1

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

2

DFS: Key Performance Areas + KPI

Cost Efficiency

Capacity

Safety

Environment

3

Air traffic Management from the political point of

view

http://www.iata.org/pressroom/speeches/Pages/2013-04-12-01.aspx

http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pages/opinion-piece-spain.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://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-523_en.htm

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-interview-

lufthansa.aspx

4

Air traffic Management from the political point of

view

http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content/documents/media/dg-articles-2013/1302-lps-slovakia.pdf

Interview Frank Brenner, Flugrevue, February 2013

http://www.dw.de/eus-single-sky-fights-national-delays/a-16682912

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.

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.

5

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."

6

Motivation und Rahmenbedingungen

7

Arrival and sequence-

metering inefficiencies En-route

inefficiencies

Taxi-out

inefficiencies

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).

http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/prr-2012.pdf , page 33

En-route ATFM delay

+ EUR 790

million

+ EUR 950

million

+ EUR 1900

million

EUR 500 million

= EUR 4.49 billion

Airport ATFM delay

+ EUR 350 million

The report does not touch upon whether and how the delays responsible for these costs can

actually be influenced by the ANSPs. There is also no mention that the fragmentation of ATC in

Europe contributes to these inefficiencies nor what SES measures should be implemented to

achieve which potential improvements.

Tatsächliche

Beeinflussbarkeit?

Optimierungspotential? Örtliche Ausprägung?

Zusammenhang mit einer

überwiegend national

orientierten Flugsicherung? Systemgedanke

berücksichtigt?

Berechnung? Datengrundlage?

8

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.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/prr-2012.pdf

http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content/documents/official-documents/facts-and-figures/coda-reports/CODA-Digests-

2012/coda-digest-annual-2012.pdf

In 2012, the delay caused by airlines resulted in costs of about EUR 3.4 billion.

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

9

“5 Mrd EUR Schaden pro Jahr”: Résumée

Perspektive 1:

„5 Mrd EUR“

Perspektive 2:

„≈1 Mrd EUR“

+ Betrachtung

Gesamtkostenoptimum

10

Source of the "42 additional unnecessary 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.

Direct Route extension = A : D

http://www.atmseminar.org/seminarContent/seminar6/papers/p_055_MPM.pdf

http://atmseminar.eurocontrol.fr/past-seminars/5th-seminar-budapest-hungary-june-2003/papers/paper_023

Origin

airport

Destination

airport

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/media/consultations/doc/2013-07-03-sesrp2/report.pdf, Page 34

1000

0

900

800

700

600

100

500

400

300

200

Route extension

= 3.17% or 28 km

Optimum (great

circle)

Flig

ht path

in k

m

Mean route flown in

Europe (without TMA)

http://www.kolloquium-flugfuehrung.de/pdf/2011-01-18%20MANFRED%20DIEROFF%20DFS%20-%20Kolloquium%20Flugfuehrung.pdf

= optimal

routing?

11

Reasons for Flight Extensions

Separation Airspace structure

(disentangling traffic

flows, TMA design)

Flight planning

optimised with regard

to ANS costs

€

En-route weather Flight planning

optimised with regard

to wind

Airspace availability

(e.g. military airspace)

12

How to influence Flight Extension

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.

A reduction to 0 km is not possible.

http://www.caa.lv/upload/userfiles/files/SES%20Performance%20targets%20_%20achievements.pdf

Flig

ht

Eff

icie

ncy

Increase in

air traffic density and

complexity

1%

4%

2%

3%

0 %

Potentially achievable flight efficiency

without active measures, such as

relocation of military exercise areas

Europe 2012

2019 ?

http://atmseminar.eurocontrol.fr/past-seminars/5th-seminar-budapest-hungary-june-2003/papers/paper_023

13

Possible measures to increase en-route Flight

Efficiency

0%

3%

2%

1% En-r

oute

eff

icie

ncy E

uro

pe (

KE

A)

2012 2016 2019 2030?

? ? ?

?

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?

(Schematic representation, effects of the measures would have to be calculated at

European level.)

