global air navigation services performance report 2018 ans performance report … · contribution...

civil air navigation services organisation

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 20182013 - 2017 Performance Results of Air Navigation Service Providers

The ANSP View

2

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

Contents

THE ANSP VIEW

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................page 3

Measuring Performance .................................................................................................................page 4

CANSO ANS Performance Framework ..........................................................................................page 5

2017 Participation...........................................................................................................................page 9

2017 Performance Data ................................................................................................................page 12

Continental Cost-Efficiency and Productivity: 2017 ................................................................page 13

Oceanic Cost-Efficiency and Productivity: 2017 ......................................................................page 26

Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost-Efficiency: 2017 .............................................................page 33

Sources .........................................................................................................................................page 35

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Data definitions .............................................................................................................page 36

Annex 2: Contextual Data ............................................................................................................page 38

Annex 3: KPI Data ........................................................................................................................page 70

Annex 4: Acronyms and abbreviations .........................................................................................page 84

3


Introduction

Comparing ANSP Performance

Air navigation service providers (ANSP) are responsible for managing global air traffic safely, efficiently, and cost-effectively. This includes managing and enhancing airspace capacity through improvements to infrastructure and technology, and improving efficiency through a skilled and productive workforce and an innovative and technological approach to airspace management.

The performance of the air navigation system impacts stakeholders across the aviation value chain. From boosting connectivity and minimising delays to upholding the highest standard of safety in aviation, efficient, effective air navigation services are a critical component of a high-performance aviation industry. To that end, CANSO has developed benchmarking tools that aggregate and review global performance accordingly.

Comparing and benchmarking key financial and productivity indicators enables ANSPs to make informed decisions when pursuing increased cost-effectiveness and productivity, without impacting safety – the industry’s top priority. It helps ANSPs to work together to address both their own performance and that of the ATM industry worldwide. The CANSO Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report does not therefore seek to compare the results of various ANSPs to a ‘best-in-class’; rather it highlights global performance trends and identifies performance gaps, acting as a basis for collective improvement.


The CANSO Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018 contains performance indicators for identified ANSPs for the year 2017, along with trend data between the 2013 and 2017 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 included within the contextual data, providing insight into the results of the participating ANSPs.

An overview of the key findings can be found in the Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018: Executive Summary.

https://www.canso.org/global-air-navigation-services-performance-report-2018-executive-summary

https://www.canso.org/global-air-navigation-services-performance-report-2018-executive-summary

4


Measuring Performance

Cost-efficiency and productivity are two key indicators used to determine the performance of air navigation service provision. They demonstrate how ANSPs are delivering value and serve as indicators of operational efficiency.

Cost-Efficiency

Cost-efficiency provides an indication of the balance between operational effectiveness (i.e. ATCO productivity) and the cost of providing the service.

The simplest indicator of Cost-Efficiency is the cost of providing ANS services per IFR flight hour. A lower cost per flight hour, however, is not necessarily indicative of improved overall performance.

Economic differences outside of the control of ANSPs can drive differences in costs. This includes labour contracts, salary scales and working conditions (such as hours), as well as government regulations on pension management and mandatory financial controls. Furthermore, ANSPs do not control the volume of traffic, which is a function of economic activity and other air passenger demands. Where a minimum level of service is required, there is a limit to how activities can be scaled down in response to lower demand.

Cost indicators do not reflect external factors, other performance areas or the quality of service. Moreover, there are costs associated with providing a safer and more punctual, predictable and efficient service.

Costs are broken down into ATCOs in OPS employment and other costs. Other costs include operating costs (excluding ATCO in OPS Employment costs), depreciation/amortization and costs of capital related to providing ATC/ATFM services. They do not include costs for meteorological services.

Productivity

The key indicator of ANS productivity is IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS hour, often described as ‘ATCO in OPS productivity’.

Although generally reflective of ANSPs’ performance, factors beyond the control of the ANSP can cause low levels of productivity – for example a geopolitical event that alters traffic.

ATCO in OPS productivity is driven by traffic levels and an ANSP’s ability to utilise its ATCOs in operations (OPS) resources. Although they cannot affect traffic level, ANSPs may improve productivity by utilising flexible rostering and the adapting airspace configuration to open and close sectors according to evolving traffic patterns.

Furthermore, advances in technology are now focusing more than ever on reducing the workload of ATCOs in OPS to enable them to manage higher levels of traffic in a given volume of airspace. Training associated with the introduction of technology, however, can lead to short-term reductions in productivity.

Airspace complexity also affects ATCO in OPS productivity. Lower airspace will typically have lower levels of ATCO in OPS productivity than upper airspace where aircraft are flying at more consistent altitudes and on non-crossing routes.

5


Figure 1: CANSO ANS performance framework

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

1

2A

3A 3B 3C

2D 2C2B

Cost-efficiency KPI:

ATCOs in OPS costs Other costs

ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour

Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS

Annual working hours per ATCO in OPS

Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS

Proportion of total costs made up of ATCO in OPS employment costs

ATCOs in OPS employment cost


ATCOs in OPS hours IFR flight hours


Costs excl. ATCOs in OPS employment costs

• Frontline staff• ATCOs in non-OPS• Remaining

employment costs• Remaining

operational costs• Depreciation costs• Capital costs

IFR flight hours

ATCOs in OPS hours

No. ATCOs in OPS

No. ATCOs in OPS

No. ATCOs in OPS

Total Costs IFR flight hoursATCOs in OPS hours

ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

Total Costs

IFR flight hours

CANSO ANS Performance Framework

The determining metrics for cost-efficiency and productivity are outlined in the CANSO ANS Performance Framework. The framework was established to create common performance indicators for global air navigation services (ANS) data.

Over the years, the CANSO Global Benchmarking Workgroup has worked to identify alternative KPIs to investigate the drivers of the KPIs in the framework, in particular KPI 2C. This year, KPI 2D has been added to the framework to recognise the relative contribution of ‘ATCO in OPS Employment costs’ to total ANS provision costs. It measures the proportion of total costs comprised of ATCO employment costs.

