Annex A: Public consultation material

Transcription

2015-2019 South West FAB Performance Plan
June 2014
Annex A: Public consultation material
Four public consultation meetings have taken place during the elaboration of the RP2 South West FAB Performance
Plan:
1.
2.
3.
4.
RP2 SW FAB Performance Plan Consultation, 20 May 2014.
Spanish Airport and ANSP National forum, 25 April 2014.
Spain RP2 cost-effectiveness stakeholder consultation, 24 April 2014.
Portugal RP2 cost-effectiveness stakeholder consultation, 10 April 2014.
Portugal and Spain NSAs arranged consultation meetings focused only on cost-efficiency and open to EU-wide
airspace users. In addition, AESA (the Spanish NSA) presented the main elements of the operational part of the RP2
SOWEPP. Discussion focused on environment and capacity targets, and in particular Spain allocation.
Comments circulated and views raised during these first three thematic consultation meetings, were taking into
account when drafting the consultation document that was distributed among main stakeholders for the SW FAB
consultation meeting held in Madrid on May the 20th.
This Annex A to the RP2 SOWEPP provides relevant information regarding the SW FAB consultation meeting (meeting
agenda, attendance list, slides, minutes, written comments, etc) is provided in Annex A to this RP2 SOWEPP
document. Some more information on the consultation meetings is shown in section 1.3 of the RP2 SOWEPP template
version (Annex E).
1. RP2 SW FAB Performance Plan Consultation, 20 May 2014
Meeting Agenda
June 2014
RP2 SOWEPP - Consultation Meeting Agenda
th
20 May 2014
Consultation Meeting Agenda
10:00 - 10:15
Introduction
10:15 – 11:00
Safety
Targets and plans associated to:
 Level of EoSM
 Application of the RAT methodology
 Just Culture
11:00 - 11:45
Environment
 Horizontal en route flight efficiency (KEA)
11:45 - 12:30
En-route Capacity:
 Traffic forecast
At SW FAB, Portugal and Spain levels, targets, reference values and plans associated to:
 En route ATFM delay per flight
 Incentive Scheme
12:30 – 13:30
Break
13:30 – 14:15
Terminal Capacity
Portugal and Spain targets and plans associated to:
 Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight
14:15 – 15:00
En route Cost – Efficiency
At National level, and for each accountable entity:
 En route Determined costs
 En route Determined Unit Costs
 Investments
15:00 – 15:45
Terminal Cost – Efficiency
At National level, and accountable entity:
 Terminal Determined costs
 Terminal Determined Unit Costs
 Investments
15:45 – 16:00
Any other issues
Attendance List
June 2014
Meeting Slides
June 2014
Draft 2015-2019 South West FAB Performance Plan
RP2 SOWEPP
SW FAB USERS’ CONSULTATION DAY
20th May 2014
AESA
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
To consult the relevant elements of the South West FAB Performance Plan
for the 2015-2019 (RP2 SOWEPP):
• With the main stakeholders
• In the presence of the accountable entities
But… What is the RP2 SOWEPP?
2
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY (SES) – PERFORMANCE SCHEME
The RP2 SOWEPP is encompassed within the framework of the Single
European Sky Performance Scheme. This is an initiative aimed at improving
the performance of the air navigation services in Europe through:
→ European-wide targets in four key performance areas: safety,
environment, capacity and cost-efficiency.
→ The elaboration of performance plans at FAB level, consistent with and
adequately contributing to the EU-wide targets.
→ Periodic monitoring, review and assessment of performance.
3
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
RP2 SOWEPP
The RP2 SOWEPP is the SW FAB Performance for 2015-2019 (known as RP2
– Reference Period 2). This plan affects the Air Navigation Services provided
in Portugal and Spain within the scope of:
→ SES Performance Regulation (390/2013)
→ Charging Regulation (391/2013)
→ COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 11 March 2014: setting
European-wide targets
4
BACKGROUND
RP1 NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLANS
We are now in the midst of the fist reference period (2012-2014 – RP1) of
the SES Performance Scheme.
There are National Performance Plans in place for Portugal and Spain:
→ Portugal: National Performance Plan for Air Navigation Services, First
Reference Period 2012 – 2014
→ Spain: Spanish National Performance Plan (PNER) for RP1 2012-2014
5
South West FAB
SW FAB
A FAB (Functional Airspace Block) is an airspace block based on operational
requirements and established regardless of State boundaries.
The
Performance
Regulation
requires Performance Plans for RP2
to be elaborated at FAB level.
The SW FAB includes Spain, and
Portugal (only Lisboa FIR)
6
SCOPE OF THE RP2 SOWEPP
SCOPE
The RP2 SOWEPP covers:
→ En-route air navigation services provided in the Barcelona, Canarias,
Lisboa and Madrid FIR/UIRs.
→ Terminal air navigation services provided at airports in Portugal and
Spain with more than 70,000 IFR movements per year.
→ All the entities accountable for determined costs of en route air
navigation services that are financed by en route charges.
7
SOWEPP ELABORATION TIMELINE
24/04/2014
Spanish User’s (IATA)
consultation on
COST - EFFICIENCY
25/04/2014
Spanish Air Navigation Users’ consultation on
CAPACITY AND ENVIRONMENT
10/04/2014
Portuguese User’s
(IATA) consultation on
COST - EFFICIENCY
20/05/2014
SW FAB Users’ Consultation
May
April
30/04/14
SOWEPP consultation
document
9/05/14
SOWEPP updated
consultation version
June
03/06/14
Deadline for
comments
on SOWEPP
8
July
27/06/14
SOWEPP Formal
Adoption
10-16/06/14
SOWEPP final
version
CONSULTATION MEETING AGENDA
SAFETY
ENVIRONMENT
EN ROUTE CAPACITY
TERMINAL CAPACITY
COST-EFFICIENCY SPAIN
COST-EFFICIENCY PORTUGAL
9
SAFETY
SAFETY
ENVIRONMENT
EN ROUTE CAPACITY
TERMINAL CAPACITY
10
LEVEL OF EOSM
LEVEL OF EOSM
The level of EoSM is a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) with two parts:
→ NSA part: evaluates the maturity of the State Safety Programme
→ ANSP part: evaluates de maturity of the air navigation services provider
Safety Management System
11
LEVEL OF EOSM
LEVEL OF EOSM – PROPOSED TARGETS
Proposed targets on the level of EoSM go beyond the European-wide
targets:
Safety KPI #1: Level of Effectiveness of Safety Management
NSAs
ANSPs
Union-wide Targets
SW FAB Targets
AENA
NAV
Union-wide Target
SW FAB Target
Spain - AESA
Portugal - INAC
For Safety Culture MO
For all other MOs
For all MOs
For all other MOs
For all other MOs
12
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
B
B
B
C
C
D
D
C
B
B
B
C
C
D
D
C
B
B
B
C
C
D
D
C
B
C
B
C
C
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
E
D
LEVEL OF EOSM
LEVEL OF EOSM – NSA part
AESA (Spanish NSA) and INAC (Portuguese NSA), shall focus on the areas
in which they have lower performance levels, to reach level C of maturity by
2019.
Level of EoSM - SOWEPP targets
E
D
C
B
A
2015
Portugal - INAC
2016
Spain - AESA
2017
2018
SW FAB Target
2019
Union-wide Target
13
LEVEL OF EOSM
LEVEL OF EOSM – ANSP part
According to the Safety Plans of AENA (Spanish ANSP) and NAV
(Portuguese ANSP), it shall be possible to achieve level D in all
management objectives by 2019
Level of EoSM - ANSP targets
Safety Culture MO
Level of EoSM - ANSP targets
All Other MOs
E
E
D
D
C
C
B
B
A
A
2015
NAV (Portugal)
2016
AENA (Spain)
2017
2018
SW FAB Targets
2019
Union-wide Targets
2015
2016
NAV (Portugal)
AENA (Spain)
14
2017
2018
SW FAB Targets
2019
Union-wide Targets
APPLICATION OF THE RAT METHODOLOGY
APPLICATION OF THE RAT
This KPI considers the percentage of application of the severity
classification based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology, both in
terms of ground and overall score (including the airborne part), as a
minimum to:
→ Separation minima infringements (SMIs)
→ Runway incursions (RIs)
→ ATM-specific occurrences (ATM-S)
15
APPLICATION OF THE RAT – PROPOSED TARGETS
Targets proposed in the SOWEPP are consistent with EU-wide targets:
Safety KPI #2: Application of the severity classification
based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology
Ground Score
SMIs
Union-wide Targets
SW FAB Targets
Spain
Portugal
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
-
-
80%
-
100%
RIs
-
-
80%
-
100%
ATM-S
-
-
80%
-
100%
SMIs
90%
90%
90%
95%
100%
RIs
90%
90%
90%
95%
100%
ATM-S
90%
90%
90%
95%
100%
SMIs
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
RIs
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ATM-S
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
SMIs
80%
80%
80%
90%
100%
RIs
80%
80%
80%
90%
100%
ATM-S
80%
80%
80%
90%
100%
16
APPLICATION OF THE RAT – PROPOSED TARGETS
Targets proposed in the SOWEPP are consistent with EU-wide targets:
Safety KPI #2: Application of the severity classification
based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology
Overall Score
SMIs
Union-wide Targets
SW FAB Targets
Spain
Portugal
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
-
-
80%
80%
80%
RIs
-
-
80%
80%
80%
ATM-S
-
-
80%
-
100%
SMIs
-
-
80%
80%
80%
RIs
-
-
80%
80%
80%
ATM-S
-
-
80%
80%
100%
SMIs
60%
70%
80%
80%
80%
RIs
30%
55%
80%
80%
80%
ATM-S
25%
50%
80%
80%
100%
SMIs
-
-
80%
80%
80%
RIs
-
-
80%
80%
80%
ATM-S
-
-
80%
80%
100%
17
JUST CULTURE
JUST CULTURE
The aim is to increase the level of presence of a just culture:
→ AESA and INAC shall work together during RP2 in close cooperation, in
order to identify common areas for potential improvement towards the
establishment of a common SW FAB just culture approach
→ AENA and NAV Portugal shall work together to find common areas of
interest and development of Just Culture during RP2. The result is
intended to be reflected in a common just culture policy and
enhancement plan at SW FAB level, despite of the different maturity
levels
18
SAFETY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
SAF Q #1: Do you agree with the proposed targets on the Level of
Effectiveness of Safety Management (EoSM)?
SAF Q #2: Do you agree with the proposed targets on ‘Application of the
severity classification based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology’?
SAF Q #3: Do you agree with the idea of setting a qualitative target on Just
Culture (JC), like the proposed common plan and policy statement at SW
FAB level?
SAG Q#4: What are your views on the proposed actions and plans?
SAF Q #5: Do you have any other views on the SOWEPP safety targets?
19
ENVIRONMENT
SAFETY
ENVIRONMENT
EN ROUTE CAPACITY
TERMINAL CAPACITY
20
HORIZONTAL EN ROUTE FLIGHT EFFICIENCY OF THE ACTUAL
TRAJECTORY (KEA)
KEA
The KEA is defined as the comparison between the length of the en route
part of the actual trajectory and the achieved distance (great circle),
summed over all IFR flights within or traversing the local airspace.
21
HORIZONTAL EN ROUTE FLIGHT EFFICIENCY OF THE ACTUAL
TRAJECTORY (KEA)
KEA – PROPOSED TARGETS
The EU-wide target is to reach an average of horizontal en route flight
efficiency of at least 2.6 % in 2019.
Considering the EU-wide target, the Network Manager provided reference
values for each FAB.
The SW FAB targets for RP2 are fully consistent with this reference values.
Flight efficiency plans of the ANSPs would allow to meet the targets.
Environment KPI #1: Horizontal en route flight efficiency (KEA)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
-
-
-
-
2.60%
FAB reference values
3.85%
3.71%
3.57%
3.43%
3.28%
SW FAB Targets
3.85%
3.71%
3.57%
3.43%
3.28%
Union-wide targets
22
Specific SOWEPP Environment presentation
23
ENVIRONMENT CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
ENV Q #1: Do you agree with the FAB level environment target on the KEA
indicator, in particular considering the trade-offs with other KPAs?
ENV Q #2: Do you have any other views on the SOWEPP environment
targets and associated plans?