14

“42 unnötige Kilometer pro Flug”: Résumée

Marathon

Athen

Perspektive 2:

Optimierungspotential

Von 28 km auf 22 km =

6 km pro Flug

Perspektive 1:

Optimierungspotential

42 km pro Flug

+ Betrachtung

Gesamtkosten-

optimum

15

A comparison of ATM in the USA and Europe

U.S.A. Europe

(Continental)

airspace

10.4 million

km2

11.5 million km2

Sectors (max) 955a 679a

Controlled

flights per day

43,600b 26,000b

Pax per day 2.2 millionc 2.2 millionc

Pax miles per

day

1.07 billiond 1.18 billiond

ATCOs 16,793e 16,700e

Cost of ATM

per year

$ 10.7 billion f EUR 8.0 billion f

... in EUR 2013 EUR 8.3

billion g

EUR 8.0 billion g

... in PPP EUR 8.6

billion h

EUR 8.0 billion h

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$

EUR/US Dollar USD

1,500 1,375 1,250 1,125 1,000 0,875

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2001 2013

16

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)

3 months 100% paid sick

leave, then 9 months at

50%

Educational leave Not standard practice 5 days p.a. 6 days p.a.

Recuperation cures Not standard practice 3 – 7 days p.a. Not standard practice

Source for FAA data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source of DFS data: DFS

Source of DSNA Data: DSNA

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

17

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

18

Comparison of transport performance between

USA and Europe

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

1.07

billion

NM

1.18

billion

NM

19

Vergleich USA-Europa – Flüge pro Fluglotse

Anzahl

kontrollierte

Flüge pro

Fluglotse

(Europa)

Arbeits- und Fehlzeiten Weit häufiger

Einfachbesetzung statt

Vieraugenprinzip

IFR GA generiert wenig Taskload (andere

Lufträume, Flugplätze)

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.

Luftfracht generiert wenig Taskload

(Nachtflüge)

Anzahl

kontrollierte

Flüge pro

Fluglotse

(USA)

Unterschiedliche

Bewertung der

Sicherheits-

relevanz

Unterschiede

größtenteils

gesellschaftlich

bedingt

Verkehrsmix

(durch ANSP

nicht zu

beeinflussen)

Darstellung schematisch auf Basis der Ausgangsdaten von kontrollierten Flügen und Anzahl der Fluglotsen.

20

ATM costs per passenger mile

When the costs of ATM (PPP) are looked at in relation to passenger miles, the unit costs are 16% lower in Europe.

: =

[Bill

ion

EU

R P

PP

]

[Bill

ion

Mile

s]

Purchasing Power Parities for GDP, according OECD value 2005 – 2012 for Europe vs US$

21

The FAA tax structure

Transportation

of Persons by

Air

$ 7.9 billion

Use of Intern.

Air Facilities

$ 2.4 billion

Aviation Gas

Non-

Commercial

$ 0.19 billion

Transportation

of Property

$ 0.44 billion

Aviation Fuel

Commercial

Use

$ 0.35 billion

General Fund

(US Treasury)

$ 4.6 billion

Passenger Tax

Fuel Tax

ATO Budget

$ 10.7 billion

Non-ATO

Budget

$ 5.2 billion

(e.g. new

Runways,

aviation safety)

FAA

Budget

Total:

$ 15.9

billion Airport and

Airway Trust

Fund

$ 11.3 billion

Earnings 20111

2012 FAA

Budget

2012 FAA

Funds 2

US Taxpayer

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41798.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/media/AATF_Fact_Sheet.pdf

http://www.aci-na.org/sites/default/files/airport_and_airway_trust_fund-july2013.pdf

1 Share of earnings according FY 2012 2 Fund share for Essential Air Service ($ 0.14 billion in 2012) neglected

22

Domestic

Passenger ticket

tax

EUR 434 million

Use of Intern. Air

Facilities

EUR 663 million

Domestic Cargo /

Mail

EUR 181 million

Public Fund

EUR 660

million*

Passenger Tax

ATM Budget

EUR 1.53

billion

Non-ATM

Budget

EUR 0.75

billion

(e.g. new

Runways,

aviation safety)