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

KPI 2AKPI 2B

KPI 1= +KPI 2C

KPI 3AKPI 3B

KPI 2A =

KPI 3CKPI 3B

KPI 2B =

KPI 1-KPI 2CKPI 1KPI 3B

KPI 3CKPI 3BKPI 2D = =

( )

6


List of Key Performance Indicators

Indicator KPI Numerator Denominator Figure References

Cost-Efficiency and Productivity Performance IndicatorsContinental Oceanic

2017/ Trend 2017

1Cost per IFR flight hour

Total Cost IFR flight hours Figure 3 Figure 13

2A

ATCOs in OPS Employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour

Employment costs for ATCOs in OPS

ATCOs in OPS hours

Figure 4, 5Figure 14, 15

2BATCOs in OPS hour productivity

IFR flight hoursATCOs in OPS hours

Figure 6 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 7 Figure 17

2D

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

Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS

Total Costs Figure 8 Figure 18

3AAnnual employment cost per ATCO in OPS


ATCOs in OPS Figure 9, 10

3BAnnual Working hours per ATCO in OPS

ATCOs in OPS hours

ATCOs in OPS Figure 11

3CAnnual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS

IFR flight hours ATCOs in OPS Figure 12

Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost-Efficiency Performance Indicators

Continental and Oceanic

2017/Trend

CO1Cost per IFR flight hour

Total Cost IFR flight hours Figure 19

CO2D

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


Total Cost Figure 20

Note that KPI CO1 is the combined continental and oceanic metric for KPI 1. Likewise, KPI CO2D is the combined continental and oceanic metric for KPI 2D.

7


Data Processing

Data collection: CANSO ANSP Members provided data for this analysis. ANSPs either submit the minimum dataset required for participation in the report (basic data), or additional data to inform the analysis of trial KPIs (advanced data).

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. The advanced KPI dataset is only available to ANSPs submitting advanced data.

Data processing: Data has been processed by Helios subject to a data processing agreement with CANSO and in accordance with European data privacy laws. 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 oceans.

Exchange rate conversion: ANSPs submit data in their chosen currency. For KPI comparison, data is presented in USD. 2017 KPI data is converted using 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 2013 and 2017, 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 2017 and then for the one-year and four-year trends. The trend over four years is calculated as the compound annual growth rate (4 yr CAGR). The use of a CAGR shows clearly the overall trend between 2013 and 2017. 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 2013 was an outlier, this trend may not be representative of the trend over this timeframe.

The trend analysis is presented above the 2017 KPI data and is based on the data submitted in the ANSP’s chosen currency.

Inflation: It should be noted that the growth rates are not adjusted for inflation, and local inflation rates should therefore be considered when interpreting AGR trends.

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. The third quartile (Q3) is the middle value between the median and the highest value of the data set. The average is the mean result.

8


Reporting periods

In 2017, Airways New Zealand changed its reference period to align it with its most recent report (i.e. moved from July 2015 – June 2016 to July 2016 – June 2017). This was to improve consistency with localised reporting and to provide more relevant benchmarking opportunities with other ANSPs. Annual Growth Rates (AGRs) contained within last year’s report were measured between the 2016 and 2017 submissions; due to the change in reporting period, Airways New Zealand’s AGR in 2017 therefore crossed two years. This must be taken into account when comparing AGR data in this year’s report (which only cover a year) with the same metrics included in last year’s report.

It is intended that next year’s report will bring all ANSPs with fiscal years that do not run between January and December in line with the most recent, and therefore relevant reporting period. This year, readers are encouraged to check reporting periods when comparing individual ANSPs. These are outlined within the Executive Summary.

9


2017 Participation

Data submissions were received from 30 ANSPs, which included 2 new participants1.

The 2017 data submission covers2:

Total IFR flight hours: 43 million

Total costs: USD 226,712 million Total ATCOs in operations: 28,063

Region Member Label for Graphics

Africa Air Traffic & Navigation Services ATNS

Kenya Civil Aviation Authority KCAA

Americas 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

Airservices Australia Airservices

Airways New Zealand Airways NZ

Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore CAAS

Japan Air Navigation Service JANS

Papua New Guinea Air Services Ltd PNGASL

Europe Air Navigation Services Finland Oy ANS Finland

Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic ANS CR

Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü DHMI

Direction des Services de la navigation aérienne DSNA

Estonian Air Navigation Services EANS

HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co. HungaroControl

ISAVIA Ltd ISAVIA

Luftfartsverket LFV

Latvijas gaisa satiksme LGS

Letové prevádzkové služby LPS

Macedonian Air Navigation Service Provider, GOJSC MNAV

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

SE Oro Navigacija Oro Navigacija

Polish Air Navigation Services Agency PANSA

Sakaeronavigatsia Ltd Sakaeronavigatsia

skyguide skyguide

Slovenia Control Slovenia Control

Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services SMATSA IIc SMATSA

Table 1: Participating ANSPs

1 Two new submissions from DSNA and skyguide were received for the final report. In addition, one ANSP opted out of the full report and another ANSP opted out of the ANSP View.

2 As some ANSPs did not submit data for every field, this is not the total for all participating ANSPs; rather it is the total of all data submitted.

10


Region Member Fiscal Year Dates Legal Status

Africa ATNS Apr 2017 – Mar 2018* B

KCAA Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 B

Americas FAA-ATO Oct 2016 – Sep 2017 A

NAV CANADA Sep 2016 – Aug 2017 E

SENEAM Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 A

Asia Pacific AEROTHAI Oct 2016 - Sep 2017 D

AAI Apr 2017 – Mar 2018 B

Airways NZ Jul 2017 – Jun 2018 C

CAAS Apr 2017 – Mar 2018 B

JANS Apr 2017 – Mar 2018 A

Europe ANS Finland Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 C

ANS CR Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 C

DHMI B

DSNA Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 B

EANS C

HungaroControl Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 C

Isavia Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 C

LFV Jan 2017 – Dec 2017

LGS Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 C

LPS Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 B

MNAV B

NAV Portugal Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 C

PANSA Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 B

PNGASL Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 B

Oro navigacija Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 C

Sakaeronavigatsia C

skyguide C

Slovenia Control C

SMATSA Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 Other3

Table 2: ANSP Fiscal Years for 2017 and Legal Status. Note that data is collected within ANSP fiscal years and this differs between providers. *Indicates an ANSP providing data from previous fiscal year.

Identifier Legal Status Count

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

3

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

10

C 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).

