atm performance frameworkatm performance framework · performance review commission atm performance...

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e R

ev

iew

Co

mm

iss

ion

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e R

ev

iew

Co

mm

iss

ion

ATM Performance FrameworkATM Performance Framework

NAS Performance Workshop

5 September 2007

Xavier FRON

Performance Review Unit

EUROCONTROL

2

Performance Review Commissionwww.eurocontrol.int/prc

Role of performance review

• Provide independent advice on ANS/ATM performance to policy makers and relevant information to all stakeholders (e.g. benchmarking and best practice), based on observation of achieved performance, consultation and information provided by relevant parties;

• Performance review closes the performance loop;

• It is the least intrusive form of regulation;

Policy makers

Policy

objectives Achieved

Performance

Legislation

Institutions

Industrial Organisation

Air Navigation

ANS Providers

Supervisory authorities

Common functions

Airspace

users

Airport

operators

PerformanceReview

Advice on

performance

issuesPerformance

information

Consultation

Raw

information

Policy makers

Policy

objectives Achieved

Performance

Legislation

Institutions


Air Navigation

ANS Providers


Common functions

Airspace

users

Airport

operators

PerformanceReview

Advice on

performance

issuesPerformance

information

Consultation

Raw

information

Policy makers

Policy

objectives Achieved

Performance

Legislation

Institutions


Air Navigation

ANS Providers


Common functions

Airspace

users

Airport

operators

PerformanceReview

Advice on

performance

issuesPerformance

information

Consultation

Raw

information

3


Performance Review Commission (PRC)

� Independent advisory role to EUROCONTROL governing bodies

� Twelve commissioners supported by the PRU

Objective“to introduce strong, transparent and independent

performance review and target setting to facilitate more effective management of the European ATM system…”

Annual Performance Review Reports (PRR)– Traffic– Key ATM Performance Areas

• Safety• Cost-effectiveness• Quality of service/ Environment• Capacity

ANSP benchmarking reports (ACE)

Special reports– Evaluation of SES impact on ATM performance– Fragmentation– Punctuality drivers, etc.– US/Europe comparison– Comparison of aeronautical MET costs

37 States9.6 M flights

PRR 2006 just published

4


Overview of ATM performance measurement framework

ENVIRONMENT SECURITYECONOMYSAFETY

Political &Socio-

EconomicExpectations

Airspace user

needs and

requirements

Service ProviderPerspective/

ATM contribution

Safety

Traffic volume, variability,

complexity)

Network effects & fragmentation

WeatherPerformance

affecting

factors

Regulations/ restrictions(Political & Environmental)

Technical innovations

Cost-

effectiveness

User charges

Service Quality•Efficiency•Predictability•Flexibility

CapacitySafety

management

Prevailing

economic

conditions

Security

management

Security

• Various perspectives on ATM performance (Political/ Social, User, Service provider);

• The PRC focuses on: Safety, Cost-effectiveness, Service Quality (Delays, flight efficiency) , Capacityand Environment (Global aspects)

• ATM performance is affected by trade-offs (capacity vs. delay, etc.) and a number of performance affecting factors (weather, complexity, etc.) which need to be captured in a balanced view

Safety

Cost Effectiveness

Capacity

Quality of service

PRC Key performance areas

Environment

5


How the PRC analyses ANS performance

Punctuality & Predictability(Chapter 4)

Productivity

Support Costs

Performance Indicators

Complexity

Fragmentation

PerformanceDrivers

CostEffectiveness(Chapter 8)

ATFMDelays

(Chapter 5)

Safety(Chapter 3)

FlightEfficiency

(Chapter 6)

ANS Key Performance

Areas

ANSPerformance

En-route delays

Airport delays

Air Transport performance

AIS, MET costs

Accidents

Incidents(a/c proximities)

ATCO Unit Costs ANSP costs

EUROCONTROLcosts

Traffic demand(Chapter 2)

Capacity

Airline Performance

Airport Performance

Horizontal Flight efficiency

Vertical FlightEfficiency

Airspace design & use

Civil/Military use of airspace (Chapter 7)