24
EN ROUTE CAPACITY
SAFETY
ENVIRONMENT
EN ROUTE CAPACITY
TERMINAL CAPACITY
25
INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS
TRAFFIC – FLIGHT FORECAST
IFR flights - Annual variation
5,0%
The SOWEPP flight forecast for
RP2 is consistent with the low
scenario of February 2014
STATFOR forecasts
4,0%
3,0%
2,0%
1,0%
0,0%
2014
2015
Portugal (*)
2016
2017
Spain (**)
2018
SW FAB
(*) Lisboa FIR only
(**) Spain Overall: Canarias + Continental Airspace
RP2 SOWEPP Forecast
IFR Flights
Spain Overall
Portugal (Lisboa
FIR)
SW FAB
Flights (000)
Annual variation %
Flights (000)
Annual variation %
Flights (000)
Annual variation %
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
1,618
1,622
0.2%
469
4.3%
1,671
0.6%
1,648
1.6%
480
2.5%
1,694
1.4%
1,656
0.5%
481
0.1%
1,703
0.5%
1,671
0.9%
482
0.3%
1,718
0.9%
1,691
1.2%
485
0.6%
1,739
1.2%
1,711
1.2%
488
0.6%
1,758
1.1%
449
1,661
26
2019
EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY
EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY
The Performance Regulation requires targets to be set at FAB level on the
average minutes of en route ATFM delay per IFR flight. The targets are
broken down at National level for reasons of transparency. The ANSPs are
responsible for meeting the targets:
→ AENA in the case of Spain
→ NAV in the case of Portugal
The en route ATFM delay is defined as the difference between the
estimated take-off time requested by the aircraft operator in the last
submitted flight plan and the calculated take-off time allocated by the
central unit of ATFM.
27
EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY
EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY – PROPOSED TARGETS
The EU-wide target for RP2 is an average en route ATFM delay per flight of
no more than 0.50 minutes per flight, to be reached for each calendar year.
Considering the EU-wide target, the Network Manager provided reference
values for each FAB.
Capacity KPI #1: En route ATFM delay per flight
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Union-wide targets
0.50
0.50
0.05
0.50
0.50
0.30
0.31
0.31
0.30
0.30
SW FAB Target
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
AENA (Spain)
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
NAV Portugal (Portugal)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
28
EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY
EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY – PROPOSED TARGETS
The capacity plans included in the Network Operations Plan (2014-2019)
would allow to meet the target.
SW FAB ATFM Delay targets
0,60
0,40
0,20
0,00
2015
2016
NAV (Portugal)
SW FAB Target
EU-wide targets
2017
2018
2019
AENA (Spain)
29
EN ROUTE CAPACITY INCENTIVES
INCENTIVE SCHEME
The SOWEPP incentive mechanism for en-route capacity is applied at FAB
level. The amount of the incentive is calculated at FAB level on the basis of
the achievement of the SOWEPP FAB target for a given year. Incentives
shall be calculated on a calendar year basis and be paid in year n+2.
The incentive formula is a symmetrical linear function with a dead-band.
Therefore, bonuses are awarded for achievement of performance which
goes beyond the target.
Only the ANSPs that have achieved their individual reference value are
awarded a bonus, and only the ANSPs that have not met their reference
value are penalised.
30
EN ROUTE CAPACITY INCENTIVES
INCENTIVE SCHEME
FAB






AENA






NAV






Result
Both ANSPs receive a bonus, calculated according to the FAB common function
Only AENA receives a bonus, NAV is not penalised as the FAB target has been met
Only NAV receives a bonus, AENA is not penalised as the FAB target has been met
Both ANSPs pay a penalty, calculated according to the FAB common function
Only NAV pays a penalty, AENA is not penalised as Spain value has been met
Only AENA pays a penalty, NAV is not penalised as Portugal value has been met
Penalty
Bonus
max
Target
T
T -Y
T+X
T-X
T+Y
Dead band
-max
31
Time for the Capacity Experts
32
EN ROUTE CAPACITY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
CAP Q #1: Do you consider the en route capacity targets at SW FAB level
are an adequate contribution to the EU-wide targets? If not, why?
CAP Q #2: Do you agree with the values established as the contribution of
AENA to the SW FAB targets? If not, why?
CAP Q #3: Do you agree with the values established as the contribution of
NAV to the SW FAB targets? If not, why?
CAP Q#4: Do you have any other views on the SOWEPP en route capacity
targets, ANSPs contribution and associated plans?
33
EN ROUTE CAPACITY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
CAP Q #8: Do you agree with the incentive mechanism established for the
en route capacity? If not, please explain.
CAP Q #9: What parameters (see table 4.2) do you think are the most
appropriate for the incentive mechanism, in particular for the “maximum
value” (0.75% to 1%) and the width of the “transition area” (0.06 to 0.14
minutes/flight)?
CAP Q #10: What option (out of the three described in paragraph 4.46) do
you think the most appropriate in the calculation of the bonus/penalties,
regarding the delay causes?
CAP Q #11: Do you have any other views on the SOWEPP en route capacity
incentive mechanism?
34
TERMINAL CAPACITY
SAFETY
ENVIRONMENT
EN ROUTE CAPACITY
TERMINAL CAPACITY
35
TERMINAL CAPACITY
TERMINAL AND AIRPORT ANS AFTM ARRIVAL DELAY PER FLIGHT
The Performance Regulation requires that terminal and airport capacity
targets are set at national level with a breakdown at airport level for
monitoring purposes.
The KPI is the average minutes of arrival ATFM delay per flight attributable
to terminal and airport air navigation services and caused by landing
restrictions at the destination airport.
There is no EU-wide target on terminal and airport capacity, or any other
external reference:
36
TERMINAL CAPACITY
TERMINAL AND AIRPORT ANS ATFM ARRIVAL DELAY PER FLIGHT –
PROPOSED TARGETS
There is no EU-wide target on terminal and airport capacity, or any other
external reference. The SOWEPP terminal and airport ANS capacity
targets, and reference values per airport are set out below:
Capacity KPI #2: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Spain (*)
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Capacity KPI #2: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight
– Breakdown at airport level
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
GCLP – Gran Canaria
0,32
0,32
0,32
0,32
0,32
LEBL – Barcelona
0,91
0,91
0,91
0,91
0,91
LEMD – Madrid-Barajas
0,83
0,83
0,83
0,83
0,83
LEMG – Málaga
0,11
0,11
0,11
0,11
0,11
LEPA – Palma de Mallorca
1,29
1,29
1,29
1,29
1,29
37
Specific Terminal Capacity presentation
38
TERMINAL CAPACITY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
CAP Q #5: Considering there is no EU-wide reference, do you agree with
the terminal capacity target established for Spain, encompassing GCLP,
LEBL, LEMD, LEMG and LEPA? If not, why?
CAP Q #7: Do you have any other views on the SOWEPP terminal capacity
targets and associated plans?
39
COST-EFFICIENCY
SAFETY
ENVIRONMENT
EN ROUTE CAPACITY
TERMINAL CAPACITY
40
EN ROUTE COST EFFICIENCY
EN ROUTE COST-EFFICIENCY
The Performance Regulation requires a target for en route cost-efficiency
for en route service to be expressed in terms of the determined unit costs
(DUCs) at charging zone level and in local currency. There are three enroute charging zones within the SW FAB:
•
•
•
Portugal Lisboa
Spain Canarias
Spain Continental
Consequently there are three targets.
ERT-CZ 1:
Portugal
Lisboa
ERT-CZ 2:
Spain
Canarias
41
ERT-CZ 3:
Spain
Continental
EN ROUTE COST EFFICIENCY
EU-WIDE ROUTE COST-EFFICIENCY TARGETS
EU-wide en route cost-efficiency targets are set to provide for a reduction
in determined unit costs by 3.3 % per year over RP2.
Union-wide En-route Cost-Efficiency Targets
Cost efficiency KPI #1.1:
En-route DUC
Total en-route determined costs (MEUR Real
EUR 2009)
Total en route Service Units (000)
Real (EUR 2009) en-route DUC
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
6,147.905
6,055.686
5,904,294
5,756.687
5,612.769
108,541
110,196
111,436
112,884
114,305
56.64
54.95
52.98
51.00
49.10
42
INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS
TRAFFIC – EN ROUTE SERVICE
UNITS FORECAST
8,0%
The SOWEPP en route service
unit forecast for RP2 is
consistent with the low scenario
of February 2014 STATFOR
forecasts, except for Spain
Canarias forecast, which is
below STATFOR low scenario.
RP2 SOWEPP Forecast
Total en- route service units
Spain - Continental
Spain - Canarias
Portugal – Lisboa FIR
SUs (000)
Annual variation %
SUs (000)
Annual variation %
SUs (000)
Annual variation %
En route service units - Annual
variation
6,0%
4,0%
2,0%
0,0%
-2,0%
2014
2015
Portugal (*)
2016
2017
Spain Canaries
2018
2019
Spain Continental
(*) Lisboa FIR only
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
8,447
0.0%
1,516
-5.2%
2,877
3.4%
8,669
2.6%
1,516
0.0%
3,072
6.8%
8,880
2.4%
1,531
1.0%
3,190
3.8%
8,936
0.6%
1,528
-0.2%
3,202
0.4%
9,018
0.9%
1,531
0.2%
3,219
0.6%
9,128
1.2%
1,537
0.4%
3,245
0.8%
9,238
1.2%
1,543
0.4%
3,269
0.8%
43
TOTAL COSTS EVOLUTION
44
SERVICE UNITS EVOLUTION
-10,2%
-6,2%
-12,3%
-13,2%
PNER1
CON
Forecast SU (NPP)
Actual SU
2010
8.320
8.642
2011
9.110
9.099
2012
9.401
8.444
2013
9.626
8.447
Actual / forecast SU (in %)
103,9%
99,9%
89,8%
87,7%
CAN
Forecast SU (NPP)
Actual SU
2010
1.515
1.540
2011
1.618
1.666
2012
1.705
1.599
2013
1.746
1.516
101,7%
103,0%
93,8%
86,8%
45
2014
9.857
2014
1.795
SPAIN COST-EFFICIENCY POLICY
- STABILITY ON DETERMINED COSTS
- STABILITY ON UNIT RATE
ALL RP1 & RP2:
71,69 €/US
58,36 €/US
CONTINENT UNIT RATE:
CANARY ISLAND UNIT RATE :
46
TOTAL COSTS EVOLUTION RP2
47
SPAIN CONTINENT EN ROUTE COSTS & DUC RP2 (2015 - 2019)
CONTINENT: COSTS & DUC
Total Determined Costs (€ 2009)
Cost Target EU Comision (€ 2009)
DUC (Determined Costs / Traffic Statfor LOW)
DUC target for Spain (EU Comision)
Traffic STATRFOR LOW (Feb 2014)
CONTINENT: ANUAL COST REDUCTION
2014
631.750
633.410
76,22
76,42
8.288
2014
2015
564.288
627.406
63,55
75,28
8.880
2016
559.873
614.069
62,65
72,77
8.936
2017
553.989
601.015
61,43
70,48
9.018
2018
551.088
588.238
60,37
68,06
9.128
2019
RP2 Cost Reduction over EU target
546.650
575.734
-232.234
59,17
65,79
9.238
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Anual Reduction
-10,68%
-0,78%
-2,13%
-1,05%
-2,13%
-0,52%
-2,13%
-0,81%
-2,13%
-2,8%
-1,9%
-16,63%
-1,40%
-3,33%
0,63%
-1,95%
-3,16%
0,92%
-1,72%
-3,43%
1,22%
-1,99%
-3,33%
1,21%
-4,7%
-2,9%
-0,95%
-1,49%
7,14%
48
CANARY ISLANDS EN ROUTE COSTS & DUC RP2 (2015 - 2019)
CANARY ISLANDS: COSTS & DUC
DUC (Determined Costs / AENA forecast April 2014)
Traffic AENA forecast April 2014
CANARY ISLANDS: ANUAL COST REDUCTION
2014
97.873
98.130
64,56
64,60
1.516
2014
2015
90.049
95.915
58,82
62,56
1.531
62,56
2015
-7,99%
-8,90%
-2,26%
-3,16%
0,99%
2016
89.443
93.751
58,54
63,56
1.528
63,56
2016
2017
88.794
91.635
58,00
62,00
1.531
62,00
2017
2018
87.486
89.567
56,92
60,57
1.537
60,57
2018
2019
86.406
87.546
-16.494
56,00
58,96
1.543
58,96
2019
Anual Reduction
-0,67%
-2,26%
-0,73%
-2,26%
-1,47%
-2,26%
-1,23%
-2,26%
-2,4%
-2,3%
-0,48%
1,60%
-0,20%
-0,92%
-2,45%
0,20%
-1,86%
-2,31%
0,39%
-1,62%
-2,66%
0,39%
-2,8%
-1,8%
49
EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS - SPAIN
EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS – SPAIN CANARIAS TARGETS
Real en-route DUC experiences an average yearly improvement of -3.7%
(more than a -31% aggregated improvement) in the two reference periods
(2019 vs 2009).