12

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

1

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

1

Table 3: Legal Status Definition

3 Limited liability company, 100% state-owned (92% owned by Serbia and 8% owned by Montenegro).

11


ANSPTotal IFR Flight Hours 2017 (Continental)

Growth IFR Flight Hours (Continental)

Total IFR Flight Hours 2017 (Oceanic)

Growth IFRFlight Hours (Oceanic)

FAA ATO 24,151,615 1.48% 2,077,611 4.64%

AAI 3,308,762 7.59%

NAV CANADA 3,032,766 4.51% 648,435 4.82%

DSNA 2,392,068 4.57% 157,871

JANS 2,350,845 3.94%

SENEAM 1,432,251 1.78%

DHMI 1,346,381 7.58%

AEROTHAI 808,946 8.07%

CAAS 456,426 6.12%

LFV 448,004 3.74%

PANSA 443,466 4.07%

NAV Portugal 418,277 5.09%

skyguide 342,212

ATNS 282,271 -0.68% 9,975 12.34%

Airways NZ 270,525 2.00% 122,609 4.60%

ANS CR 259,897 3.14%

HungaroControl 255,714 7.38%

SMATSA 246,294 3.51%

ANS Finland 112,468 6.80%

LPS SR 101,866 4.22%

PNGASL 84,420 24.48%

LGS 79,154 0.21%

KCAA 77,052 4.47%

EANS 72,492 6.81%

Oro navigacija 57,344 5.28%

Slovenia Control 54,191 7.08%

Sakaeronavigatsia 53,453 4.99%

Isavia 34,390 14.16% 274,588 5.58%

M-NAV 28,749

Figure 2 - Participating ANSPs Flight Hours

12


2017 Performance Data

The following section presents 2017 performance data and 2013-2017 trend data for both continental and oceanic activities in line with the CANSO ANS Performance Framework levels 1-3 (see page 5).

13


Continental Cost-Efficiency and Productivity: 2017

2017 Continental – Cost-Efficiency Indicator 1: Cost per IFR hour (USD)

Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours

Figure 3 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)

The 2017 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 428 compared to USD 416 in 2016. The group of ANSPs that increased this metric generally saw increases in both the ATCO employment costs and other costs categories, as demonstrated by KPI 2A

and KPI 2C results. There wasn’t a consistent cause of the increases, although increased employment, training and/or salaries were common themes. Specific ANSP comments are outlined below.

14


ATNS

ATNS’ increase in total costs is mostly due to an increase in ATS personnel numbers which is closer to the target. The number of ATS personnel has never been this high before.

DHMI

Costs increased across the board for DHMI, in part due to the significant rise in inflation rate. The actual rate in 2017 was 11.92%, which exceeds the latest forecast by 5.92%.

Isavia

The 22.7% increase in total unit costs for Isavia is connected to a 15.5% increase in traffic at Keflavík International Airport (BIKF) between 2016 and 2017, which in turn has led to an increase in workforce size and overtime.

PANSA

The rise in PANSA’s total costs is due to compliance with local cost-efficiency targets that are set out in Poland’s revised EU Performance Plan for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019.

15


2017 Continental – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator 2A: ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD)

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

Figure 4 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)

The 2017 average ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour is USD 83, a minor increase from the average of USD 80 in 2016. ANSPs increasing the metric attributed the reasoning to pay revisions (either driven by law or management decisions) or overtime.

16


AAI

AAI’s costs were driven up by a revision in pay; additional performance-related pay-outs in arrears for the previous year (and paid in 2017); and a recruitment drive that resulted in the addition of 200 members of staff.

AEROTHAI

In 2017, AEROTHAI commenced the transition phase toward a new ATM system. As a result there was an increase in employee overtime and, as a result, increased employment cost.

ATNS

The number of ATCOs has increased at ATNS, while the average age and experience has decreased, thereby meaning the average ATCO salary is declining.

DHMI

A decision was taken by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security during the Collective Labor Agreement Debates regarding all public entities, and which is also binding for DHMI. This decision has led to an additional increase of staff costs.

Isavia

Isavia saw an increase in employment costs due to increased training to address the expanded workforce.

LPS SR

LPS SR saw a significant increase in staff costs due to a legislative change that took effect from 1 January 2017. This overhauled pension contributions which saw minimum pension contributions rise and removed limits on maximum contributions.

Nav Portugal

With no variation in the number of ATCOs available, the increase of ATCOs employment costs was mainly due to the mitigation measures implemented throughout the year to deal with the increase in traffic and keep ATFM delays under control. The replacement in 2017 of the hour value for the overtime work and the productivity compensation also contributed to this variation.

PANSA

The rise in PANSA’s staff costs is due to compliance with local cost- efficiency targets that are set out in Poland’s revised EU Performance Plan for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019.

Sakaeronavigatsia

Sakaeronavigatsia saw a large decrease in identified staff costs due to a change in the method of calculation. In 2016, staff costs accounted for all ATC Department, because they did not have information on the remuneration of ATCO in Ops. However, from 2017 they have separated these into categories and only included the renumeration for ATCO in OPS for this year going forward. The growth rates are therefore excluded from the percentage change graph for indicators 1, 2A, 2D and 3A.

17


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

The 2017 average ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, after PPP adjustment is USD 125 compared with USD 127 in 2016.

18


2017 Continental – ProductivityIndicator 2B: ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hoursFigure 6 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

The 2017 average ATCOs in OPS hour productivity is 0.72, up slightly from 0.71 in 2016. This figure is influenced by the effect of traffic increasing quicker than ATCO hours for some ANSPs.

AEROTHAI

Comparing to 2016, AEROTHAI productivity has increased by 11% due to increased traffic while the number of ATCO hours has stayed almost constant from the previous year.

19


Figure 7 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)

The 2017 average cost excluding ATCOs in operations employment cost per IFR flight hour is USD 332, up from USD 296 in 2016. The majority of ANSPs increased this metric, linked to higher investments. These may be driven by preparations to meet rising traffic in the future.

2017 Continental – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator 2C: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD)

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

20


ATNS

During the period, ATNS was in the process of implementing the Topsky ATM system and as such, contractual costs related to the project were incurred. This increased other costs.

Isavia

The increase in KPI 2C is connected to a reappraisal of necessary expenditures related to the 2015 move and restructuring of the approach department from the tower in Keflavik to the Reykjavik ACC.

PANSA

PANSA saw increases in operating costs for 2017-19 as a result of local cost- efficiency targets revision - costs rose mainly due to increased investment infrastructure projects.

PNGASL

PNGASL decreased this metric due to improvement in the management of PNGASL human resources in the ATC environment.

21


2017 Continental – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator 2D: Proportion of total costs made up of ATCO in OPS employment costs (USD)

Formula: ATCO in OPS employment costs/Total Costs

Figure 8 - Proportion of total costs made up of ATCO employment costs (USD)

The 2017 average for the proportion of total costs made up of ATCO in OPS employment costs is 0.31. This indicates that on average 31% of total continental ANS costs are spent on employing ATCOs in OPS.

22


2017 Continental – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator 3A: Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS (USD)

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

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

The 2017 average unit ATCO in OPS employment cost is USD 126,687, which increased from USD 121,021 in 2016.