Safety maturityLegislative framework

Culture

Safety Management

Systems

Cost of living

6


Air traffic demand in Europe

8%

4%

5%

4%

13%

2%

4%

6%

4%

1%

19%

3%

2%

3%

9%

5%4%

0%

5%

5%

11%

6%

4%

6%

13%

2%

7%

6%

11%

5%

2%7%

2%

4%

3%

0%

Annual growth in IFR Movements 2006

Pro

du

ce

d b

y t

he

Da

ta I

nfo

rma

tio

n &

An

aly

sis

(D

IA)

Bu

sin

es

s D

ivis

ion

. ©

EU

RO

CO

NT

RO

L 2

00

6.

Below 0%

0% to 3%

3% to 6%

6% to 9%

9% to 12%

Above 12%

5%

Canarias

6%

Azores

data source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR

Sustained growth continued in 2006

• Average annual growth +4.1%;

• Between 0% and 19% at State level;

• +24% for “low fare” airlines (16% of traffic)

• +11% for business aviation (7% of traffic)

3%3%3%

-2%

2%5%

7%6%2%

6%4%

6%5%6%

5%3%

5% 4%4% 4%3%3%

0%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

20

10

20

12

mill

ion

flig

hts

pe

r y

ea

r

Year o n year variatio n

2007 Forecas t

so urce : EUROCONTROL

( before 1997, estimation based on Euro 88 traffic variation)

Traffic

7


Traffic forecasts

• Short, medium , long term forecasts from EUROCONTROL STATFOR

• Challenges to Growth study (2004)being updated

• Suppressed demand due to airport capacity limitations

Heathrow traffichas grown by filling

the gaps

8


Measuring Safety Performance

• Approach to measuring safety is wider than merely focusing on the level of achieved safety of the existing ATM system under certain conditions (accidents, incidents);

• Maturity of safety processes are as important as the measurement of achieved safety;

ANS Safety Performance

Accidents

Incidents (a/c proximities)

Safety maturity

Legislative framework Culture

Safety Management

ProactiveMeasurement

(Process, safetyEnablers)

ReactiveMeasurement

(Outcome)

AirportsAirspace

UsersSafety performance of

air transport


Accidents


Safety maturity


Safety Management



ReactiveMeasurement

(Outcome)

AirportsAirspace


air transport

9


Accidents/incidents

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

To

tal

nu

mb

er

of

acccid

en

ts

Direct ATM

Accidents

Trend

Data source: Flight Safety Foundation - Aviation Safety Net


Accidents


Safety maturity


Safety Management



ReactiveMeasurement

(Outcome)

AirportsAirspace


air transport


Accidents


Safety maturity


Safety Management



ReactiveMeasurement

(Outcome)

AirportsAirspace


air transport

Accidents

A posteriori check

Lagging indicatorIt’s too late!

Leading indicatorInforms safety management

Voluntary reports: Useful, but reliable?Systematic screening

Loss of separation,runway incursions, etc

38% 28% 21% 23%

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2002 2003 2004 2005P

15 States

CL

as

sifi

ed

ev

en

ts

Severity C,D,E

Severity B

Severity A

% :Proportion of Severity A+B

Data source : EUROCONTROL/SRU

Incident reports

10


Safety maturity


Accidents


Safety maturity


Safety Management



ReactiveMeasurement

(Outcome)

AirportsAirspace


air transport


Accidents


Safety maturity


Safety Management



ReactiveMeasurement

(Outcome)

AirportsAirspace


air transport

██UK

██Switzerland

██Sweden

██Spain

██Slovenia

██Slovakia

██Romania

██Portugal

██Poland

██Norway

██Netherlands

██Luxembourg

██Italy

██Ireland

██Hungary

██Greece

██Germany

██France

██Finland

██Denmark

██Czech Rep.

██Cyprus

██Bulgaria

██Belgium

██Austria

CultureLegislation

ANSPs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Ma

turi

ty S

co

re

2002

2004

2006

Are safety processes, legislation, culture in place?