Such improvement is aligned with the proposed reduction of the costefficiency Union-wide target for the determined unit costs (3.3% per year
over RP2).
Spain Canarias En-route Cost-Efficiency Targets
Spain Canarias En-route DUC
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Total en-route determined costs (MEUR
Nominal)
Inflation index (base 2012)
98.673
98.864
99.098
98.577
98.396
102.63
103.55
104.63
105.70
106.81
EUR 2012)
96.146
95.475
94.713
93.262
92.121
1,531
1,528
1,531
1,537
1,543
62.80
62.48
61.86
60.68
59.70
50
EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS - SPAIN
EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS – SPAIN CONTINENTAL
TARGETS
Real en-route DUC experiences an average yearly reduction of -4.5% (a
total -37% aggregated improvement) since the introduction of the
Performance Scheme (2019 vs 2009).
Such improvement goes beyond the proposed EU-wide targets: annual
reduction of en route unit costs of 3.3% per year over RP2.
Spain Continental En-route Cost-Efficiency Targets
Spain Continental En-route
DUC
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Nominal)
624.712
625.430
625.078
628.052
629.878
102.63
103.55
104.63
105.70
106.81
EUR 2012)
608.715
603.991
597.414
594.190
589.708
8,880
8,936
9,018
9,128
9,238
68.55
67.59
66.25
65.10
63.83
51
INVESTMENTS - SPAIN
INVESTMENTS - AENA
AENA’s (Spanish ANSP) CAPEX Plan for RP2 is set out below:
Name of investment
SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS - Airport Collaborative Decision
Processes (A-CDM), Arrival and Departure Manager
(AMAN/DMAN), Electronic Flight Strips (EFS), DATALINK
Communications and Functional Configuration 2 (CF2).
SURVEILLANCE EVOLUTION – ModeS, ADSB
REDAN – Data Network
833 – Communication Channels
COMETA – Voice over Internet Protocol
iTEC – Flight Data Processing
SAFETY NETS – STCA, APW, MSAW
PBN PLAN – Performance Navigation
CWP – Controller Working Position
ÍCARO – Aeronautical information
PROJECT FACILITATORS
Sub-total of main CAPEX above (1)
Sub-total other Capex (2)
Total CAPEX (1) + (2)
Planned Amount of Capital Expenditures
(in MEUR)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Total
CAPEX for
RP2
6.3
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.2
2.6
5.5
1.8
4.8
4.4
0.1
1.1
0.0
1.3
21.8
49.8
25.8
75.5
3.8
4.6
3.2
10.7
8.0
0.1
0.8
0.0
1.3
16.5
49.8
25.7
75.5
3.5
4.7
3.5
9.3
10.6
0.1
0.8
0.5
1.0
15.8
49.6
25.5
75.1
3.8
0.8
2.9
9.1
13.7
0.1
0.8
0.5
1.0
17.3
50.0
25.4
75.3
4.1
0.6
0.0
8.8
14.1
0.1
0.9
0.6
0.8
20.1
50.0
25.2
75.2
17.8
16.1
11.4
42.8
50.8
0.4
4.3
1.5
5.3
91.6
249.2
127.5
376.6
52
INVESTMENTS - SPAIN
INVESTMENTS - AENA
In global terms, contribution of CAPEX to the European ATM Master Plan
deployment corresponds to a 66.2% of the total investment planned for
RP2 (249,2 MEUR out from 376,6 MEUR in nominal terms).
All relevant information on every investment project is included in
Appendix A of the consultation document. Every view is welcomed.
53
EN-ROUTE COST-EFFICIENCY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
CEF Q #1: Do you consider the en-route cost-efficiency targets for the
Spain Canarias charging zone are an adequate contribution to the EU-wide
targets? If not, why?
Spain Continental charging zone are an adequate contribution to the EUwide targets? If not, why?
CEF Q #4: Is there any additional information you expect to see regarding
the Spanish en-route cost-efficiency targets and figures?
CEF Q #5: Do you have any other views on the Spanish en-route costefficiency targets?
54
Spain cost-efficiency targets have many
accountable entities, and many variables
must be considered
I leave you with the Cost-Efficiency experts
55
COST-EFFICIENCY
SAFETY
ENVIRONMENT
EN ROUTE CAPACITY
TERMINAL CAPACITY
56
EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS - PORTUGAL
EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS – PORTUGAL TARGETS
En-route cost-efficiency targets for Portugal are set out in the table below.
Real en route unit costs (in €2009 prices) are expected to decrease at a pace
of 3.8% over the period between 2009 and 2019, meaning a global
reduction of more than 32% over the 10 year horizon.
Such decrease is aligned with the proposed reduction of the EU-wide target
for the en route determined unit costs (3.3% per year over RP2).
Portugal En-route Cost-Efficiency Targets
Portugal Lisboa En-route
DUC
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Nominal)
111.986
117.619
121.538
124.787
128.169
102.32
103.85
105.41
106.99
108.59
EUR 2012)
109.452
113.258
115.302
116.635
118.025
3,190
3,202
3,219
3,245
3,269
34.31
35.37
35.81
35.94
36.10
57
INVESTMENTS - PORTUGAL
INVESTMENTS – NAV PORTUGAL
Name of Investment CAPEX
Sub-total of main CAPEX below (1)
1) LISATM V9.2
Planned Amount of Capital Expenditures (in MEUR)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
8,7
16,3
9,9
7
11,8
0,6
2) Lisbon ACC New System
0,2
Total
CAPEX for
RP2
53,7
0,8
7,4
4,5
1,7
6,5
20,1
1,4
0,5
0,3
0,3
4,6
1,4
1,9
3,6
8,5
3) Comunication systems
2,1
4) Navigation systems
1,6
5) NORMAW - Norte e Madeira WAM
2,6
6) Lisbon Terminal approach Radar replacement
0,5
2
2,4
7) SSR Mode S
0,4
3,8
0,3
2,7
1
8,2
8) Buildings and electromechanical systems
0,9
1,7
0,6
0,4
0,4
4
0,1
0,3
0
0
0,1
0,5
8,8
16,6
9,9
7
11,9
54,2
2,6
58
4,9
TERMINAL COST EFFICIENCY - PORTUGAL
TERMINAL COST-EFFICIENCY
Portugal terminal cost-efficiency targets are set for the determined unit
costs of the following airports:
Portugal
Lisboa (LPPT)
Porto (LPPR)
Faro (LPFR)
Madeira (LPMA)
Porto Santo (LPPS)
Ponta Delgada (LPPD)
Santa Maria (LPAZ)
Horta (LPHR)
Flores (LPFL)
59
TERMINAL DETERMINED UNIT COSTS - PORTUGAL
TERMINAL DETERMINED UNIT COSTS – PORTUGAL TARGETS
Terminal cost-efficiency targets for Portugal are set out in the table below.
Real terminal unit costs (in €2009 prices) are expected to decrease 1.6%
over the period between 2009 and 2019, meaning a global reduction of
about 15% over the horizon.
Portugal Terminal Cost-Efficiency Targets
Portugal Terminal DUC
Total terminal determined costs (MEUR
Nominal)
Inflation index (base EUR 2012)
Total terminal determined costs (MEUR Real
2012)
Total terminal Service Units (000)
Real (EUR 2012) terminal DUC
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
27.415
28.435
29.565
30.376
32.254
102.32
103.85
105.41
106.99
108.59
26.795
27.381
28.048
28.392
29.702
187
187
188
190
192
143.55
146.24
149.17
149.64
154.63
60
I leave you with the Portuguese Cost-Efficiency
experts
61
EN-ROUTE COST-EFFICIENCY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
Portugal Lisboa charging zone are an adequate contribution to the EU-wide
targets? If not, why?
the Portugal en-route cost-efficiency targets and figures?
CEF Q #9: Do you have any other views on the Portugal Lisboa en-route
cost-efficiency targets?
62
TERMINAL CAPACITY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
CEF Q #10: What is your opinion on the terminal cost-efficiency targets for
Portugal?
the Portuguese terminal cost-efficiency targets and figures?
CEF Q #12: Do you have any other views on the Portuguese terminal costefficiency targets?
63
Thanks for your attention
Written comments are welcomed until the
3rd of June
performances.aesa@seguridadaerea.es
64
RP2 SOWEPP - ENVIRONMENT
20th May 2014
AESA
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
This presentation is divided in four sections:
ENVIRONMENT KPI: KEA
PERFORMANCE AND TARGETS
FLIGHT EFFICIENCY PLAN
INTERDEPENDENCIES
2
INTERDEPENDENCIES
3
KEA
SCOPE
The Performance Regulation establishes two environment KPIs:
→ the horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory (KEA),
applicable at FAB-level
→ and horizontal en route flight efficiency of the last filed flight plan (KEP),
applicable to the Network Manager
4
CONCEPTS – RP2 vs RP1
RP1
KPI - average horizontal en route flight efficiency
→ Defined as the actual trajectory vs the great circle distance
→ Actual trajectory is calculated on the basis of the Filed Tactical Flight
Model (FTFM) which corresponds to the last filed flight plan
Target
→ European Network level
only
5
RP2
KPI - average en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory
→ Defined as the actual trajectory vs the great circle distance
→ Actual trajectory is calculated on the basis of radar data
Target
→ European wide level
Some changes have been
introduced in the calculation
of the KPI…
→ FAB level
6
RP2 vs RP1
RP1 (2012-2014)
Average horizontal en
route flight efficiency:
based on flight plan
trajectories
EU-wide level
RP2 (2015-2019)
KEP: based on flight plan
trajectories
Network Manager
KEA: based on actual
trajectories
FAB
7
KPI DEFINITION
KEA - Definition
The KEA is defined as the comparison between the length of the en route
part of the actual trajectory and the achieved distance (great circle),
summed over all IFR flights within or traversing the local airspace.
What exactly does this mean?
8
KPI DEFINITION
KEA – the basics
As illustrated in the figure, the calculation of the KEA is based on the
difference between:
→ (L) the length of the flight’s trajectory (blue line) between the Origin (O)
and Destination (D) points, and
→ (G) the Great Circle Distance between the Origin and Destination (green
line)
Within the EU-wide area
9
KPI DEFINITION
KEA – breakdown at FAB level
A logical way to proceed would be to calculate FAB KEA figures as the
difference between:
→ L1, L2, L3: the length of the trajectory from entry to exit (blue lines), and
→ G1, G2, G3: the great circle distances between entry and exit (dotted
grey lines).
FAB 1
FAB 2
FAB 3
10
KPI DEFINITION
KEA – breakdown at FAB level
→ This way, the sum of the FAB actual trajectories (L1, L2, L3) is equal to
the total actual trajectory (L), but
→ The sum of the FAB great circle distances (G1, G2, G3) is greater than
the total origin-destination great circle distance (G)
FAB 1
FAB 2
FAB 3
11
KPI DEFINITION
KEA – breakdown at FAB level: Methodology
Actual trajectory at FAB level is compared against the achieved distance:
The achieved distance (H1, H2, H3) is proportion of the great circle distance
between Origin (O) and Destination (D) points, related to the entry and the
exit points of the FAB airspace.
FAB 1
FAB 2
FAB 3
12
KPI DEFINITION
KEA – breakdown at FAB level: Methodology
KEA = length of the actual trajectory (Li) – Achieved distance (Hi)
KEA = FAB route extension (Li - Gi) + Network Interface component (Gi - Hi)
KEA at EU Network level (L – G) is the sum of KEAs at FAB level (Σ (Li – Hi))
FAB 1
FAB 2
FAB 3
13
KPI DEFINITION
KEA - Definition
In the measurement of the KEA, the 40 NM circles around the departure
and arrival airports of the flight are excluded.
14
INTERDEPENDENCIES
15
EU-WIDE TARGETS
EU-wide target
The EU-wide target is to reach an average of horizontal en route flight
efficiency of the actual trajectory (KEA) at least 2.6 % in 2019.
→ All FABs have to contribute to the achievement of this target.