AAI, Aerothai, LPS SR, Isavia, and Nav Portugal all saw rises in ATCO in OPS employment costs which drove the increases in this KPI. The reasons are outlined alongside the results for KPI 2A.

23


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

The 2017 average unit ATCO in OPS employment cost, after PPP adjustment, is USD 191,373. Last year’s figure was USD 192,241.

24


2017 Continental – ProductivityIndicator 3B: Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS

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

Figure 11 - Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS

The 2017 average annual working hours per ATCO in OPS is 1,618 hours, up from 1,593 hours in 2016.

Sakaeronavigatsia

The Georgian ANSP saw a large increase in working hours, again in part due to the revision of ATCO hours recognised.

25


2017 Continental – ProductivityIndicator 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 2017 average annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS is 1,159 IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS. This compares to the 2016 average of 1,101 hours. The causes of rises in this metric are similar to those for the increases in KPI 2B (ATCO in OPS productivity); some ANSPs noted rises in IFR flight hours outweighed the increase in number of ATCOs in OPS.

ATNS

The increase in new ATS personnel lead to slight decrease in the average IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS across the year.

26



The 2017 average cost per IFR flight hour (excluding DSNA) is USD 97, compared to USD 90 in 2016. For comparison, this figure for continental flights is USD 428.

DSNA

DSNA represents an outlier in the dataset, because their oceanic data is comprised of overseas territories only (for instance, French Polynesia in the South Pacific). The low number of oceanic IFR hours in these regions leads to a total of oceanic costs per IFR hour that is quite high when compared to other ANSPs.

Oceanic Cost-Efficiency and Productivity: 2017

2017 Oceanic – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator 1: Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)

Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours

27


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

The 2017 oceanic average employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is USD 111, down from USD 122 in 2016. For comparison, the figure for continental airspace is USD 83.

2017 Oceanic – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator 2A: ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs hour (USD)

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

28


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

The 2017 oceanic average employment cost per ATCO (PPP Adjusted) in OPS hour is USD 110. Last year’s figure, meanwhile, was USD 118. For comparison, the average figure for continental airspace is USD 125.

29


Figure 16 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

The 2017 average ATCOs in OPS hour productivity is 3.6 IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS hours, significantly higher than the continental figure of 0.72. This figure is down from 4.1 in 2016.

2017 Oceanic – ProductivityIndicator 2B: ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours

30


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

The 2017 average cost excluding ATCOs in operations employment cost per IFR flight hour is USD 188. Excluding DSNA, however, the average is 69. This compares to 2016’s average of 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 the costs are – excluding ATCO costs – for oceanic service provision.

2017 Oceanic – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator 2C: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD)

31


DSNA

A significant number of small controlled airports from overseas (especially in French Polynesia, South Pacific) increases the ratio for costs excluding ATCO in OPS Employment costs per IFR time, due to the high support operating costs and low IFR traffic on these airports. The reason for the presence of DSNA in these areas is not only for operational purposes, but mostly motivated by French State requirements.

32


Figure 18 - Proportion of total costs made up of ATCO employment costs (USD)

The 2017 average for the proportion of total costs made up of ATCO employment costs is 0.30.

2017 Oceanic – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator 2D: Proportion of total costs made up of ATCO employment costs (USD)

Formula: ATCO employment costs/Total Costs

33



The 2017 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 421 which is higher than the 2016 figure of USD 409. Compare this average value to that from Figure 4 – Cost per IFR flight hour (continental) – where the average value is USD 433; this reflects the influence of a small number of ANSPs that have oceanic services with significantly lower unit costs.

Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost-Efficiency: 2017

2017 Continental and Oceanic – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator CO1: Cost per IFR hour (USD)

Formula: Total costs /IFR flight hours

34


igure 20 - Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs

The 2017 average employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs is 31%, slightly higher than 2016’s value of 29%.

2017 Continental and Oceanic – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator CO2D: Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs

Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / Total costs

35


Sources

Definitions: • EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V2.6

• EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V3.0

Exchange rate data: • 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

• xe.com/currencytables/

IMF World Economic Outlook database: • imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/index.aspx

36


Annex 1: Data definitions

Contextual Data Element Definitions

Data Element Definitions

IFR hours per sq. kmThis 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 FIRsA Flight Information Region is airspace of defined dimensions within which flight information service and alerting service are provided.

Number of ACC facilitiesACC 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. Tower facilities, or 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.

37


Input Data Definitions

Data Element Definitions

Total Costs

The sum of operating costs, depreciation/amortization 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 hoursTotal number of controlled IFR flight hours in continental and oceanic airspace.

ATCO hoursTotal 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 operating costs minus 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.

38


Annex 2: Contextual Data

ANSP: Airports Authority of India

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

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

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

Technological upgradation, human capital improvements, optimization 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

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

100% 0%

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

100% 100% ADS-C

Number of FIRs 1 3 Oceanic FIRs are also partially continental.

Facilities

Number of ACC facilities 0


0

Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0


51

Number of stand-alone towers 7

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

13

39


ANSP: AEROTHAI


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


Technological upgradation, human capital improvements, optimization of resources.

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic

The demand is over airspace capacity.

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. 1.0401

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 777,760


100%


100%

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



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


0

40


ANSP: Airways New Zealand


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


Continuing increase in capital spend. Ongoing development of operations 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 data

IFR 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

Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0 0


7 0

Number of stand-alone towers 10 0


0 0

41


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 2016 to 2019. Objectives cover 4 KPAs: safety, environment, capacity and cost-efficiency.


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 2017



Operational data




100%


100%

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



1 To avoid confusion in above and current lines, there is only one ACC (Praha), which is co-located with APP



3



0

42


ANSP: Air Navigation Services Finland Oy (Previously Finavia)


SES-regulation/performance requirements


1. FAB co-operation projects2. For ANS Finland rostering principles review3. Investment / procurement programs4. Staff reductions


Corporatization took place 2017 (separation of ANS and airports businesses in individual companies).


New revenue and cost structure due to separation of ANS Finland from airport operator Finavia.

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). General Companies act is applied.


Operational data




100%


100%

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities

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


1



5



1

43


ANSP: Air Traffic & Navigation Services (South Africa)


To provide safe, expeditious and efficient air traffic management solutions and associated services.


Aircraft equipage that is behind by African operators, economic and political issues.


Implementation of ASBU Blocks, Topsky ATM Tool and ADS-B coverage


None.