Maturity surveys

11


Safety Performance targets

0

1

2

3

4

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Traffic (million flights)

Risk trend Risk target

OUTLOOKSystem riskis quadratic:

Incidents/hour x4when traffic x2

Aircraft riskis linear:Incidents

per flight-hour x2when traffic x2

38% 28% 21% 23%

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2002 2003 2004 2005P

15 States

CL

as

sifi

ed

ev

en

ts

Severity C,D,E

Severity B

Severity A

% :Proportion of Severity A+B

Data source : EUROCONTROL/SRU

Performance to date

• Increasing number of incidents reports:more opportunities for learning, prevention

• Severe incidents (A&B) don’t appear to increase in sample of 15 “mature” European States

Target (s)

• European (ATM 2000+) objective: Number of accidents and serious incidents not to increase: Very challenging!

• Current target: <1.55.10-8 accident per flight hourNo corresponding indicator so far

• PRC proposed interim target (maturity)

Future system

• Safety may be the most challenging

• Safety needs to be engineered in next generation design from the start

TODAY

SESAR target

- System risk does not increase (no more accidents)

- 2020: Traffic: +73% => Safety x3 vs trend

- Later: Traffic x3 => Safety x10 vs trend

12


Service quality


Political &

Socio-Economic

Expectations

Airspace

userneeds and

requirements


ATM contribution

Safety


complexity)


Weather

Ambientperformance

affectingfactors



Cost-effectiveness

Cost-effectiveness

Service Quality•Flight efficiency•Predictability•Flexibility

CapacitySafety

management

Prevailing economic

conditions

Securitymanagement

Security

13


Analysis of Air transport delays

Punctuality

% On-time

Schedule

Early arrival

OUT OFF ON IN

Buffer

Late arrival

AirborneTaxi Out Taxi In

Behind schedule

Ahead of schedule

Delay

ON Time

Mean (50%)

Time

80%

StdDev

Predictability

Spread

(Standard deviation)

Time of operation

Nu

mb

er

of

ob

se

rvati

on

s

(2)(2)

(1)(1) (1)(1)

Reduce variability

Closer to optimum

Optimising performanceHigh added-value:

Compressing half of European flight schedules by 5 minutes is worth some €1,000M p.a.

3%

12%

5%

3%1% 1%

11%

18%

22%22%

1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0-2

2-4

4-6

6-8

8-1

0

10-1

2

12-1

4

14-1

6

16-1

8

18-2

0

20-2

2

22-2

4

24-2

6

26-2

8

28-3

0

>30

Time bands in minutes

% o

f o

per

ated

ser

vic

es (

200

4)

Data source: EUROCONTROL/ eCODA

"Time to Take-off" distribution - Charles de Gaulle Airport

14


Departure punctuality

• 21.4% of flights arrived late in 2006 (23.1% in US)• Departure delays originate principally from turn-around processes (79% of primary dep. delays)

• Reactionary delays are increasing

7.9%5.6% 4.5%

2.1% 1.6% 1.4% 1.5% 1.6%1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1%

10%9% 10%

8% 8% 8% 9% 10%

13%

10% 9%

7% 6%7%

9%10%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006% o

f flig

hts

with

dep

art

ure

de

lay

> 1

5 m

in.

En-route ATFM regulations due to ATC Airport ATFM regulations (weather, capacity)

Turn around delays (airline, airport, etc.) Reactionary delays

69.0%

Primary delay distribution (2006)

9%

12%79%

74.4% 75.2% 82.5% 83.6% 81.8% 79.8%

source: AEA source: eCODA

Departure Punctuality78.1%

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

rati

o r

eac

tio

na

ry t

o p

rim

ary

dela

y

Sensitivity of the European air transport network to primary delays

AEA data eCODA data

Primary delay includes local turn around delays and en-route and airport ATFM delays

Punctuality

Reactionary/primary delays

15


Arrival and departure delays

Arrival delays are mostly driven by departure delaysDeparture delays mostly from airlines/airports processesAmplification of delays at some airports(Departure delays > arrival delays)