→ This target can be broken down per FAB.
According to regulation, FAB targets shall be assessed against a reference
value provided by the Network Manager
16
PERFORMANCE PROFILE
Performance Profile
The SW FAB is currently
the most inefficient FAB
in all Europe, regarding en
route horizontal flight
efficiency of the actual
trajectory (KEA)
KEA - 2012 actual figures
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
17
EU-WIDE TARGET BREAKDOWN
EU-wide target
breakdown
Consequently, according
to the reference values
estimated by the Network
Manager, the SW FAB is
the on that has to improve
the most during RP2
KEA: 2012-2019 required improvement
1,2%
1,0%
0,8%
0,6%
0,4%
0,2%
0,0%
18
PROPOSED TARGETS
KEA: Network Manager Reference Values - Targets
SW FAB reference values proposed by the NM represent a KEA
improvement of 0.99 points from 2012 to 2019 (23% inefficiency decrease)
→ SW FAB Targets are the values proposed by the Network Manager
KEA - SW FAB targets
4,4%
4,2%
4,0%
3,8%
3,6%
3,4%
3,2%
3,0%
4,27%
3,85%
3,71%
3,57%
3,43%
3,28%
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
19
2018
2019
PROPOSED TARGETS
KEA: SW FAB Targets
SW FAB targets are challenging but acceptable in view of current
performance (improvements in 2013) and the action plans in place.
Targets are a consequence of:
→ Portugal: sustainment of the performance levels in Portugal, where free
route airspace (FRA) is currently implemented above FL245
→ Spain: gradual improvement of the flight efficiency in the Spanish
airspace by means of the actions planned at FAB level
20
INTERDEPENDENCIES
21
STARTING POINT
STARTING POINT
Free Route Airspace Lisboa
(FRAL): implemented since
2009 above FL245.
Portugal – Spain Cross
border
boundary
limit
definition irrespective of
national borders since 2012.
22
SW FAB FLIGHT EFFICIENCY PLAN
Flight efficiency improvement action plan – SW FAB
The SW FAB flight efficiency improvement plan consists of several projects
ranging from minor ATS route alignments to a large scale reorganization
They are grouped in three main areas:
Free Route Airspace
Network Improvement
Civil Military Coordination
23
FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE
Free Route Airspace
Lisboa – Madrid – Brest
The aim is to extend Free Route Airspace from Lisboa FIR to North West
Spain, towards the French coast to accommodate main traffic flows into
the West Airspace Operational Block of the SW FAB airspace, creating one
of the biggest Free Route Airspaces in the ECAC area
24
FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE
FRA: Lisboa – Madrid - Brest
→ Step 1: improvement of the interface between Madrid and Brest FIRs
25
FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE
FRA: Lisboa – Madrid - Brest
→ Step 2: implementation of H24 Free Route Airspace in Santiago (SAN)
and Asturias (ASI) sectors, from FL245 to UNL (known as FRASAI)
→ Step 3: Free Route operations in Brest airspace as continuation of Free
Route Airspace in SW FAB
26
NETWORK IMPROVEMENT
Network Improvement
Several projects planned regarding SW FAB ATS route network redesign
The route network improvements within the SOWEPP deal with lateral and
vertical interconnectivity, including interconnectivity with SW FAB adjacent
areas.
There is a direct link with “European Network Improvement Plan”
27
NETWORK IMPROVEMENT
Canarias TMA project
Implementation of a new
P‐RNAV based TMA in
Canarias FIR
TMA design will enhance
current SID/STAR structure,
enabling flights to operate
close to user preferred
trajectories
28
NETWORK IMPROVEMENT
SW FAB / Marseille FIR
interface project
Restructuration
of
this
interface to allow a better
flow organisation and transfer
of traffic between the eastern
part of the SW FAB airspace
and FABEC
29
NETWORK IMPROVEMENT
SW FAB / Bordeaux interface
project
Restructuration
of
interface
between
Barcelona,
Madrid
Bordeaux FIR/UIRs.
the
the
and
Segregating major traffic
flows and creating specialised
ATC sectors, considering both
civil and military airspace
needs.
30
NETWORK IMPROVEMENT
Casablanca Dualisation
project
Split of ATS airways in the
Lisboa‐Casablanca‐Canarias
interface to accommodate
main traffic flows between
Europe and South Atlantic
Region, including the Canary
Islands.
31
NETWORK IMPROVEMENT
Madrid TMA project (OPTIMA)
Design and implementation of a new P‐RNAV structure for Madrid TMA.
Re‐organisation of Madrid approach sectors and implementation of
independent parallel approaches.
Barcelona TMA project
New P‐RNAV structure for Barcelona TMA including a re‐organisation of
ATC sectors.
New SID/STARs will be introduced in the Barcelona airport (LEBL) prior to
the implementation of the P-RNAV structure.
32
NETWORK IMPROVEMENT
ATS Network improvements projects
Implementation
of
short‐term
improvements agreed by the Route
Network Development Sub‐Group
(RNDSG) which affect to SW FAB.
Faro TMA
New CNS infrastructure to develop PRNAV procedures
Lisboa TMA
Terminal area will be restructured
taking advantage of P‐RNAV
33
CIVIL MILITARY COORDINATION
Civil Military Coordination
Includes a FUA optimisation projects
Flight efficiency projects previously
listed
require
civil-military
coordination
enhancements
as
already explained in their description.
Consequently,
civil-military
coordination must not be seen in
isolation, but as a fundamental part in
the implementation of broader
initiatives.
34
INTERDEPENDENCIES
INTERDEPENDENCIES
35
INTERDEPENDENCIES
Holdings
Some inefficiency caused
by the holdings in the
terminal areas is currently
being computed as enroute inefficiency.
40 NM
36
INTERDEPENDENCIES
Flight Efficiency vs Capacity
→ Actual trajectory modifications with respect to the filed flight plan,
(such as direct routing, etc) may cause overload in other sectors
→ It is considered as a good practice (to perform the actual trajectories as
adherent as possible to the last filed flight plan. This recommended
practices are followed, in particular in Spain where there is a very similar
level of inefficiency contribution to the KEA and KEP indicators
37
INTERDEPENDENCIES
Business choices
Trade-offs between environment and cost-efficiency, are in many ways
trade-offs made by the airspace users when looking for their better balance
between the extra cost of fuel burnt, and the cost of route charges
The consequences of this balance made by airlines for business strategic
reasons, has an impact on the air navigation services provision
38
INTERDEPENDENCIES
Business choices – Example
Traffic going from Europe to South America: recent traffic analysis
reveals a decrease in the number of overflights in the Canary Islands
airspace partly due to a deviation of the flights from the shortest routes
between Europe and South America
Shortest routes
Actual routes
39
INTERDEPENDENCIES
Economic benefits of flight efficiency
Flight efficiency improvements, represent shorter flights and less fuel
burnt. Consequently: cost savings for the airspace users.
→ Free Route Airspace Lisboa (FRAL) above flight level 245, implemented
since 7 May 2009, has enabled an annual reduction of 1,300,000 NM
(miles), representing:
→ Fuel savings of more than 8,783 tons
→ An emission reduction of about 27 Kton of CO2
→ An estimated save of over 12 million Euros per year, for the airspace
users
40
Thank you very much!
41
Draft RP2 South West FAB Performance Plan
2015-2019 SOWEPP
(CONSULTATION DOCUMENT)
CONSULTATION MEETING
20 MAY 2014
CAPACITY
AENA
1
CAPACITY. En-route ATFM delay per flight
Capacity targets AENA
 Spanish achievements in
the performance area of
capacity have been very
significant during the first
two years of RP1, with a
74% improvement in the
en-route ATFM delay
indicator
in
2013
compared
with
2011
values.
0,9
0,8
0,7
Spanish NPP RP1
0,6
0,5
NOP 2014-2018/19
0,4
0,3
SW FAB RP2
0,2
0,1
0
2012
2013
RP1
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
RP2
2
CAPACITY. Efforts carried out in SPAIN
 This reduction in delays has been achieved together with other improvements
obtained in additional indicators equally associated to quality of service, such as
ASMA, which was reduced in 2013 by an average of 4% in the five main TMAs (10%
in Madrid) and TAXI-OUT, which was reduced in 2013 by an average of 14% in the
five airports with more traffic (30% in Palma).
ASMA (min/flight)
Airport
2012
2013
Madrid
0,82
0,74
Barcelona
1,44
1,29
Palma Mallorca
1,6
1,42
Málaga
0,72
0,74
Gran Canaria
1,15
1,23
DATA PRB
%
-9,8%
-10,4%
-11,3%
2,8%
7,0%
TAXI-OUT (min/flight)
Airport
2012
2013
Madrid
4,37
3,85
Barcelona
4,67
4,36
Palma Mallorca
4,22
2,95
Málaga
2,26
2,31
Gran Canaria
1,99
1,48
%
-11,9%
-6,6%
-30,1%
2,2%
-25,6%
DATA PRB
3
CAPACITY. ACCs capacity plan
 Next table shows the information extracted from the draft NOP 2014-2018/19
which is still in approval process.
4
SWFAB7FABEC
Bordeaux Interface
20142017
20142017
2016
2017
20142016
2015
2016
2017
20142016
2014
Palma ACC
2015
2016
2017
20142016
2015
Sevilla ACC
2015
2016
2017
Canarias ACC
Madrid ACC
2017
PRNAV TMA
SWFAB/FABEDC
Marsella Interface,
including LUMAS
2017
A-CDM
SACTA 4.1 (ITEC)
2016
Safety Nets
SACTA 3.z5.60
(AGDL)
2015
Barcelona ACC
Interfaz Sevilla/
Casablanca
Full
Implementation
SACTA CF2
CAPACITY. ACCs capacity plan
20142016
2016
20162019
20152017
2016
20142016
DATA NOP
5
CAPACITY. Terminal and Airport Targets
 Lack of experience in this KPI target setting.
 Issues with historic evolution recommend
not to use it as the only reference. Need of
deeper analysis at individual airport level.
 The accomplishment of the target requires
success in various areas through the
participation of the different stakeholders
involved.
AERODROME
Capacidad
Aeródromo
CAPACITY
25%
25%
Meteorologia
MET
33%33%
ATC
OTHER
Resto
ATC
3%
OTHER
Resto
Otras
7%
Capacidad ATC
ATC
CAPACITY 32%
32%
 Global target set as a function of the traffic
forecast and the specific analyses carried out
for each airport.
 Target is aligned with other FAB plans.
6
CAPACITY. Terminal and airport ANS ATFM delay per flight
 Gran Canaria (GCLP): The number of approach sectors to be used will continue to be just one, with the
possibility to use two sectors when necessary.
 Barcelona (LEBL): The main capacity constraint is due to environmental issues, the structural and operational
capacity of the airport has reached its limit with the current use of runways (parallel and segregated).
Flow Control measures will be taken in order to better balance traffic between two TMA sectors: T1 which is
currently overloaded and T2, which has available capacity. Additionally, a new sector in Barcelona TMA will
increase capacity to/from Barcelona (LEBL) by handling some of its flows and mainly by managing traffic to/from
Girona (LEGE). ACDM (from 2016) will contribute to improving performance.
 Madrid-Barajas (LEMD): The main project planned for the future is the implementation of independent
simultaneous approaches to parallel runways.
 Málaga (LEMG): The second runway will be used to satisfy demand when needed. Current approach sectors
configurations are considered adequate.
 Palma de Mallorca (LEPA): Current runway lay out is a major constraint to improvement. Nevertheless, several
developments in the ATC system will contribute to better performance: 2015- DMAN & ACDM; 2016- AMAN.