Operational data




0% 0%


95% 0%

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

Facilities



0 0



9 0



2 0 Oceanic is provided in one of the centres

44


ANSP: Civil Aviation Authority of SingaporeLegal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.


Operational data




69%


100%

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



0



0



0

45


ANSP: Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.


Operational data




100%


Number of FIRs 2

Facilities



1



44



0

46


ANSP: Direction des Services de la navigation Aérienne


Yes, European ones


Traffic increase and duration of ATCO initial training


Rostering optimization


Traffic increase



Operational data


Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 1,010,000 15,437,214 For overseas, this covers New Caledonia, Tahiti, La Réunion, Saint Pierre, Cayenne and Antilles facilities.


100% 1.88%


100% 95.02%

Number of FIRs 5 2 Overseas TMA within foreign FIRs (French Antilles) are not taken into consideration

Facilities



0 0



12 6



0 2

47


ANSP: Estonian Air Navigation ServicesLegal 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 data





Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



1



1

Number of stand-alone towers


1

48


ANSP: Federal Aviation Administration – Air Traffic OrganizationLegal 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




100%


Number of FIRs 21 5

Facilities



3



132

Number of stand-alone towers 131 Excludes federal contract towers


1

49


ANSP: HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co


Performance scheme KPI targets


The main driver of the 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 sectorization in order to minimize delay and overtime of ATCOs.


Continuously significant growth in traffic.



Operational data


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

50


ANSP: Japan Air Navigation Service


We have stated objectives such as “Enhance aviation safety”, “Expand air navigation capacity to meet ever increasing air traffic volume”, “Improve convenience through upgrading efficiency of aviation services”, “Increase efficiency of operation including cost reductions”, “Enhance efficiency of air navigation services”, and “Focus on environmental consciousness such as CO2 emissions reduction and noise abatement”.


Functional enhancement of the Tokyo metropolitan airports toward the Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games to be held in 2020.


1. Introduction of Integrated Air Traffic Control Data Processing System

2. Enhancement of capacity and efficiency of the Tokyo metropolitan airports

3. Optimization of the Tokyo metropolitan airspace and establishment of new routes


The IFR flight hours in the Fukuoka FIR have increased by 3.9% compared to the previous year. In particular, the hours of international flights and over flights have grown by 4.8% and 11.9% respectively.

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


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

51


ADS-C: Applicable within oceanic sectors.



0



13



0

52


ANSP: Kenya Civil Aviation Authority


Ensure safe and efficient air navigation services


Modernization of ANS system, capacity building


Slight decrease in air traffic due to political atmosphere associated with the election period.



Operational data

IFR hours per sq. km. 77,052



100%


12.5% ADS-C only

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



1



3



1

53


ANSP: Luftfartsverket (LFV)


Operational data





Number of FIRs

Facilities



2



14

Number of stand-alone towers


54


ANSP: Latvijas gaisa satiksme


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



Operational data




0% 100% - radar; 100% - ADS-B ready (not used operationally)


0% 100% - radar; 100% - ADS-B ready (not used operationally) 0% - ADS-C

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



1



0



0

55


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 long-term demand for air transport and maintain a safe, fast and orderly flow of air traffic at the same time

3. To minimize 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


Procurement of the radio communication system was successfully finished and the contract was signed at the end of 2017. The new radio system will be introduced into full operation by March 2019. VoIP pilot continued with regard to acceptance of recording systems.


No.



Operational data





56


Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



0



2



0

57


ANSP: Macedonian Air Navigation Service Provider


Yes. They are stated in the M-NAV Strategic Business Plan 2018-2022. They are: Achieve international and national standards in safety, quality and security; optimize airspace capacity; optimize cost of services; comply with the associated SES Regulations, Guidelines and SES II; support national and international environmental standards; enhance human resources management; adapt managerial structures to future SES Requirements.


SES regulation; rapid evolution of traffic (16,7% increase in summer 2017)


New ATM system project; optimization of human resources; flexible sectorisation



Operational data




100% Radar only


100% Radar only

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



0



1



1

58


ANSP: NAV CANADALegal status: A private, not-for-profit company providing services in accordance with Canada’s Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act.


Operational data




100% 20%


100% 100%

Number of FIRs 7 1

Facilities



0



0



0

59


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 have suffered again in 2017 a significant and unexpected traffic increase.



Operational data


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



7 0



0 0

60


ANSP: Oro navigacija


Objectives coming from performance plan, as well as coming from strategic and business plans (more as specific tasks and achievables) rather than KPIs.


Performance scheme, macroeconomic development, political situation.


Various optimization-modernization initiatives, technological investment projects


Staff costs well controlled and in line with Performance Plan budgeted numbers despite the fact that traffic growth is outpacing initial forecasts and country's labor market is overheating and average salaries growing by almost 10% each year. Other operating costs decreased significantly compared to the ones determined in PP (78%) as well as actual of 2016 (78.5%). To name a few most important factors: no more costs (2015-2016) related to the construction of the road to new ACC and administration building construction, stricter control of spending; heightened focus on increasing transparency of our procurement procedures resulted in postponements (into 2018) of acquiring some goods and services; whereas in tenders successfully closed substantial savings were generated; lesser usage and lower prices for utilities. Depreciation costs were lower than those projected in PP by -6.5% (93,5%) as several investment projects are being delayed as a consequence of itself delayed (due to legal issues) new ACC and administration building.



Operational data




100%


100%

Number of FIRs 1

61


Facilities



0



3



0

62


ANSP: Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA)


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.


Vertical split implementation: 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.


Due to lower execution of en-route Service Units (SU) in 2015 (by more than 10%), alert mechanism was activated. In 2016 the situation was still far from assumed in the original Performance Plan. These circumstances significantly impact the financial situation of the Polish Air Navigation Services Agency.

Poland requested, in accordance with Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, permission of the European Commission to revise local cost- efficiency targets for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019, next PANSA presented updated costs for 2017-2019.

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


Operational data




100% Radar only


0%

Number of FIRs 1

63


Facilities



1



0



0

64


ANSP: Papua New Guinea Air Services Ltd


Stated objectives are: Enhance ANS/ATC reliability and accessibility, enhance safety, achieve efficient integrated business systems and processes, improve business applications and connectivity and modernize infrastructure and other corporative objectives.


Safety and efficiency


Upgrading and modernization of CNS/ATM equipment and ANS systems


Planning of 2018 APAC meeting, which will be hosted by PNG



Operational data

IFR hours per sq. km.

