79% 3.84%

ANS CR 110.82 13.20% 7.54%

HungaroControl 110.82 6.80% 5.01%

SMATSA 60.70 8.20% 4.01%

Finavia 104.86 -0.94% 6.70%

LPS 113.15 -0.40% 6.67%

LGS 42.61 0.16% 6.19%

KCAA 22.39 -0.73%

EANS 66.77 1.36% 11.17%

Oro navigacija 50.87 2.26% 4.29%



Isavia 126.44 46.15%

ANA 132.51

58


2A: Continental ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD), PPP adjusted

ANSP KPI KPI PPPFAA-ATO 119.31 119.31

AAI 16.25 59.72

NAV CANADA 113.76 121.20

JANS 40.39 43.06

SENEAM 36.08 81.55

DHMI 68.95 162.07

AEROTHAI 28.18 79.93

LFV 123.68 121.85

PANSA 106.68 235.38

NAV Portugal 121.68 178.76

ROMATSA 109.13 253.57

ATNS 34.24 84.96

Airways NZ 91.32 86.28

ANS CR 110.82 200.18

HungaroControl 110.82 234.65

SMATSA 60.70 159.64

Finavia 104.86 102.98

LPS 113.15 211.47

LGS 42.61 76.63

KCAA 22.39 50.96

EANS 66.77 108.46

Oro navigacija 50.87 100.25

Sakaeronavigatsia 20.04 52.86

Slovenia Control 96.07 145.63

Isavia 126.45 105.78

ANA 132.51 130.70

59


2B: Continental ATCOs in OPS hour productivity Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours


AAI 0.85 -1.09%

NAV CANADA 1.19 1.98% 2.37%

JANS 0.90 6.79%

SENEAM 0.79

DHMI 0.81 0.07%

AEROTHAI 0.32 5.31%

LFV 0.52 -0.27% 0.60%

CAAS 0.65 -4.14% -4.60%

PANSA 0.77 4.88% -1.05%

NAV Portugal 0.90 13.25% 5.54%

ROMATSA 0.64 1.70% 4.13%

ATNS 0.50 7.47% -0.44%

Airways NZ 0.68 8.08% 7.08%

ANS CR 0.88 3.80% 2.47%


SMATSA 0.76 11.13% 1.66%

Finavia 0.39 -5.77% -3.87%

LPS 0.73 2.03% 4.42%

LGS 0.68 1.51% -2.70%

KCAA 0.33 -7.13%

EANS 0.76 -3.00% 4.78%

Oro navigacija 0.41 1.72% -0.35%



Isavia 1.51 25.04%

ANA 0.44

60


2C: Continental Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs / IFR flight hours

ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 342.61 0.60% -1.49%

AAI 43.46 4.54%

NAV CANADA 220.27 -5.50% 0.96%

JANS 506.77 -4.06%

SENEAM 55.08

DHMI 316.89 13.30%

AEROTHAI 245.52 -7.71%

LFV 268.36 -4.34%

PANSA 271.73 -2.22% 1.40%

NAV Portugal 204.43 -5.96% -5.95%

ROMATSA 356.30 10.68% -1.26%

ATNS 199.32 -3.94% 4.74%

Airways NZ 240.68 3.80% 2.89%

ANS CR 407.43 -2.96% 0.46%


SMATSA 258.60 -9.21% -2.19%

Finavia 390.76 0.95% 2.53%

LPS 519.10 -1.04% -2.50%

LGS 250.04 -3.21% 4.08%

KCAA 131.47 -16.53%

EANS 211.40 3.40% 7.32%

Oro navigacija 441.40 14.12% 2.01%



Isavia 75.92 30.34%

ANA 500.30

ANA 0.44

61


3A: Continental Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / No. ATCOs in OPS

ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 216432 2.82% 3.20%

AAI 31728 -1.18%

NAV CANADA 187174 8.63% 5.01%

JANS 81382 -0.10%

SENEAM 72065

DHMI 82748 16.95%

AEROTHAI 86093 9.34%

LFV 219277 8.93%

PANSA 115662 0.20% 0.27%

NAV Portugal 218826 -5.29% -7.40%

ROMATSA 131960 6.30% 11.32%

ATNS 56177 12.14% 7.13%

Airways NZ 124560 -1.79% 3.84%

ANS CR 167668 13.35% 7.86%

HungaroControl 172659 5.81% 4.41%

SMATSA 70892 4.62% 2.80%

Finavia 154899 1.27% 6.40%

LPS 170992 -1.04% 7.01%

LGS 53731 0.24% 8.36%

KCAA 32248 -0.73%

EANS 104159 1.36% 9.30%

Oro navigacija 82812 2.40% 5.27%

Sakaeronavigatsia 27870 10.35% 11.88%

Slovenia Control 136271 2.62% 3.45%

Isavia 210458 30.36%

ANA 137814

62


3A: Continental Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS (USD), PPP adjusted

ANSP KPI KPI PPPFAA-ATO 216432 216432

AAI 31728 116593

NAV CANADA 187174 199410

JANS 81382 86759

SENEAM 72065 162907

DHMI 82748 194493

AEROTHAI 86093 244193

LFV 219277 216037

PANSA 115662 255199

NAV Portugal 218826 321480

ROMATSA 131960 306610

ATNS 56177 139382

Airways NZ 124560 117691

ANS CR 167668 302868

HungaroControl 172659 365573

SMATSA 70892 186464

Finavia 154899 152120

LPS 170992 319576

LGS 53731 96636

KCAA 32248 73379

EANS 104159 169201

Oro navigacija 82812 163182

Sakaeronavigatsia 27870 73535

Slovenia Control 136271 206558

Isavia 210458 176068

ANA 137814 135930

63


3B: Continental Annual working hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: ATCOs in OPS hours / No. ATCOs in OPS

ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 1814 1.28% 0.46%

AAI 1952 5.43%

NAV CANADA 1645 1.15% 1.18%

JANS 2015 0.00%

SENEAM 1998

DHMI 1200 -6.90%

AEROTHAI 3055 2.68%

LFV 1773 0.23% 2.15%

CAAS 1819 0.00% 0.00%

PANSA 1084 -3.14% -0.26%

NAV Portugal 1798 -0.44% -0.16%

ROMATSA 1209 -2.72% -0.91%

ATNS 1641 -1.15% -0.13%

Airways NZ 1364 0.00% 0.00%

ANS CR 1513 0.13% 0.30%

HungaroControl 1558 -0.93% -0.57%

SMATSA 1168 -3.31% -1.16%

Finavia 1477 2.23% -0.28%

LPS 1511 -0.64% 0.32%

LGS 1261 0.08% 2.04%

KCAA 1440 0.00%

EANS 1560 0.00% -1.69%

Oro navigacija 1628 0.14% 0.94%

Sakaeronavigatsia 1391 -9.79% -6.08%

Slovenia Control 1418 -0.54% -0.01%

Isavia 1664 -10.80%

ANA 1040

64


3C: Continental Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: IFR flight hours / No. ATCOs in OPS


AAI 1653.35 4.27%

NAV CANADA 1964.66 3.15% 3.58%

JANS 1821.00 6.79%

SENEAM 1579.37

DHMI 969.40 -6.84%

AEROTHAI 977.18 8.13%

LFV 916.84 -0.04% 2.77%

CAAS 1175.10 -4.14% -4.60%

PANSA 833.87 1.59% -1.31%

NAV Portugal 1617.98 12.75% 5.37%

ROMATSA 768.21 -1.07% 3.17%

ATNS 821.40 6.23% -0.57%

Airways NZ 933.84 8.08% 7.08%

ANS CR 1326.27 3.94% 2.78%


SMATSA 887.88 7.45% 0.48%

Finavia 578.61 -3.67% -4.14%

LPS 1098.18 1.37% 4.75%

LGS 858.59 1.59% -0.71%

KCAA 469.80 -7.13%

EANS 1190.68 -3.00% 3.01%

Oro navigacija 662.88 1.86% 0.58%

Sakaeronavigatsia 499.15 -0.37% -3.38%


Isavia 2510.33 11.54%

ANA 459.57

CAAU 200.52

65


1: Oceanic Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours

ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 96.15 -2.71% -2.18%

NAV CANADA 54.08 -10.99% -1.29%

Airways NZ 49.53 -3.81% -4.88%

Isavia 160.96 4.95%

2A: Oceanic ATCO in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD)

Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS Hours

2B: Oceanic ATCO in OPS hour productivity


ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 157.57 -0.69% 2.67%

NAV CANADA 115.38 3.51% 1.32%

Airways NZ 100.17 -1.69% 3.04%

Isavia 114.22 27.93%


NAV CANADA 6.79 3.94% 4.39%

ATNS 0.16 14.09% -14.09%

Airways NZ 3.85 13.93% 1.51%

Isavia 3.36 -1.71%

2A: Oceanic ATCO in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD), PPP adjusted

ANSP KPI KPI PPPFAA-ATO 157.57 157.5672

NAV CANADA 115.38 122.9196

Airways NZ 100.17 94.64606

Isavia 114.22 95.55947

66


2C: Oceanic Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD) Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours


NAV CANADA 37.08 -15.12% -0.49%

Airways NZ 23.51 10.19% -10.10%

Isavia 126.97 -0.22%

CO1: Combined Cost per IFR hour (USD)

Formula: Total costs /IFR flight hours


AAI 62.65 1.34%

NAV CANADA 269.60 -3.58% 0.75%

JANS 551.46 -4.26%

SENEAM 100.71

DHMI 402.25 15.69%

AEROTHAI 333.63 -5.53%

LFV 507.53 -4.71% -0.12%

CAAS 355.59 13.20% 10.52%

PANSA 410.43 -1.93% 1.47%

NAV Portugal 339.68 -10.23% -8.66%

ROMATSA 528.07 9.60% 1.29%

ATNS 259.60 -1.20% 5.55%

Airways NZ 274.60 -2.64% 1.59%

ANS CR 533.85 -0.36% 1.44%


SMATSA 338.45 -7.74% -1.21%

Finavia 658.47 2.61% 5.57%

LPS 674.80 -1.35% -1.51%

LGS 312.62 -2.84% 5.00%

KCAA 200.12 -9.75%

EANS 298.88 3.72% 6.96%

Oro navigacija 566.32 10.81% 2.56%



Isavia 160.83 6.54%

ANA 800.17

67


CO2: Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs (USD)

Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / Total costs

ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 24% -1.81% 0.91%

AAI 31% -6.49%

NAV CANADA 30% 8.12% 0.22%

JANS 8% -2.29%

SENEAM 45%

DHMI 21% 8.50%

AEROTHAI 26% 7.05%

LFV 47% 6.12%

PANSA 34% 0.58% 0.13%

NAV Portugal 40% -6.42% -3.79%

ROMATSA 33% -1.97% 6.52%

ATNS 26% 3.39% 1.76%

Airways NZ 37% -8.14% -2.92%

ANS CR 24% 9.45% 3.46%

HungaroControl 27% -2.21% 1.57%

SMATSA 24% 5.53% 3.57%

Finavia 41% 2.46% 5.13%

LPS 23% -1.04% 3.73%

LGS 20% 1.56% 3.94%

KCAA 34% 18.44%

EANS 29% 0.75% -0.80%

Oro navigacija 22% -9.28% 2.04%

Sakaeronavigatsia 11% 3.18% 9.09%

Slovenia Control 34% -1.70% -0.20%

Isavia 24% 19.27%

ANA 37%

COCESNA 29%

68


ACC Area control centre

ADS-B Automatic dependent surveillance - broadcast

ADS-C Automatic dependent surveillance - contract

AG Annual growth

ANS Air navigation services

ANSP Air navigation service provider

ASBU Aviation System Block Upgrades

ATC Air traffic control

ATCO Air traffic controller

ATFM Air traffic flow management

ATM Air traffic management

APP Approach

ATSO Air traffic services officer

CAGR Compound annual growth rate

CAP Capacity

CEF Connecting Europe facility

CNS Communication, navigation and surveillance

ENV Environment

FAB Functional airspace block

FDPS Flight data processing system

FIR Flight information region

GAT General air traffic

IFR Instrument flight rules

IMF International monetary fund

KPI Key performance indicator

OPS Operations

PBN Performance based navigation

PPP Purchasing power parity

Q1 First quartile

Q3 Third quartile

SAF Safety

SES Single European sky

STATFOR Statistics and Forecasts

Annex 2: Contextual Data

TRANSFORMINGGLOBAL ATM PERFORMANCE

civil air navigation services organisation

global air navigation services performance report 2017 air navigation service... · global air...

Documents