“German

Airport and

Airway Trust

Fund”

EUR 1,624

billion

Earnings

Budget (ATM

+ Non-ATM

Funds

Taxpayer

The FAA tax structure ... adopted to Germany

* 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

Adjusted

DFS

Budget

EUR 1.42

billion

EUR 110 million Reimbursement

for MUAC,

EUROCONTROL,

Weather Service,

NAS

Domestic Flight

Segment Tax

Overflight Fees Frequent Flyer Tax

EUR 173

million

EUR 83

million

EUR 90

million

23

The FAA tax structure applied to Germany1

The DFS budget would increase by 32 percent if the FAA tax structure were applied to

Germany.

+32%

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.

24

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.

USA Europe / DFS

Kind of charges Passenger-oriented charges per

flight (ticket tax or overflight tax)

Aircraft-oriented charges per

distance flown and aircraft mass

Charges are used for FAA (ATO budget share approx.

67%)

ANSPs

A passenger pays for a domestic

flight over 560 km … *

1) Air transportation excise

tax: 7.5% of ticket price

2) $3.70 segment fee

EUR 7.11 (EUR 5.00 en-route

charge + EUR 2.11 approach

fee)***

… if the one-way ticket costs

$130 / EUR 100 **

$13.45 Ticket Tax + $ 5.47

General Tax = $18.92 equals

$12,68 or EUR 9.75 for

FAA/ATO (67% budget share)

EUR 7.11

* Such as Munich-Hamburg

** Without additional fees for baggage etc.

*** DFS 2013, Embraer 190, 86 pax

In this calculation, the passenger pays 37% more in the USA.

Currency exchange rate JUL 2013: 1.30 $/€

25

A comparison of air navigation costs A

TM

Cost p

er

Pa

x

AT

M C

ost p

er

Pa

x

En-Route Flight

Distance [km]

En-Route Flight

Distance [km]

FAA (ATO) FAA (ATO)

While the cost per passenger in the USA (for domestic flights) is independent from the

travel distance, it is not in Germany.

Airbus A320 / 165 pax Embraer 190 / 86 pax

Cost parity

at 1360 km

Cost parity

at 800 km

Currency exchange rate JUL 2013: 1.30 $/€

26

Share of ANSP/FAA costs in operating costs /

ticket prices

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.

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/airfares

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://web.mit.edu/TicketTax/Karlsson_Incidence_of_Ticket_Taxes_and_Fees_in_U.S._Domestic_Air_Travel.pdf

Compared to total operating costs

Europe 2011 (source: AEA)

Compared to average domestic

ticket price 2012 (source: FAA)

http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/prr-2012.pdf

27

General ATM Cost Comparison USA - Europe

Purchasing Power Parities for GDP, according OECD value 2005 – 2012 for Europe vs US$

(PPP) FAA Europe D in%

Cost per year 8.600.000.000 € 8.000.000.000 € -7%

Cost per km2

airspace

(continental)

827 € 696 € -16%

Cost per controlled

Flight

540 € 843 € 56%

Cost per Scheduled

Flight (no GA, MIL)

845 € 925 € 9%

Cost per controlled

Mile (Scheduled Flights,

no GA, no MIL)

1,72 € 1,69 € -2%

Cost per Passenger 10,78 € 10,13 € -6%

Cost per 100 Pax-

Miles

2,20 € 1,85 € -16%

Share in Total Operating

/ Ticket Costs for Airlines

9% 6% -33%

28

Vergleich USA-Europa Résumée

Mehr Flüge

Mehr

Passagierkilometer

Keine

Staatszuschüsse

(DFS)

Höhere Lotsen-

Arbeitszeiten

Viel IFR-General

Aviation

Wechselkurs?

Vieraugenprinzip

Geringeres

ATM-Budget

Niedrigere

Kosten pro Pax

Mehr Sektoren

29

Kosten und Leistung – eine Frage der

Perspektive

pro Passagierkilometer

Personal

Technik

Prio 1: Sicherheit

für die Nutzer des

Luftverkehrsystems

30

Thank you for your attention