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 3.6 million


100% Radar only


N/A

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



1



6



0

65


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)


Operational data




100% Radar only


100% Radar only

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



5



4



6

66


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: 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




90% 0% Approximate


0% 0% Approximate

Number of FIRs 1 1

Facilities



4



22



0

67


ANSP: skyguide


skyguide is bound to the Single European Sky performance scheme. Objectives (Key Performance Indicators and targets) are set in Safety, Capacity, Environment and Cost-Efficiency Key Performance Areas either at national or Functional Airspace Blocks levels.


Traffic density and complexity


Direct routes (DCT) deployment before Free Route Airspace deployment.


Traffic growth, variability of traffic, strength of the Swiss franc

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 data




100%


100% ANS provided in delegated airspace (France, Germany, Italy, Austria) as well

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



2



9



0

68


ANSP: Slovenia Control


Changes in traffic flows.


Providing capacity and cost control.


No.

Legal status: A corporatized 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 data

IFR hours per sq. km. 2.7096 Total IFR flight-hours controlled by the ANSP used



100%


100%

Number of FIRs 1

Facilities



1



2



0

69


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.


Operational data


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



70


Annex 3: KPI Data

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

ANSP KPI 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR

AAI 80.92 6.68% -1.99%

AEROTHAI 347.90 2.23%

Airways NZ 395.10 3.49% 2.93%

ANS CR 580.02 3.16% 1.35%

ANS Finland 625.83 -7.18% 1.62%

ATNS 330.28 19.00% 6.79%

CAAS 363.88 2.17% 6.33%

DHMI 371.86 11.09% 10.49%

DSNA 662.37 -1.77% -0.75%

EANS 309.42 1.11% 3.56%

FAA ATO 452.38 -0.20% -1.08%

HungaroControl 464.48 -0.44% -2.02%

Isavia 221.61 22.72% 36.65%

KCAA 138.60 -29.52%

JANS 519.09 -4.52% -3.38%

LFV 445.97 -6.95% -0.62%

LGS 279.80 12.30% 10.61%

LPS SR 692.56 0.23% -1.33%

M-NAV 495.01

NAV CANADA 328.77 2.08% 1.00%

NAV Portugal 369.60 6.27% -3.25%

Oro navigacija 529.75 -0.64% 0.89%

PANSA 491.42 14.04% 5.57%

PNGASL 59.15 -13.88%

Sakaeronavigatsia 530.87 10.79% 12.44%

SENEAM 100.11 -1.75%

skyguide 1195.15

Slovenia Control 679.67 -7.42%

SMATSA 362.86 3.05% 0.43%

71


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


AAI 21.32 25.70% 7.81%

AEROTHAI 34.25 19.17%

Airways NZ 94.45 0.93% 2.57%

ANS CR 122.34 4.82% 7.78%

ANS Finland 88.18 -17.87% 2.58%

ATNS 33.33 -6.10% 2.47%

DHMI 66.43 15.77% 12.97%

DSNA 117.87 3.26% 1.67%

EANS 70.61 3.28% 3.55%

FAA ATO 120.04 0.61% 2.29%

HungaroControl 103.67 3.62% 1.51%

Isavia 133.36 -6.70% 58.60%

JANS 39.93 0.29% 0.01%

KCAA 28.17 27.98%

LFV 103.20 -11.67% 3.51%

LGS 55.34 26.84% 12.85%

LPS SR 139.12 20.09% 7.02%

M-NAV 44.95

NAV CANADA 119.21 2.66% 4.16%

NAV Portugal 146.75 17.79% 0.49%

Oro navigacija 53.72 3.13% 3.77%

PANSA 131.59 17.49% 4.88%

PNGASL 31.58 41.19%


SENEAM 28.45 -22.07%

skyguide 210.53

Slovenia Control 99.64 1.29%

SMATSA 61.12 -3.20% 5.60%

72


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

ANSP KPI KPI PPP 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR

AAI 21.32 73.15 22.41% 4.72%

AEROTHAI 34.25 95.20 19.12%

Airways NZ 94.45 87.03 0.87% 2.01%

ANS CR 122.34 210.12 4.97% 7.56%

ANS Finland 88.18 84.94 -17.51% 2.78%

ATNS 33.33 77.10 -9.25% -1.55%

DHMI 66.43 180.61 11.44% 7.14%

DSNA 117.87 128.19 4.27% 2.29%

EANS 70.61 111.62 2.91% 2.85%

FAA ATO 120.04 120.04 0.61% 2.29%

HungaroControl 103.67 211.10 2.97% 0.20%

Isavia 133.36 98.29 -7.08% 56.24%

JANS 39.93 43.78 1.67% 0.36%

KCAA 28.17 62.57 22.78%

LFV 103.20 107.84 -11.52% 3.57%

LGS 55.34 97.01 26.59% 12.63%

LPS SR 139.12 255.53 20.83% 8.06%

M-NAV 44.95 127.30

NAV CANADA 119.21 123.92 2.25% 3.97%

NAV Portugal 146.75 212.28 18.75% 0.78%

Oro navigacija 53.72 102.93 2.68% 3.54%

PANSA 131.59 277.31 17.82% 5.41%

PNGASL 31.58 38.52 38.90%

Sakaeronavigatsia 19.92 53.96 2.08% 21.64%

SENEAM 28.45 63.11 -22.64%

skyguide 210.53 160.60

Slovenia Control 99.64 148.50 1.97%

SMATSA 61.12 151.50 -5.10% 3.82%

73


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


AAI 0.809 -4.59% 3.59%

AEROTHAI 0.354 10.61%

Airways NZ 0.659 -3.76% 1.02%

ANS CR 0.886 1.12% 3.20%

ANS Finland 0.408 4.29% -1.01%

ATNS 0.454 -9.40% -1.68%

CAAS 0.645 -0.15% -4.80%

DHMI 0.810 0.29% 1.67%

DSNA 0.643 3.23% 1.55%

EANS 0.831 8.87% 1.57%

FAA ATO 1.108 2.74% 3.20%

HungaroControl 0.926 3.58% 5.76%

Isavia 1.435 -4.89% 19.26%

JANS 0.949 5.04% 5.30%

KCAA 0.306 -6.28%

LFV 0.580 11.54% 3.78%

LGS 0.843 23.81% 4.61%

LPS SR 0.738 1.53% 2.22%

M-NAV 0.284

NAV CANADA 1.257 5.24% 3.52%

NAV Portugal 0.943 4.79% 5.60%

Oro navigacija 0.427 4.83% 1.15%

PANSA 0.771 0.28% 0.45%

PNGASL 0.670 45.71%


SENEAM 0.800 1.27%

skyguide 0.755


SMATSA 0.739 -2.76% 3.07%

74


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


AAI 54.55 -2.31% -4.37%

AEROTHAI 251.08 0.26%

Airways NZ 251.75 2.72% 3.77%

ANS CR 442.00 3.01% 0.48%

ANS Finland 409.97 2.47% 0.64%

ATNS 256.80 24.28% 7.59%

DHMI 289.86 9.92% 10.32%

DSNA 479.11 -2.44% -1.06%

EANS 224.45 3.69% 4.20%

FAA ATO 344.00 0.41% -1.15%


Isavia 128.65 49.91% 39.65%

JANS 477.02 -4.52% -3.23%

KCAA 46.49 -64.02%

LFV 267.17 5.42% -0.98%

LGS 214.15 -16.36% 2.81%

LPS SR 503.99 -5.18% -3.18%

M-NAV 336.72

NAV CANADA 233.91 4.04% 1.16%

NAV Portugal 213.93 2.20% -2.01%

Oro navigacija 403.92 -0.33% 0.39%

PANSA 320.80 12.44% 6.22%

PNGASL 12.04 -39.99%


SENEAM 64.79 16.31%

skyguide 1509.85


SMATSA 280.16 4.13% -0.13%

75


2D: Proportion of total costs made up of ATCO employment costs (USD) Formula: ATCO employment Costs / Total Costs