7
RP2 SOWEPP
20th May 2014
INAC
Portuguese Proposal for Cost-Efficiency –
Lisbon FIR
2
CONTENT
•
•
•
•
•
•
COST-EFFICIENCY TARGETS´S PROPOSAL
INVESTMENTS
COST OF CAPITAL
INTERDEPENDENCES – CAPACITY AND COST-EFFICIENCY
MAIN REMARKS
Q&A
3
COST-EFFICIENCY RP2
Portuguese proposal
Portugal En-route Cost-Efficiency Targets
Portugal Lisboa En-route
DUC
Nominal)
Real EUR 2012)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
111.986
117.619
121.538
124.787
128.169
102.32
109.452
103.85
113.258
105.41
115.302
106.99
116.635
108.59
118.025
3,190
34.31
3,202
35.37
3,219
35.81
3,245
35.94
3,269
36.10
4
COST-EFFICIENCY RP2
Costs in EUR '000
Determined costs by nature
Cost details
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
80.546
23.429
5.317
2.694
111.986
83.448
23.702
7.199
3.271
117.619
5,0,%
3,6%
1,2%
86.515
23.985
7.787
3.251
121.538
3,3%
3,7%
1,2%
88.957
24,.276
8.344
3.211
124.787
2,7%
2,8%
1,2%
90.445
24.571
9.769
3.384
128.169
2,7%
1,7%
1,2%
Cost-efficiency KPI - Determined Unit Rate/Actual Unit Cost (in real
terms)
Inflation %
1,20%
1,50%
Price index
102,3
103,9
Total costs real terms
109.452
113.258
Total
% n/n-1
3,5%
1,50%
105,4
115.302
1,8%
1,50%
107,0
116.635
1,2%
1,50%
108,6
118.025
1,2%
Detail by nature (in nominal terms)
Staff
Other operating costs (1)
Depreciation
Cost of capital
Total costs
Total
% n/n-1
Staff
% n/n-1
Other op. % n/n-1
(1)
Including EUROCONTROL costs
5
COST-EFFICIENCY RP2
(000’ euros)
Determined costs by service
Air Traffic Managment
Communication
Navigation
Surveillance
Search and Rescue
Aeronautical Information
Meteorological services
Supervision costs (NSA)
Other State Costs (EUROCONTROL)
Total costs
Total
%n/n-1
ATM
%n/n-1
CNS
%n/n-1
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
67.835
8.630
5.511
5.933
4.612
5.017
5.959
791
7.699
111.987
70.694
10.517
6.053
5.734
4.680
5.180
6.087
802
7.872
117.619
5,03%
4,21%
11,1%
73.740
10.560
6.230
5.812
4.747
5.350
6.226
814
8.057
121.536
3,33%
4,31%
1,3%
73.793
10.065
7.601
7.582
4.816
5.486
6.372
827
8.246
124.788
2,68%
0,07%
11,7%
75.389
10.216
7.890
8.368
4.885
5.568
6.576
839
8.438
128.169
2,71%
2,16%
4,9%
6
COST-EFFICIENCY RP2
Portuguese proposal vs EU wide targets
65,00
63,71
 23% over the
period
EUR 2009
55,00
49,26
49,10
45,00
32% over the
period
35,00
33,57
25,00
2009
2010
2011
2012
Lisboa DUC (low scenario)
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Union-wide DUC (low scenario)
7
2018
2019
INVESTMENTS
Name of Investment CAPEX
Sub-total of main CAPEX below (1)
1) LISATM V9.2
Planned Amount of Capital Expenditures (in MEUR)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
8,7
16,3
9,9
7
11,8
0,6
2) Lisbon ACC New System
0,2
Total
CAPEX for
RP2
53,7
0,8
7,4
4,5
1,7
6,5
20,1
1,4
0,5
0,3
0,3
4,6
1,4
1,9
3,6
8,5
3) Comunication systems
2,1
4) Navigation systems
1,6
5) NORMAW - Norte e Madeira WAM
2,6
6) Lisbon Terminal approach Radar replacement
0,5
2
2,4
7) SSR Mode S
0,4
3,8
0,3
2,7
1
8,2
8) Buildings and electromechanical systems
0,9
1,7
0,6
0,4
0,4
4
0,1
0,3
0
0
0,1
0,5
8,8
16,6
9,9
7
11,9
54,2
2,6
8
4,9
COST OF CAPITAL
Cost of Capital considered in
2011 & 2012-2014
Effective rates
2015-2019
2011
2012
2013
re
Return on Equity
7,56%
6,44%
15,33%
9,50%
8,29%
rd
Average interest on debts
1,88%
0,45%
1,45%
0,94%
0,34%
L
Financial leverage
14,1%
1,7%
15,1%
12,6%
10,1%
t
Tax rate
0,0%
0,0%
0,0%
0,0%
0,0%
6,76%
6,34%
13,24%
8,42%
7,49%
WACC
9
INTERDEPENDENCES – CAPACITY AND COST-EFFICIENCY
• The “capacity” and “cost-efficiency” KPI’s are closely related.
• The recent changes in traffic flows have required the adoption of a “New
Capacity Plan”, whose main objectives are to meet the traffic demand and
increase 3 movements per hour, avoiding a huge cost increase for airspace
users;
• The “status quo” would lead to delays higher than 0,40 minutes per flight;
• According to the above mentioned plan, it will be possible to keep the delays at
0,20 minutes per flight, through the implementation of new operational
procedures;
• A better capacity performance would require the opening of the 2 new sectors,
as well as hire new ATCO (more 28 hours per day).
10
MAIN REMARKS
• The Lisbon FIR en-route charges will remain lower than the average of European
Union;
•
Notwithstanding the recent changes in traffic flows, with implications in the
quality of services (delay), all efforts will be done in order to meet the demand
without increasing costs and delays;
• Since 2009, the ANSP has been develloping all efforts in order to create more
competitive advantages for its users. Until 2019, it is estimated that the costs
will decrease by 32%, while the European average is 23%.
11
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
12
Meeting Minutes
June 2014
RP2 SOWEPP Consultation Process – Minutes of the meeting
June 2014
2015-2019 South West FAB Performance Plan Consultation Process
Minutes of the meeting
1
MEETING ARRANGEMENTS
Headquarters of the Spanish “Ministerio de Fomento” (Paseo de la Castellana, 67, Madrid, 3rd Floor,
Auditorium), Tuesday 20th of May of 2014, 10:00-16:00.
2
ATTENDANCE LIST
NAME
ORGANIZATION
Paco J. Fernández
APROCTA
Estrella Gutiérrez
ANSMET/NSA-MET SPAIN
Antonio Corpa
IBERIA
Ramón Montero
ACETA
Ángeles Pozo
IBERIA
Laurie O’Toole
IATA
Pete Curran
IATA
Javier Valdés
IATA
Pilar Zuloaga
IATA
Luis Castillo
DGAC
Javier Martínez
AENA
Jesús Romero
AENA
Santi Cortés-Burns
AENA
Elena Vega
AENA
Afola Miranda
NAV Portugal
Nuno Simoes
NAV Portugal
Marifé Antón
Spanish Air Force (support)
Francisco J. Moreno
Spanish Air Force, Operations Division
Esperanza Herráiz
AESA-DSATI
Raquel Sanz
AESA-DSATI
María Da Luz Antonio
INAC Portugal
Pablo Hernández-Coronado
AESA-DSATI
Ana Gómez-Pineda
AESA-DSANA
David Nieto
AESA-DSANA
Juan Roca
Ryanair
Eduardo Abia
AESA-DSANA (SENASA)
Mª Isabel Izquierdo
AESA-DSANA (SENASA)
Pablo Olmeda
ALA
Cristina Montero
AENA AEROPUERTOS
Ricardo López
AESA
Emiliano C. Morona
AENA
Page 1
NAME
3
June 2014
ORGANIZATION
Carmen Ferreirós
AENA
Carlos Oliver
AESA (ISDEFE)
Mª Victoria Arin
AESA
Leandro Calvo
AESA
Paloma Arriaga
AEMET
Sergio García
AEMET
José Antonio Fernández
AEMET
AGENDA
10:00-10:15
10:15-11:00
11:00-11:45
11:45-12:30
12:30-13:30
13:30-14:15
14:15-15:00
15:00-15:45
15:45-16:00
Introduction
Safety
 Level of EoSM
 Application of the RAT methodology
 Just Culture
Environment
 Horizontal en route flight efficiency (KEA)
En route Capacity:
At SW FAB, Portugal and Spain levels, targets, reference values
and plans associated to:
 En route ATFM delay per flight
 Incentive Scheme
Break
Terminal Capacity
Portugal and Spain targets and plans associated to:
 Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight
En route Cost-Efficiency
 Investments
Terminal Cost-Efficiency
 Investments
Any other issues
Page 2
4
June 2014
SUMMARY
David Nieto from AESA welcomed all participants in the meeting room. No comments were made to the agenda. The
SOWEPP was then presented to the audience.
4.1
INTRODUCTION TO THE SOWEPP
AESA-DSANA initiated the SOWEPP presentation by introducing the regulatory framework and clarifying that
according to that only those Spanish airports of more than 70,000 movements have been included in the plan. INAC
explained that for cost-efficiency matters, all airports have been included. Therefore, Azores and Madeira
airports have been included in the common scheme, which makes the scheme cheaper.
Comment #1. IATA: We have had cost-efficiency meetings with all the States who have asked to us to
participate (i.e. Germany, France).
4.2
SAFETY ISSUES
AESA-DSATI presented this safety part. According to ICAO, in 2013 the achieved figure of passenger
fatalities per 100,000 flights worldwide was of 0.1. Therefore, safety is of paramount importance. It is
important to note that the SW FAB is the gateway to Europe from the SW. Therefore, it manages a
considerable number of flights throughout the year and safety is a paramount area.
Concerning the level of EoSM, the proposed SW FAB targets at NSA level is to reach level C by 2019,
according to the European-wide target. Nevertheless, at ANSP level the proposed SW FAB target of level D
for all MOs go beyond the European-wide targets (level C for safety culture MO and level D for all other
MOs). Concerning the NSAs (ESA and INAC), both will focus on the areas in which they have lower
performance levels to reach level C of maturity by 2019. According to the safety plans of Aena and NAV
Portugal, it will be possible to achieve level D in all management objectives by 2019.
With respect to the application of RAT methodology to separation minima infringements (SMIs), runway
incursions (RIs) and ATM-specific occurrences (ATM-S) both in terms of ground an overall score, the
proposed targets in the SOWEPP are consistent with the EU-wide targets (80% by 2017 and 100% by 2019
for ground score and for the overall score: 80% of SMIs and RIs by 2019 as well as 80% of ATM-S by 2017,
100% of ATM-S by 2019). Aena and INAC will work together during RP2 in order to identify common areas
for potential improvements towards the establishment of a common SW FAB just culture approach.
Comment #2. IATA: asked whether the SW FAB has an overall safety policy and the SW FAB is working on
a common safety policy and material.
AESA-DSATI explained that both authorities and providers are working to develop a common safety policy
and training material for the SW FAB. AESA-DSANA then added that a common safety policy is one of the
priorities of the NSA groups, and a common safety policy is expected to be finalised by the end of this year.
Page 3
June 2014
Comment #3. IATA: asked whether the NSAs plan to share this policy with the users. IATA wants to see a
real collaboration as there is the impression that AENA and NAV Portugal are experiencing different
evolutions which evidences that there is not a lot of cooperation and sharing of practices (two-state
operations approach). They want to check that the strategy is at the right point and make a follow-up.
AESA-DSANA then replied that they are developing common inspection procedures and framework as well
as common safety oversight activities. There is an effort to join teams and facilities.
Comment #4. IATA: asked whether they plan to do more with fewer resources or just do better work with
the same resources. Any resource savings?
AESA-DSANA replied that they expect to exploit synergies to take full advantage of both partners. The
obligation as an NSA is to have adequate resources in place and number. The intention is to have a robust
plan and exploit synergies. The challenge is to save effort. Nevertheless, from an NSA perspective, the SW
FAB has developed a FAB Operational Plan under the remits of the SW FAB Committee. This is already
considered an improvement.
Comment #5. IATA: What is the practical implication? Cost savings?
AESA-DSATI commented that the operational changes specified in the FAB Operational Plan have been
assessed as a joint team. The practical implication of this activity is the enhancement of safety levels.
Comment #6. IATA: According to the information provided, Portugal NSA plans to be in level B until 2018
and then achieve level C in 2019. They will appreciate more information about the safety plans.
AESA-DSATI replied that there is a plan. There are only four questions in which we are at level B. The main
points are: Implementation of QMS, best practices sharing, common safety policy and safety culture
methodology to be applied not only on ANSPs but providers as well.
INAC added that Portugal expects to achieve level C before the end of 2019. Nevertheless, they are going
through an internal reorganization process of the authority to become more independent. They expect
therefore to require more facilities and staff to undertake these activities. Nowadays they are still studying
some common policies to save costs concerning training and the implementation of procedures.
Comment #7. IATA: They would like to have the number of questions under level C, more quantitative
information. They still see a gap between level C and D and they need more information to better
understand if this target is ambitious or not. The document explains these values qualitatively but they
want to have some quantitative information on this respect.