20

%

19

%

20

%

18

%

23

%

29

%

20

%

20

%

20

%

25

%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%D

ep.

toA

rr.

at

De

p.

fro

m

De

p.

toA

rr.

at

De

p.

fro

m

De

p.

toA

rr.

at

De

p.

fro

m

De

p.

toA

rr.

at

De

p.

fro

m

De

p.

toA

rr.

at

De

p.

fro

m

De

p.

toA

rr.

at

De

p.

fro

m

De

p.

toA

rr.

at

De

p.

fro

m

De

p.

toA

rr.

at

De

p.

fro

m

De

p.

toA

rr.

at

De

p.

fro

m

De

p.

toA

rr.

at

De

p.

fro

m

BCN CDG FCO FRA LHR MAD MUC MXP VIE ZRH

En-route ATFM delay Airport ATFM delay

Local turn-around delay (airlines, airport, etc.) Reactionary delay

% of

flig

hts

depa

rtin

g/

arr

ivin

g m

ore

than

15 m

in. b

ehin

d s

chedule

(2005)

Departure punctuality of inbound

flights at departure airports

Departure punctuality of outbound

flights at analysed airports

Arrival punctuality of inbound

flights at arrival airports

FLIGHT PERSPECTIVE

Drivers of departure delay:

source: eCODA

16


• Standard deviations of departure and arrival times reached 18 and 20 minutes respectively

• Pre-departure processes play a main role in this poor predictability, and ATM only a minor role.

• Lower punctuality and predictability negatively impacts the ability of airlines and airports to build and operate reliable and efficient schedules.

Air transport predictability

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.5

De

pa

rtu

retim

e

Ta

xi o

ut

+h

old

ing

Flig

ht

time

s

(cru

isin

g +

term

ina

l)

Ta

xi in

+w

aitin

g f

or

ga

te

Arr

iva

l tim

e

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

27.5

De

pa

rtu

retim

e

Ta

xi o

ut

+h

old

ing

Flig

ht

tim

es

(cru

isin

g +

term

ina

l)

Ta

xi in

+

wa

itin

g f

or

ga

te

Arr

iva

l tim

e

Intra European flights (89%) Flights from/to Europe (11%)

Gate-to-gate variability Gate-to-gate variability

Sta

nd

ard

de

via

tion

(m

inute

s)

Time of operation

Nu

mb

er

of

ob

se

rvati

on

s

(2)(2)

(1)(1) (1)(1)

Reduce variability

Closer to optimum

17


• Trade-off airport capacity / airborne delay

• Airport scheduling impacts ATM performance (TMA holding, environmental impact)

• Smoothing arrival flows and landing rates significantly improves the trade-off

Airport capacity/ delay trade-off

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1

Runway utilisation ratio

QU

EU

E L

EN

GT

H (

un

its o

f la

nd

ing

in

terv

al)

39 Sec. 30 Sec.

18 Sec. 0 Sec.

Variability of landing interval (std. dev.)

Variability of TMA entry flow (std. dev.) =20 MIN =2 MIN

Reduced variability of

landing interval

Reduced variability of

TMA entry flow

18


• Air transport punctuality and predictability could be improved in several ways:

- Improving adherence to scheduled departure times

- Maximising the use of airport capacity whilst minimising delays.

- Optimising the ground vs. airborne holding trade-off.

• SESAR places emphasis on flexibility (ability to recover from non nominal situations)

• Comparable metrics to be developed and agreed (Punctuality, ATM ground and airborne delay, etc).

Improving air transport network performance

TMA

Arrival airportDeparture airport

En-route

ATFM delays

Airport ATFM delays

Airborne holding

Reactionary

delays

Network delivery

(volume and variability of TMA entry flow)

Airport

scheduling(utilisation ratio)

Management ofarrival flows

Landing interval (actual throughput)

Local

turnaround delays

Arrival time variability

Departure time variability

Pre-departuredelays

19


50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

km

in

dex 1

99

0=

100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

mill

ion m

inute

s

Traffic volume (km)

Effective Capacity

En-route ATFM delay

source : EUROCONTROL

Widening

capacity gap

Closing

capacity gap

Closing

capacity gap

Ground delays managed by ATM

European delay target ACC capacity targets

European delay forecast ACC capacity commitments

European delay target ACC capacity targets

European delay forecast ACC capacity commitments

1,3 1,41,21,83,13,65,54,12,9 1,2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

min

ute

s p

er

flig

ht

-1.000

0

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

Flig

hts

in S

um

mer ('0

00)

En-route ATFM delay per flight (May-Oct.)