AAI 0.326 23.50% 6.19%

AEROTHAI 0.278 5.39%

Airways NZ 0.363 1.34% -1.36%

ANS CR 0.238 0.49% 3.04%

ANS Finland 0.345 -15.16% 1.98%

ATNS 0.222 -12.92% -2.40%

DHMI 0.221 3.91% 0.56%

DSNA 0.277 1.82% 0.86%

EANS 0.275 -6.17% -1.55%

FAA ATO 0.240 -1.88% 0.21%

HungaroControl 0.241 0.48% -2.04%

Isavia 0.419 -20.07% -2.68%

JANS 0.081 0.00% -1.71%

KCAA 0.665 93.75%

LFV 0.399 -14.89% 0.36%

LGS 0.235 -8.77% -2.48%

LPS SR 0.272 18.00% 6.10%

M-NAV 0.320

NAV CANADA 0.289 -4.44% -0.38%

NAV Portugal 0.421 5.78% -1.64%

Oro navigacija 0.238 -0.99% 1.68%

PANSA 0.347 2.74% -1.10%

PNGASL 0.796 12.51%

Sakaeronavigatsia 0.097 -12.20% 3.10%

SENEAM 0.355 -21.68%

skyguide 0.233


SMATSA 0.228 -3.40% 2.02%

76


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


AAI 41,981 26.88% 8.32%

AEROTHAI 99,395 13.18% N/A

Airways NZ 128,832 0.93% 2.57%

ANS CR 188,798 6.91% 7.97%

ANS Finland 137,940 -13.03% 3.25%

ATNS 54,297 -6.77% 3.27%

DHMI 79,713 15.76% 10.74%

DSNA 151,369 3.26% 1.67%

EANS 76,046 -28.70% -6.29%

FAA ATO 218,948 1.16% 3.13%

HungaroControl 161,763 3.78% -26.43%

Isavia 228,356 -4.01% 2.62%

JANS 80,468 0.29% 0.01%

KCAA 40,559 27.98%

LFV 171,557 -17.15% 3.77%

LGS 59,047 7.33% 10.35%

LPS SR 215,830 23.27% 7.31%

M-NAV 67,923

NAV CANADA 180,823 -5.35% 3.01%

NAV Portugal 264,677 18.13% 0.33%

Oro navigacija 86,646 2.19% 4.93%

PANSA 140,903 16.03% 3.89%

PNGASL 81,163 99.39%

Sakaeronavigatsia 26,292 -0.77% 15.46%

SENEAM 56,792 -22.09%

skyguide 263,625

Slovenia Control 141,235 1.22%

SMATSA 72,738 -1.38% 6.16%

77


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


AAI 41,981 144,056 23.56% 5.22%

AEROTHAI 99,395 276,272 13.14%

Airways NZ 128,716 118,710 0.87% 2.01%

ANS CR 188,798 324,263 7.06% 7.76%

ANS Finland 137,940 132,877 -12.65% 3.45%

ATNS 54,297 125,593 -9.89% -0.79%

DHMI 79,713 216,738 11.44% 5.01%

DSNA 151,369 164,622 4.27% 2.29%

EANS 76,046 120,216 -28.95% -6.92%

FAA ATO 218,948 218,948 1.16% 3.13%

HungaroControl 161,763 329,407 3.13% -27.38%

Isavia 267,006 168,315 -4.40% 1.09%

JANS 80,468 88,208 1.67% 0.36%

KCAA 40,559 90,098 22.78%

LFV 171,557 179,284 -17.01% 3.83%

LGS 59,047 103,510 7.11% 10.13%

LPS SR 215,830 396,405 24.04% 8.36%

M-NAV 67,923 192,343

NAV CANADA 180,823 187,978 -5.73% 2.83%

NAV Portugal 264,677 382,859 19.09% 0.61%

Oro navigacija 86,646 166,028 1.74% 42.73%

PANSA 140,903 296,928 16.35% 4.42%

PNGASL 99,006 96.16%

Sakaeronavigatsia 26,292 71,231 -3.13% 12.57%

SENEAM 56,792 126,000 -22.66%

skyguide 259,425 201,105

Slovenia Control 141,235 210,490 1.90%

SMATSA 72,738 180,284 -3.31% 4.37%

78


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


AAI 1,969 0.94% 0.48%

AEROTHAI 2,902 -5.03%

Airways NZ 1,364 0.00% 0.00%

ANS CR 1,543 2.00% 0.18%

ANS Finland 1,564 5.90% 0.66%

ATNS 1,629 -0.71% 0.78%

CAAS 1,819 0.00% 0.00%

DHMI 1,200 -0.01% -1.98%

DSNA 1,284 0.00% 0.00%

EANS 1,077 -30.96% -9.51%

FAA ATO 1,824 0.55% 0.82%

HungaroControl 1,560 0.16% 0.25%

Isavia 1,712 2.88% -35.30%

JANS 2,015 0.00% 0.00%

KCAA 1,440 0.00%

LFV 1,663 -6.20% 0.26%

LGS 1,067 -15.39% -2.22%

LPS SR 1,551 2.65% 0.28%

M-NAV 1,511

NAV CANADA 1,517 -7.81% -1.10%

NAV Portugal 1,803 0.29% -0.17%

Oro navigacija 1,613 -0.91% 1.12%

PANSA 1,071 -1.24% -0.94%

PNGASL 2,570 41.22%

Sakaeronavigatsia 1,320 -5.10% -7.46%

SENEAM 1,998 0.00%

skyguide 1,252

Slovenia Control 1,417 -0.06%

SMATSA 1,190 1.88% 0.53%

79


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


AAI 1,592.28 -3.69% 4.08%

AEROTHAI 1,026.58 5.06%

Airways NZ 898.75 -3.76% 1.02%

ANS CR 1,367.88 3.14% 3.39%

ANS Finland 639.02 10.44% -0.36%

ATNS 738.93 -10.04% -0.92%

CAAS 1,173.33 -0.15% -4.80%

DHMI 972.12 0.28% -0.34%

DSNA 825.99 3.23% 1.56%

EANS 894.96 -24.84% -8.09%

FAA ATO 2,020.16 3.30% 4.04%