AESA-DSATI explained that a procedure has been approved trying to achieve level C in order to promote
safety. They are also developing a safety culture methodology. It is also important to note that AESA only
applies RAT to SMIs and RIs from categories A, B and C and for ATM-S, RAT is applied to SMIs and RIs from
categories AA,A, B and C.
Comment #8. IATA: It seems that there are two different speeds in the FAB when looking at the targets for
AENA and INAC regarding the RAT. Is there any practice sharing within the FAB?
INAC comments that it is not 0% in 2015 and 2016, they are working to introduce values for these years in
the final plan. The operators still need to check the values.
Page 4
June 2014
Comment #9. IATA: insisted that it is clear for them that there is not a common FAB plan, but two plans
one for Spain and another for Portugal. It seems not to be optimized in terms of resources and activities.
Portugal then explained that the SW FAB is working in developing common procedures.
4.3
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
AESA-DSANA introduces the environmental KPI (KEA) and explains the differences with respect to RP1. In
RP1 the KPI was defined as the average horizontal en-route flight efficiency indicator, estimated from the
difference between the actual trajectory versus de great circle distance, where the actual trajectory is
calculated on the basis of the Filed Tactical Flight Model (FTFM) or the last filed flight plan. The target was
set at European Network level only. For RP2, the KPI is defined as the average en-route flight efficiency of
the actual trajectory, estimated using as well the actual trajectory. However, this actual trajectory is
calculated on the basis of radar data or actual trajectories. The EU-wide target is to reach an average of
horizontal en-route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory at least 2.6% in 2019. All FABs have to
contribute to the achievement of this target.
The Network Manager has provided reference values for all the FABs. In the case of the SW FAB, it is
proposed an improvement of 0.99 points in the target from 2012 to 2019. The proposed KEA values for the
SW FAB are then the following: for 2012: 4.27%, for 2015: 3.85%, for 2016: 3.71%, for 2017: 3.57%, for 2018:
3.43% and for 2019: 3.28%.
Comment #10. Iberia: Why is there no improvement for 2014?
AESA-DSANA explained that this value has not yet being estimated for 2014.This value corresponds to RP1.
Comment #11. ACETA: is there any reference value before 2012? This is a new indicator which has not been
estimated before.
AESA-DSANA explained that there is no experience on this indicator and AESA has already expressed its
concerns concerning this target due to the fact that it is not possible to make any estimation from previous
periods.
AESA-DSANA continued explaining that the SW FAB targets are challenging but acceptable in view of
current performance and the action plans in place. The starting point is the Free Route Airspace Lisboa
(FRAL) implemented since 2009 above FL245 and the definition of the Portugal-Spain cross-border
boundary limit. The SW FAB flight efficiency improvement plan consists of several projects ranging from
minor ATS route alignments to large scale reorganization.
The Free Route Airspace initiative includes the following projects:
 Lisboa-Madrid-Brest project: extension of the Free Route Airspace from Lisboa FIR to North West
Spain towards the French coast. This project consists in 3 steps. Step 1: improvement of the
interface between Madrid and Brest FIRs. Step 2: implementation of H24 Free Route Airspace in
Page 5
June 2014
Santiago and Asturias sectors from FL245 to INL. Step 3: Free Route operations in Brest airspace as
continuation of Free Route Airspace in SW FAB.
Comment #12. IATA: It is always good to achieve the reference values. What is the timing for steps 1 to 3?
AESA-DSANA replied that the overall project is expected to be implemented in 2018. Nevertheless not all
the activities will be implemented at the same time. On one hand, step 2 – FRASAI is already implemented
since May 2014. On the other hand, step 1 is expected to be implemented in 2015, according to the NOP.
AESA-DSANA then proposed to provide more detailed information on these activities in the performance
plan in reply to IATA’s request. IATA insisted that the evolution of the activities in the performance plan is
not clear to them.
Comment #13. IATA: Have you undertaken any cost-benefit analysis on this project? What is the magnitude
of the investment on this project?
AENA replied that they don´t have that information at the moment, they need to ask internally for more
information on investments.
The presentation continued with the proposed network improvement initiatives. Several projects are
planned regarding SW FAB ATS route network redesign (Canarias TMA, Madrid TMa, Barcelona TMA, etc)
and the interconnectivity with SW FAB adjacent areas (SW FAB/Marseille FIR interface project, Casablanca
dualisation project). These activities have a direct link with the “European Network Improvement Plan”.
Regarding the he civil and military coordination activities, they are a fundamental part in the
implementation of all the previously related initiatives and cannot be treated in isolation.
Comment #14. IATA: they noted that the interface problems created with the military and the French
airspace. Is there any use of FUA?
AESA-DSANA commented that military issues need to be addressed more in depth.
Comment #15. IATA: Any plan of free routes below FL245?
According to the PCP proposal, free route above FL310 throughout Europe will be required for the next
year.
AESA-DSANA explained that what it is stated in the SW FAB plan is solid and consistent with the European
Route Network Plan.
Aena also commented that the plan includes what can be reasonably achieved. For instance, Aena is
working on the extension of free routes in Canarias but this information is not included in the plan as it is not
possible to do it in the way they would like to do it. It is also important to note that Aena is not the sole actor
in this play. Furthermore, they have to cope with big inefficiencies in the Spanish airspace structure, which
gives a lot of room for improvement. In addition, it is difficult to quantitatively assess the effect of the
proposed measures and the initiatives in place.
NAV Portugal added in this respect that the only way to improve efficiency is to review the route structure
and extend the free routes.
Page 6
June 2014
The Spanish DGAC clarified that during the last SES Committee the PCP proposal included in the annex was
not approved. Therefore, the future of the PCP annex remains open as Member States have expressed their
concerns regarding its implementation. The annex of the PCP can then be subject of local revision in the
coming future.
To finalize with the discussion, IATA wondered whether we want confidence on the regulations.
Concerning interdependencies in the case of the environmental indicators, the presentation continued with
a list of identified causes of inefficiencies: holdings in the terminal areas, actual trajectory modifications
with respect to the filed flight plan, business choices by which airspace users make a choice between the
extra cost of fuel burnt that a selection of an alternative route might imply and the difference in the cost of
route charges (example: traffic from Europe to South America).
Comment #16. IATA: In relation to the business choices and more precisely the example of routes through
Canarias, wind is also an important factor apart from the route charges.
Comment #17. ACETA: In relation to the environmental target. This target is linked to the first SES
objectives. ACETA would like this target to be more ambitious, between 2.60 and 2.28 from now to 2019.
ACETA does not have technical information available but they really want to have a lower target more
aligned with the SES objectives. Regarding the Atlantic routes, ACETA considers that a technical solution at
FAB level should be found. Refuse the provision of direct routing is also affecting this environmental
parameter. This way of operating is in place in Spain since 2 or 3 years ago.
AESA then commented that we are the worst FAB in terms of performance right now. Hence this FAB has
to improve the most because of structural problems. When looking at the required improvement to achieve
it is a different story. The Network Manager has agreed with the proposed values and considers they are
valid to achieve the target. Indeed, the deviation of some specific routes can be solved at FAB level.
Concerning direct routing, the scarce provision of these direct routings causes inevitably inefficiencies that
are captured by this environmental indicator. Anyway, it is important to note that the Network Manager
also provides indications that are against this indicator.
Comment #18. IATA: there seems to be a lot of projects in place, how are they going to be managed? Do
you expect to increase the number of controllers? IATA’s assumption is that there is operational capacity in
the system to be explored and they are therefore interested in the business cases.
AENA explained that they are carrying out an intense training program within the company. The free route
initiative in Asturias is a big challenge for the company and they have identified that additional training is
required. Operationally-related capacity initiatives will not be directly translated into extra resources. This is
not what they plan to provide.
4.4
CAPACITY ISSUES
As an introduction, it is explained to the audience that the SOWEPP flight forecast for RP2 is consistent
with the STATFOR forecast for the LOW scenario as of February 2014.
Page 7
June 2014
Concerning the en-route ATFM delay, AENA introduced the AENA targets. AENA target of 0.48 min of enroute ATFM delay per flight is below the delay forecast of the NOP 2014-2019. Nevertheless, historically
AENA has always over-performed their targets.
Comment #19. IATA: Asks for the delay forecast of 2.1 for 2019 in the NOP.
AENA explains that in that version of the NOP were plans independent from capacity. Aena has then
thoroughly reviewed these figures in the NOP and gone through the interdependencies with other KPAs.
An updated version will be published by the end of June by the Network Manager. This version of the NOP
has been approved in the NETOPS.
Comment #20. IATA: the FAB reference value remains in 0.30?
AENA answered positively. Anyway this value was introduced in October 2013. AENA is putting priority on
the costs area.
AENA continued with the capacity plan included in the NOP. The Portuguese information has still to be
included. Additional details on the operational and technical measures for the Spanish NSA were provided.
NAV Portugal complemented this presentation by announcing a target of 0.2 for Portugal over the
reference period. This is above the reference value provided by the PRB. Nevertheless, it is important to
note that since February they have been provided with a new traffic forecast. The traffic increased 6% in
2013, which was not expected and now they foresee a 3% traffic improvement in 2015. They have asked to
the Network Manager for an update of the NOP, considering different scenarios (opening of two new
sectors, optimize resources, improve procedures) to deal with the issue of this changing traffic and maintain
the 0,2 min of en-route ATFM delay/flight over the period. To meet this target, they have identified that
they need to increase costs and improve operations in the critical areas. Otherwise, if nothing is done, the
forecast delay is over 0.80 by 2019.
Comment #21. IATA: Differences between the last version of the NOP and current draft are all related to
traffic? What are the reasons?
AENA replied that major changes in the NOP are not related to traffic. Major changes are due to the
required number of new sectors to be opened according to the new version, when compared to the closure
of some sectors as depicted in the previous version of the plan. In any case, it is important to note that
service providers provide information (plans, projects) to the Network Manager and they include all this
information in the machine and come up with a figure of the service level of quality. However, after the first
version of the plan, they have also understood that it is not all about the methodology.
Comment #22. IATA: Do you still feel comfortable with the STATFOR LOW scenario forecast? Traffic is
growing above low scenario right now. Is the consequence in terms of traffic risk-sharing being considered?
AESA-DSANA intervened to clarify that this point is commonly shared and they support IATA’s concerns.
The situation is stable neither for Spain nor for Portugal. We are not sure whether the traffic forecast might
considerably change.
Page 8
June 2014
Comment #23. IATA: What about the contribution to the EU-wide targets? Targets would be met with the
reference value of 0.30 min of en-route ATFM delay per flight, but not with the proposed value of 0.52 min
of en-route ATFM delay per flight. It is difficult for them to support this value. Is it a question of additional
investment? It would be healthy to take a look at different scenarios: costs versus capacity. Looking for
different options, IATA acknowledges the fact that there are many projects and they will appreciate to have
more conversations on what solutions could be, particularly when missing the targets.
AESA-DSANA replied that there are additional scenarios to be considered to that of reducing costs versus
capacity. Airlines have expressed their interest to participate more. To that respect, Aena commented that
it would be healthy to engage users in the ANPS projects’ decision making process. Today there is a
meeting of the SW FAB Operational Board with the users with the aim at checking on whether the
proposed projects are those that the airlines want. This forum with the airlines will be more focused in
operational aspects rather than costs. AESA-DSANA suggested to AENA to extend the invitation to IATA.
AENA thinks that they have been already invited but they will check the list of invitees. AENA finally
commented in reference to the value that the reference values are figures delivered by a machine, while the
proposed values are something solid.
Comment #24. IATA: comments that this fact does not change the situation. Nevertheless, sticking to these
activities and initiatives is the best possible scenario.
4.4.1 INCENTIVE SCHEME
The SOWEPP incentive mechanism for en-route capacity is applied at FAB level. The proposed incentive
formula is a symmetrical linear function with a dead-band. Therefore, bonuses are awarded for
achievement of performance which goes beyond the target. Only the ANSPs that have achieved their
individual reference value are awarded a bonus. And only the ANSPs that have not met their reference
value are penalized.
Comment #25. IATA: commented that this scheme is new for them. They found prudent not to go up to 1%
for the maximum value. In fact, they would prefer to go lower than 1%. In terms of the symmetrical nature
of the function, they requested to look at the scheme more carefully and consider other options before
taking a final decision. Other FABs are taking other approaches. They consider a best practice to apply just
penalties.
AESA-DSANA comments that a final decision has not yet be taken. We are trying to find common points
between NAV Portugal and Aena.