Airport ATFM delay per flight (May-Oct.)

En route

target En route

optimum

Target: 1.0min/flight

Actual: 1.4min/flight

Summer (May-October)

source : EUROCONTROL/CFMU

0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 0,8

TODAYATFM delays (ground)

• Flows essentially controlled through ground delays in Europe, MIT in US

• Major improvement in Europe since 1999

• 2002-05 ATFM en-route target met;

• ATFM delays increasing again since 2004;

• Estimated en-route ATFM delay costs:€ 550 M in 2006

Target (s)

• Trade-off delay/cost of capacity;

• Set with reference to optimum capacity/delay

• En-route ATFM: 1 minute per flight

• Others (i.e. ACC) to be developed

Management

• Co-operative capacity management;

OUTLOOK

20


ATFM Delays: Target setting

• Trade-off delay/cost of capacity

• Target setting based on understanding of optimum

• Optimum changes with improved cost-effectiveness (dynamic efficiency)

Static economic

optimum

Dynamic

economic

optimum

Delay costs

Cost of capacity

Total economic

costs

Capacity/demand ratio

Yea

rly c

osts

21


ATFM delay causes

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

En

-ro

ute

AT

FM

de

lay (

'00

0)

ATC CAPACITY (2006) ATC IND ACTION (2006)

ATC STAFFING (2006) WEATHER (2006)

OTHER (2006) Total en-route ATFM delay (2005)

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

20

04

20

05

20

06

Weekly en-route ATFM delay distribution Annual

source: EUROCONTROL

22


Service quality (continued)


Political &

Socio-Economic

Expectations

Airspace

userneeds and

requirements


ATM contribution

Safety


complexity)


Weather

Ambientperformance

affectingfactors



Cost-effectiveness

Cost-effectiveness

Service Quality•Flight efficiency•Predictability•Flexibility

CapacitySafety

management

Prevailing economic

conditions

Securitymanagement

Security

23


Flight Efficiency

PRC uses same framework as ICAO ANSEP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

rou

te e

xte

ns

ion

(k

m/f

lig

ht)

Direct en route

TMA Interface

Proposed target

- 2 km per f light

Actual Route (A)

Great Circle (G)

Direct route Extension

Direct Course (D)

TMA Interface

Route Extension

A

DG

30 NM

24


data source : U.S. Department of Energy (Rotterdam Jet Fuel Spo t Price)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

US

$ 2

00

6 p

er

barr

el

Flight efficiency (horizontal)

• Cost of horizontal route inefficiencies is estimated at 2.2 billion euro, to which vertical and TMA inefficiencies have to be added.

• Significant environmental impact (4.7 million tons of CO2 per annum)

• Costs increased further due to higher fuel prices in 2006

FlightFlight--efficiency is a main issueefficiency is a main issue

Direct link with environmental impactDirect link with environmental impact4.7 M tonsAdditional CO2

emissions

€ 2 230 MEstimated costs to airspace users

441 M kmAdditional distance

48.6 kmExtension per flight

5.9%Route Extension (%)

Total 2006

Fuel price

25


Improving Flight-efficiency

ATC routingRoute selectionEn-route designTotal


874.6 km

882.8 km

874.1 km

826.0 km

En-route

Extension

Actual route

(A)

Shortest Route

(S)

Filed Route

(F)

ATC routing

Route selection

En-route design

Great Circle

(G)

-1.0%

1.1%

5.8%

+ 48.6 km

- 8.2 km

+ 8.7 km

+ 48.0 km

5.9%

Strategic design and use of airspace are the main origins of route inefficiencies