HungaroControl 1,444.71 3.74% 6.02%

Isavia 2,456.43 -2.15% -22.83%

JANS 1,912.81 5.04% 5.30%

KCAA 440.30 -6.28%

LFV 959.00 4.58% 3.80%

LGS 899.48 4.76% 2.30%

LPS SR 1,144.56 4.22% 2.50%

M-NAV 429.09

NAV CANADA 1,906.20 -2.98% 2.38%

NAV Portugal 1,700.31 5.09% 5.43%

Oro navigacija 688.57 3.87% 2.28%

PANSA 825.82 -0.97% -0.50%

PNGASL 1,722.85 105.77%

Sakaeronavigatsia 509.07 1.99% -0.40%

SENEAM 1,607.00 1.77%

skyguide 945.34


SMATSA 879.62 -0.93% 3.61%

80


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


Airways NZ 52.68 -0.96% -5.21%

DSNA 875.30

FAA ATO 81.86 -17.15% -6.03%

Isavia 196.39 7.94% 5.17%

NAV CANADA 57.79 4.70% -1.33%

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


Airways NZ 101.89 -0.74% 2.80%

ATNS 11.97 5.33% 8.33%

DSNA 154.62

FAA ATO 158.21 0.41% 2.64%

Isavia 123.59 -4.28% -7.36%

NAV CANADA 117.01 -0.64% 4.74%

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


Airways NZ 101.89 93.89 -0.80% 2.24%

ATNS 11.97 27.69 1.81% 4.07%

DSNA 154.62 168.16

FAA ATO 158.21 158.21 0.41% 2.64%

Isavia 123.59 91.09 -4.68% -8.74%

NAV CANADA 117.01 121.65 -1.04% 4.55%

81


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


Airways NZ 3.91 1.51% 7.76%

ATNS 0.16 14.96% -13.93%

DSNA 0.73

FAA ATO 6.52 9.36% 5.93%

Isavia 3.23 -3.88% 2.38%

NAV CANADA 6.93 2.16% 4.73%

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


Airways NZ 26.61 10.47% -5.32%

DSNA 662.77

FAA ATO 57.58 -18.53% -8.07%

Isavia 158.14 10.18% 11.20%

NAV CANADA 40.91 8.11% -1.86%

2D: Proportion of total costs made up of ATCO employment costs (USD) Formula: ATCO employment Costs / Total Costs


Airways NZ 0.495 -1.27% 0.63%

DSNA 0.243

FAA ATO 0.297 10.81% 3.11%

Isavia 0.195 -7.75% -13.97%

NAV CANADA 0.292 -7.10% 1.36%

82


CO1: Combined Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs /IFR flight hours


AAI 80.92 6.68% -1.99%

AEROTHAI 347.90 2.23%

Airways NZ 288.31 2.57% 1.49%

ANS CR 580.02 4.18% 1.35%

ANS Finland 625.83 -7.18% 1.62%

ATNS 319.01 18.53% 6.86%

CAAS 363.88 2.17% 6.33%

DHMI 371.86

DSNA 675.55 -8.28% -2.56%

EANS 309.42

FAA ATO 423.03 -0.65% -1.36%


Isavia 199.20 9.57% 7.19%

JANS 519.09 -4.52% -3.38%

KCAA 138.60 -29.52%

LFV 445.97 -6.95% -0.62%

LGS 279.80 12.30% 10.61%

LPS SR 692.56 0.23% -1.33%

M-NAV 495.01

NAV CANADA 281.04 2.13% 0.68%

NAV Portugal 369.60 6.27% -3.25%

Oro navigacija 529.75 -0.64% 0.89%

PANSA 491.42 14.04% 5.57%

PNGASL 59.15 -13.88%


SENEAM 100.11 -1.75%

skyguide 1195.15


SMATSA 362.86 3.05% 0.43%

83


CO2D: Proportion of total costs made up of ATCO employment costs (USD) Formula: ATCO employment Costs / Total Costs


AAI 0.326 23.50% 6.19%

AEROTHAI 0.278 5.39%

Airways NZ 0.370 1.10% -1.28%

ANS CR 0.238 0.49% 3.04%

ANS Finland 0.345 -15.16% 1.98%

ATNS 0.230 -12.55% -2.13%

DHMI 0.221

DSNA 0.304 8.27% 2.55%

EANS 0.275

FAA ATO 0.240 -1.67% 0.29%

HungaroControl 0.241 0.48% -2.04%

Isavia 0.223 -8.57% -11.34%

JANS 0.081 0.00% -1.71%

KCAA 0.665 93.75%

LFV 0.399 -14.89% 0.36%

LGS 0.235 -8.77% -2.48%

LPS SR 0.272 18.00% 6.10%

M-NAV 0.320

NAV CANADA 0.289 -4.53% -0.31%

NAV Portugal 0.421 5.78% -1.64%

Oro navigacija 0.238 -0.99% 1.68%

PANSA 0.347 2.74% -1.10%

PNGASL 0.796 35.46%

Sakaeronavigatsia 0.097 -12.20% 3.10%

SENEAM 0.355 -21.68%

skyguide 0.233


SMATSA 0.228 -3.40% 2.02%

84


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

Annex 4: Acronyms and abbreviations

85


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 EUROCONTROL’s Statistics and Forecast Service

86


Visit us: canso.org

http://canso.org

https://www.linkedin.com/company/canso/

https://twitter.com/CANSONews

https://www.youtube.com/user/CANSOcomms

global air navigation services performance report 2018 ans performance report … · contribution...

Documents