NAV Portugal intervened afterwards to express their agreement with the proposed model. However, their
views with respect to AENA were slightly different in some aspects. They haven’t agreed on the parameters
of the linear function yet. For instance, they did not foresee to reach the maximum value of 1% of income.
They proposed instead a value for the maximum value of 0.75%. Their aim was to have a fair incentive
scheme.
AESA acknowledged the preference of airlines for non-symmetrical functions. Discussions are still ongoing
regarding questions like dead-band or not, range for the maximum value, etc.
Page 9
June 2014
Comment #26. IATA: added that probably the most important thing to do in the scheme is to take the
target at the most appropriate level with very small percentage of revenues, something that will make
sense. The maximum or minimun level of bonus/penalty is not that important particularly considering the
lack of experience. With regard to the gradient, they needed to think more on what sort of gradient they
would prefer. In any case, they could illustrate us on this because they have some ideas. Obviously, they
would expect penalties to come faster than bonuses.
Comment #27. IATA OT: considered that they are already paying for the service. The incentive is for
improving the facilities and services that users are already paying for.
AESA-DSANA expressed their support to the symmetrical model, they consider it is a good model. NAV
Portugal also stated that, in their opinion, the symmetric model is the fairest and more balanced model. In
their view, the open issue is to set the appropriate parameters.
Comment #28. IATA: added that the UK has a scheme which was implemented years ago. They
recommend learning from that. This scheme has evolved from a symmetric to a non symmetric model
based on the experience.
4.4.2 TERMINAL CAPACITY
AENA presented the capacity KPI for terminal and airports. This is a new KPI and there is no experience in
setting up this type of target. There is need of a depth analysis at individual airport level to account not only
for historical evolution. The aggregated proposed target is of 0.8 min of delay per arrival flight for each year
of the period. In addition to that, specific targets for the selected airports (Gran Canaria, Barcelona, MadridBarajas, Málaga and Palma de Mallorca) are provided. These targets are aligned with the targets proposed
in other FAB plans. Finally, the characteristics and local initiatives to improve terminal capacity on each of
the selected airports were explained.
INAC explained that they have not provided yet the figures for Portugal because they have identified
differences in the airport information, which needs to be clarified.
NAV Portugal added to this information that they have a list of 9 airports included in the terminal zone, of
which 5 of those airports are located in the FIR. They have estimated the amount of delays from historical
data for the period 2006 to 2012. Four of them have shown a delay of 0 min/arrival flight (Azores). The other
5 remaining airports consist in 3 airports located in the mainland and 2 airports in Madeira. According to the
historical analysis results, the Porto airport has shown to experience the highest weather constraints
(between 0.6 to 0.7 min/arrival flight). Lisbon airport, on its side, experienced the highest capacity
constraints (between 0.4 to 0.55 min/arrival flight). For RP2, no increase in the delay estimation is foreseen
for these two airports. In the forthcoming days, they expect to provide and distribute precise figures.
Preliminary, they have estimated a global terminal KPI figure of 0.55 min/arrival flight.
Comment #29. IATA: Considering that the deadline for providing comments is the 3rd of June, they would
like to receive the data as soon as possible.
Page 10
June 2014
NAV Portugal committed to distribute the values by Friday.
AESA-DSANA requested to NAV Portugal to circulate the figures directly to AESA, IATA and the
Commission.
Comment #30. IATA: This is the first time that this target is established. It would be useful to understand
the historical performance of the airports. Are the figures limited to ATC Capacity?
AENA replied that historical data is not homogenous throughout the years. Besides, there is not enough
experience. These targets are estimated making use of the traffic forecast and an analysis tool introduced
by EUROCONTROL. Concerning ATC Capacity, only 32% in average of this parameter is due to that cause.
They have chosen a simple approach, a constant value throughout the period addressing all causes.
Comment #31. IATA: Is there any ambition in Madrid and Barcelona? We would appreciate an improvement
in the efficiency level.
AENA explained that the environmental issues limit any potential progress at airports. In fact, they find the
targets to be quite challenging. In Barcelona, there has been a substantial increase in the traffic compared
with the traffic forecast for next years. They are also planning to deploy A-CDM in Barcelona by 2016. In the
case of Madrid, as they mentioned before in the environmental part, they have plans to improve the TMA
operations. The objective is to operate with independent parallel runway approaches instead of current
segregated runway approaches. The proposed targets are both achievable and challenging.
Comment #32. IATA: Is Madrid currently performing better than Barcelona?
AENA explained that Barcelona airport performed better than Madrid airport last year, but from the ATC
point of view it is more difficult to improve capacity. IATA commented that they will have to look to
historical data and come back with more questions.
Comment #33. ACETA: commented on the 0.48 target compared to the 0.41 actual value achieved in 2013.
They consider that the target should not be worse than the 2013 value. Regarding the terminal target,
taking out from the estimation those years that showed bad performance, they obtain an average value of
0.58 min/arrival flight. In relation to the incentive scheme, the bonus and penalties should be applied to
both the ANSP and the user. It is important to note that a non ambitious target leads to easy bonuses as
well as stringent targets lead to imminent penalties.
AESA-DSANA then proposed to establish the following mechanism to consult airlines. It is clear that
forecast traffic was not realistic for airports. [Action 01:]It is then proposed to circulate historical
information (by tomorrow) so airlines will be able to comment on performance.
4.5
COST-EFFICIENCY
Regarding cost-efficiency, the Performance Regulation requires that the target for en-route cost-efficiency
for en-route services is expressed in terms of the determined unit costs, at charging zone level and in local
currency. There are three en-route charging zones within the SW FAB: Portugal Lisboa, Spain Canarias and
Spain Continental. The EU-wide en-route cost-efficiency targets are set to provide a reduction in
determined unit costs by 3.3.% per year over RP2: from 65.64 Real (EUR2009) en-route DUC in 2015 to 49.10
Page 11
June 2014
Real (EUR2009) en-route DUC in 2019. In the SOWEPP, the en-route service unit variation for the RP2 period
has been selected in consistency with the STATFOR forecast LOW scenario as of February 2014.
This presentation continued with the detailed information provided by INAC on cost-efficiency followed by
AENA.
4.5.1 COST-EFFICIENCY PORTUGAL
INAC presented the cost-efficiency part of the plan for all the accountable entities. Staff costs were
increased to consider a 2% salary upgrade. The total CAPEX for RP2 was of 54 MEUR. The cost of capital
was considered on the base of a low average interest on debts (lower than 1% according to the
recommendations) for RP2.
The Portuguese DUC is always lower than the European average throughout RP2 and is reduced at a higher
pace.
There are different interdependencies between meeting traffic demand or increase the number of
movements (3 movements per hour), between increasing delays or implementing new operational
procedures, between capacity (decrease delay) and cost-efficiency (change sectors and increase resources).
What is better? A higher delay with lower costs, or the opposite? Their preferred option is to choose a
balanced approach. The Portuguese proposal is a compromise between cost-efficiency and capacity
targets. Taking that into account, not implementing free routes in all the airspace is a good proposal for
them.
Comment #34. IATA: the SOWEPP is not presented in line with the PRB template. The targets are set in
terms of 3.3% yearly reduction of the DUC, and Portugal is actually increasing them by 1.3%. It seems, when
looking at the tables that the ANSPs costs are increasing at a 12%. The SOWEPP has the highest ATCO
employment costs, and a low productivity. ANSPs staff costs are still not good in average, so raising them is
not reasonable. The government should put more measures.
INAC answered that they have discussed the capping of staff costs. Nevertheless, costs are not only driven
by wages. There are costs that do not entirely depend on NAV Portugal. Some of them stem from decisions
issued by the Portuguese Government. For example the increase in the social security and pension costs.
They are working to control the variation of these costs.
Comment #35. IATA: expressed that it is still very difficult for them to accept that ANSPs cannot address
staff costs. ANSPs have to adapt and take measures as others do. They did recognize that great
improvements were made in the past. Nonetheless, they were mainly due to Governmental decisions. Many
people were losing their jobs nowadays in the airlines. Therefore, it was not acceptable for them to hear
that nothing else can be done.
INAC replied that they were considering the scenario of decreasing costs. Nevertheless, staff costs can only
be lowered by reducing staff hours, and that would have an impact on delays and capacity.
Page 12
June 2014
NAV Portugal added that operating costs have been discussed. They have worked to incorporate what the
users suggested in a previous consultation in Lisbon (career progression is frozen, risk reduction, etc). No
further improvement is possible.
Comment #36. IATA: All SAR and supervision costs in Portugal are allocated to en-route? They considered
that this is not a fair cost allocation.
INAC replied affirmatively.
Comment #37. IATA: ICAO fair cost allocation states that around 20% should be allocated to the terminal
part. Is INAC looking at that?
INAC clarified that the TNC in Portugal only covers the provision of ANS. IMAC and MET provider costs are
not included in the terminal database costs.
4.5.2 COST-EFFICIENCY SPAIN
AESA-DSAPU explained that the unit rate and costs are frozen in RP2. Therefore few internal adjustments
and corrections have been made. A minor correction relates to the 2013-2014 actual military costs, which
have been updated. In addition to that, a 10 MEUR reduction of terminal MET costs has been applied. It is
important to note that we are still recovering from the situation caused by the important deviations
experienced between reality and what was planned in RP1 NPP. In AESA’s view, Spanish targets are more
than compliant with the EU-wide targets. Those targets imply an RP2 cost reduction over the EU target of 230M€ for Spain continent and -17 M€ for Canary islands. In addition, the real en-route DUC experiences an
average yearly improvement of -4.7% for Spain continental and -3.7% for Spain Canarias within the two
reference periods (2009 -2019).
Comment #38. IATA: Spain is key for IATA. As for Portugal, they recognize the great improvements made
in the past, even prior to RP1. The fact is that when only looking at the RP2 targets in isolation, the values
are not that good. The result of that is that only a 1.8% per annum per determined costs improvement will
be achieved in RP2, way below the target of 3.3% improvement of the EU-wide targets. Airlines are still in a
very fragile situation. They appreciate what has been done. However, can we have more than the EU-wide
target?
AESA replied that the economic situation of the airlines is supervised periodically. Hence, we are not
disconnected from the problems of the airlines. Maybe at the end of RP2 we will be in a better position to
go further on cost-efficiency issues. In the case of Spain, the scheme is not working very well, because there
are important differences between the traffic forecast and the real traffic as shown during RP1, this problem
also applies to the costs.
AENA’s CAPEX Plan for RP2 was also presented. The CAPEX table includes information on short-term
improvements, specific projects, project facilitators as well as other CAPEX investments. Contribution of
CAPEX to the European ATM Master Plan deployment corresponds to a 66% of the total investments
planned for RP2.
Page 13
June 2014
Comment #39. IATA: They would like that the PCP costs are identified in isolation with respect to other
project costs. PCP costs were discussed in the last CEF consultation.
AENA replied that the PCP has not yet reached full maturity. Some of the investments make sense from the
PCP point of view. Nevertheless, all the provided information on investments relate to operational
improvements. It is important to note that only 10% of the PCP-related costs are addressing ATM related
activities. The ATM MP is the basis for the investment scheme of AENA, which includes additional
investments to that proposed in the PCP: validation activities, large scale exercises, training, etc.
Comment #40. IATA: The PRB template requests the total percentage of PCP costs. PCP OPEX can also be
included in the template. We would just like to know how much we are paying for PCP. What is the potential
self-funding? The template has to be populated.
AENA answered that they will populate the PCP line when required. The PCP is going ahead of reality right
now. In addition, no other ANSPs are including this information.
Comment #41. IATA: There is a lot of maturity in the PCP decision making process. They just noted some
difficulties to understand the CAPEX information. How is cost-effectiveness identified?
AENA noted IATA’s point and highlighted that the ANSP business plan is robust as well. It took five years to
generate the investment plan. They will do their best with respect to PCP and the related activities to
master their investment plan. However, it is important to note that the PCP is asking for more time to get
the full picture.
Comment #42. IATA OT: expressed their feeling that we are too cautious with regards to traffic. A more
ambitious traffic forecast could have a positive impact on cost-efficiency targets. They also found the
Canaries unit rate too high, considering in particular that there is a large portion of oceanic airspace. The
unit rate in the Canaries seems to mirror that one for the Continent. The Canaries unit rate is even higher
than the unit rates for other Eurocontrol areas. They would expect more costs to be allocated to the
Continental unit rate. In the end, that would mean more flights will cross the Canarian airspace.