26


En-route design

2000 city pairs or 150

most constraining points

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 2000 4000 6000

Number of origin-destination

Cu

mu

lative

sh

are

of e

xtr

a m

ile

s g

en

era

ted

50% of the flight

inefficiencies are

generated by 2100

origin-destination

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Number of constraining points

Cu

mu

lative

sh

are

of e

xtr

a m

iles g

en

era

ted

50% of the flight

inefficiencies are

generated by

150 points

Most constraining point

A

B

27



4.1%3.8%

4.1%3.8%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Week Days Week End

2005

2006

•Only minimal improvements in flight efficiency during week-ends (essentially no airspace restrictions)

=> 130 million Euro could be saved every year if the route network was one third more efficient during week-ends.

•Intra-European routes are significantly less efficient than domestic routes.

=> If the European route network was as efficient as the domestic networks, as one would expect under the SES, 150 to 300 million Euro could be saved every year.

There appears to be room for significant improvements:

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

0-400 km 400-800 km 800-1200 km 1200-1600 km 1600 -2000 km >2000 km

Great Circle Distance (between TMA)

Dir

ec

t ro

ute

ex

ten

sio

n (

%)

Domestic Intra-European Domestic-AVG Intra-European-AVG

Direct route efficiency

28



• Trade-off capacity – flight-efficiency: don’t jeopardize capacity where little margin

• Objective: a more efficient Trans-European network of upper airways

DemandDemand

29


Flight-efficiency: Route selection

Airspace structure En-route congestion

Route chargedifferentials

Example: Amsterdam to Torino



874.6 km

882.8 km

874.1 km

826.0 km

En-route

Extension

Actual route

(A)

Shortest Route

(S)

Filed Route

(F)

ATC routing

Route selection

En-route design

Great Circle

(G)

-1.0%

1.1%

5.8%

+ 48.6 km

- 8.2 km

+ 8.7 km

+ 48.0 km

5.9%

30


Flight Efficiency (horizontal): Conclusions

Target Performance to date

• Horizontal en-route flight efficiency is a major ATM performance issue;

• Cost of horizontal en-route route inefficiencies is estimated at 2.2 billion Euro;

• Significant environmental impact (4.7 million tons of CO2 per annum);

• Costs increased further due to higher fuel prices in 2006;

Indicators and trade-offs

• Safety and capacity gains require a certain level of “inefficiency” in the route network;

• Focus has been on safety and capacity so far;

• Need to develop indicators to measure vertical flight efficiency and TMA inefficiencies (airborne holdings);

Target

• Agreed target is to reduce the additional distance flown due to route extension by 2 km per flight each year until 2010

OUTLOOK

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

rou

te e

xte

nsio

n (

km

/flig

ht)

Direct en route

TMA Interface

Proposed target

- 2 km per f light

-2.3-1.0-0.20CO2

savings (million tons)

-1 080-450-1000Cost savings (million euro)

-216-90-200Distance saved (million km)

40.646.648.6Target (km per flight)

11.210.09.6Number of flights (million)

Total201020072006

31


Framework for analysis of ATM performance

ENVIRONMENT SECURITYECONOMYSAFETYPolitical &

Socio-Economic

perspective

Airspace

users

perspective

Service

providerperspective

Safety

Traffic (volume, complexity)


Runwayincursions

Safety culture (reporting, etc.)

Airspace events

Safety management

Weather

To be developed


Quality of

service

Flexibility

Predictability

Strategic costs (buffer)

Costs due to sub-optimal operations

Efficiency

Airport/TMA capacity

ATFM/ Networkcapacity

Capacity management

En-route capacity

Use of

airspace

Cost-effectiveness

ATCO productivity

Employment costs

Support costs

Cost management

MET costs

Eurocontrolcosts

ATM/CNSProvision cost

Reg. costs

ANS provision costs

Ambient

performance affecting

factors

Gaseous

emissions

Flight

efficiency

Grounddelay

Political/ Environ. Regulations/ restrictions

atm performance frameworkatm performance framework · performance review commission atm performance...

Documents