AENA explained that the evolution of the Canaries and Continental costs are very similar because costs
evolve the same way, in particular staff. It is a political issue.
AESA-DSANA added that they were trying to follow the business forecasts provided by AENA. AENA is still
with debts. Anyhow, if traffic increases above forecast values, users should be paid. Eventually, the traffic
forecasts for RP2 will be reviewed by 2016. This is a lesson learnt from RP1 where a lot of deviations were
provided regarding the predictions included in the RP1 plan.
Comment #43. ACETA: considered that the DUC targets are high: in Spain Continental the proposed values
of 68.55 in 2015 as well as of 63.83 in 2019 are 21% and 30% higher than the EU-wide real en-route DUC for
2015 and 2019 respectively.
NAV then answered that they have selected the STATFOR forecasts for the LOW scenario for this reason as
well as Spain. The ANSP is losing money due to RP1 assumptions based on the STATFOR forecasts for the
BASE scenario. It is important to note that the STATFOR forecasts for the LOW scenario foresee great
traffic increases in 2015, which they consider unrealistic. According to their forecasts, until 2019 the traffic
levels experienced before 2014 will not be recovered.
Page 14
June 2014
The DGAC intervened to explain that a mid-term review of the targets and the traffic forecast has been
proposed.
Comment #44. IATA: asked how this will impact on the DUC. Will this represent a benefit?
DGAC expressed his positive opinion. The European Commission seems to support the revision of the whole
scheme in the middle of RP2.
Comment #45. IATA: thanked for the organization of this meeting and requested to upload the
documentation into the website.
[Action 02:] Upload the presentations into the website.
Page 15
Stakeholders’ Written Comments
June 2014
26 April 2013
Appendix
General remarks
Overall comments
FAB level
The SW-FAB draft performance plan is not in line with the PRB draft PP template.
Macro-economic
Overall comments
FAB level
Portugal and Spain inflation figures are aligned with the latest IMF inflation forecast (with the
exception of the year 2016: Spain forecast a 0.69% inflation rate while the IMF forecasts 0.90%).
Traffic
Overall comments
FAB level
Both Portugal and Spain are using the STATFOR low scenario in their en route traffic forecast. It is
believed that traffic increase will be more aligned with the STATFORr base scenario, especially
considering the growth in GDP rates in both countries (which will have a multiplier effect on air
traffic growth in return). In such a situation, Portugal and Spain are required to provide a sound
justification on the choice of the low scenario or to adjust traffic assumptions upward.
Safety
We appreciate that SW-FAB proposes to achieve safety targets in line with the EU-wide targets.
Overall comments
FAB level
The overall approach to safety is considered to be lacking a FAB perspective. There is no overall
strategy and progression between the entities is at differing rates suggesting little best
practice/resource sharing. The activities to support progression towards achieving the targets by
2019 are in some cases unclear. In particular, INAC provides very limited information on how
targets will be achieved.
The approach to OVERALL application of the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology is a concern
given the current levels of performance are considerably far from the target in the case of Spain
and in the case of Portugal its appears the current performance level is not known.
Environment
We appreciate that the SW-FAB horizontal en route flight efficiency targets are in line with the FAB
reference values proposed by the Network Manager.
Overall comments
FAB level
The current levels of horizontal en route flight efficiency within SW-FAB are relatively poor
compared with other FABs. We therefore see considerable improvement possibilities, in particular
across Spanish airspace. Given the planned activities to address the KPI, we believe an even
better level of horizontal en route flight efficiency is achievable and encourage SW-FAB to
expedite deployment of FRA across Spanish airspace.
Capacity target & Incentive
SW-FAB, Spain and Portugal en route ATFM delay per flight targets do not meet the FAB
reference values by a considerable margin in any year of RP2. Additionally, we note that the
NetOps assessment of SW-FAB planned capacity performance is considerably worse than the
already poor proposed target. Additional effort to meet the target is required especially
considering that the STATFOR low-case scenario for traffic evolution has been applied which we
consider to be overly pessimistic.
The Performance Regulation requires that terminal and airport capacity targets are set at national
level with a breakdown at airport level for monitoring purposes. Spain has proposed to establish
such a scheme; however there is no scheme proposed for Portugal.
Overall comments
on FAB level
For Spain, the approach to establishing a local terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per
flight is unclear. There is no documented rationale for the proposed target of 0.8 min/flight. Given
the relatively low levels of delay experienced during 2013 and considering that the STATFOR lowcase scenario for traffic evolution has been applied, the proposed Spanish target is lacking
ambition. Additionally, the considerable capacity improvement actions planned during RP2 should
deliver better performance and therefore encourage the setting of more ambitious targets.
On the incentive scheme, we consider that the maximum bonus/penalty should be limited to a
smaller amount than 1% of revenues during RP2 as this scheme is relatively immature. We would
suggest not more than 0.5% be considered. In terms of the design of the scheme, we request the
application of an asymmetric dead band, whereby a bonus is relatively more difficult to achieve
than a penalty. We believe that this approach to be more equitable since the airspace users are
already funding the capital and operational capabilities to deliver any level of service and further,
that the impact of delay on airspace users carries significantly greater costs in terms of fuel and
network impact whereas there is no additional impact on ANSPs.
Cost efficiency En-route
Overall
comments FAB
level
The information is not presented as per the PRB template. As a result, it is believed that the information presented in the report (and the
related comments) are missing the most important element: the RP2 Union-wide reduction targets are not met.
(in MEUR 2012 real terms)
Determined Cost
2015 (D)
2016 (D)
109,452
113,258
Determined Cost change
Portugal
proposed
targets
2017 (D)
115,302
DUC % change
1.8%
35.37
3.1%
118,025
1.2%
1.2%
35.81
35.94
36.1
1.2%
0.4%
0.4%
1.9%
34.31
Average % 2015-2019
Total % 2015-2019
2019 (D)
116,635
3.5%
Average % 2015-2019
DUC (EUR 2012 base)
2018 (D)
1.3%
5.2%
Portugal DC is increasing by 1.9% p.a. on average over the 2015-2019 period while the DUC is increasing by 1.3% p.a. on average.
Such increases are unacceptable and Portugal is urged to re-adjust its DC and DUC according to the EU-wide target of 16.5% decrease
in DC and 3.3% average p.a. decrease in DUC. Airspace users appreciated Portugal good performance over RP1, but such good
performance does not mean that Portugal is exonerated from contributing toward the RP2 targets.
Portugal
comments
The following elements (from the reporting tables, in nominal terms) are also of concern:
1. ANSP staff costs are increasing by 12% over RP2 (and by 22% over the 2014D-2019D period!). We note that the draft performance
plan mentions the need to increase salaries. Nonetheless, given that the latest ACE report shows that NAV Portugal has amongst the
highest ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour (gate‐to‐gate), we strongly believe that there is room to reduce staff costs rather than
increasing them. A 22% increase over 2014-2019 is not acceptable.
2. The plans also mentions investment as a reason for not meeting the EU-wide target without any further information. Furthermore,
while the asset base is increasing by 25% over RP2, depreciation costs are increasing by 84%. Such a difference is of concern,
especially considering the lack of information related to investments planned by Portugal. More information and transparency are
requested on investments, especially as regards amortization periods, ER/TNC allocation, shift of investments from RP1 to RP2, etc.
3. Supervision costs are increasing by 6% over the period (and by 46% over the 2014D-1019D period!). There is no justification for such
an increase, which is not acceptable.
4. All SAR and supervision costs are allocated to en route. The portion of these costs attributable to terminal navigation must be shifted
to TNC DC.
5. Table 2 - NAV Portugal display an amount ('000 EUR) of 6.826 for 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 for costs exempt from cost sharing.
What is the justification for this yearly amount?
Determined Cost
2015 (D)
2016 (D)
608,175
603,991
Spain CON
proposed
targets
2017 (D)
2018 (D)
597,414
-0.7%
594,190
-1.1%
Average % 2015-2021
2019 (D)
589,708
-0.5%
-0.8%
-0.8%
DUC (EUR 2012 base)
68.55
DUC % change
67.59
66.25
65.1
63.83
-1.4%
-2.0%
-1.7%
-2.0%
Average % 2015-2021
-1.8%
Total % 2015-2021
-6.9%
While we note that Spain CON DC and DUC are decreasing, the EU-wide targets of a 3.3% average p.a. decrease (for a total 16.5%
decrease) in the DUC over RP2 are still far to be met and it is expected that the tables will be re-adjusted accordingly. Similar to
Portugal, the good performance of Spain over RP1 is appreciated by airspace users, but it does not exonerate Spain from contribution
toward the EU-wide target for RP2.
Spain CON
comments
1. AENA employment costs per ATCO‐hour, which were the highest in 2011, have subsequently decreased and such decrease should
continue in order to meet the RP2 targets. It is believe that more efforts must be made on the staff cost side.
1. Other operating costs are increasing over RP2: efforts could be made to control such costs in order to contribute to the RP2 targets.
2. Depreciation costs are decreasing much faster than the asset base: what is the explanation for the non-correlation of the two?
3. The reduction in the cost of capital from 6.7% in RP1 is appreciated, though it was understood that it would be reduced at 5.2% over
RP2 (reporting tables are displaying a higher level - from 5.4% to 5.6% - which should be adjusted). It is believed that additional efforts
can be made if AENA cost of capital is aligned is AEMET (4.1%).
4. All SAR costs are allocated to en route. The portion of these costs attributable to terminal navigation must be shifted to TNC DC.
5. The presence of revenue from other sources is welcomed by the users: it must be ensured that such revenue will be available over
the whole RP2 period.
Determined Cost
2015 (D)
2016 (D)
96,146
95,475
Spain CAN
proposed
targets
2017 (D)
94,713
-0.7%
DUC % change
92,121
-1.5%
-1.2%
-1.1%
62.8
62.48
61.86
60.68
59.7
-0.5%
-1.0%
-1.9%
-1.6%
Average % 2015-2022
Total % 2015-2022
2019 (D)
93,262
-0.8%
Average % 2015-2022
DUC (EUR 2012 base)
2018 (D)
-1.3%
-4.9%
Spain CAN
comments
Spain CAN DC and DUC are decreasing over RP2, which is welcome by airspace users, but they are decreasing at a slower rather than
Spain CON DC and DUCs. Furthermore, the EU-wide targets of a 3.3% average p.a. decrease (for a total 16.5% decrease) in the DUC
over RP2 are still far to be met and it is expected that the tables will be re-adjusted accordingly.
As Spain CAN mostly mirrors Spain CON, same comments as above related to staff costs, other costs, depreciation and asset base,
cost of capital, allocation of SAR costs and revenue from other sources apply).
Cost- efficiency Terminal
Overall comments
FAB level
The information is not presented as per the PRB template. As a result, it is believed that the information
presented in the report (and the related comments) are missing the most important element: the RP2 Unionwide reduction targets are not met in the case of Portugal.
Determined Cost
2015 (D)
26.795
Portugal proposed
targets
2016 (D)
2017 (D)
27.381
2.2%
2.4%
Average % 2015-2019
DUC (EUR 2012 base)
DUC % change
28.392
2019 (D)
29.702
1.2%
4.6%
2.6%
143.55
146.24
149.17
149.64
154.63
1.9%
2.0%
0.3%
3.3%
Average % 2015-2019
Total % 2015-2019
2018 (D)
28.048
1.9%
7.7%
The proposed increase in the unit rate of 1.9% p.a on average with a 2.6% p.a. increase in DC is not in line with
the PRB recommendation of a flat cost development. We urge Portugal to review the cost base for TNC in order
to work towards a cost reduction or at least a stable development. Portugal mentions the investment plans and
the salary increase as a justification for not meeting the target. Nonetheless, it is believed that with efficient
investments and adequate depreciation timeline as well as much-needed continuous effort on salaries (again,
Portugal has amongst the highest ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour) it is possible to meet the EU target.
It is therefore expected that the tables will be re-adjusted downwards.
Portugal comments
1. All terminal costs are attributable to the ANSP: the reporting tables do not display any terminal costs
attributable to the MET provider or the NSA. Costs attributable to these entities for terminal must be excluded
from en route costs and shifted to terminal costs.
2. A cost of capital pre tax rate of 7.8% (far from the 6.1% rate for en route) is unacceptable and must be
adjusted downward, at the level of the en route cost of capital.
3. Same comments as for Portugal en route related to staff costs, other costs and allocation of SAR and
supervision costs apply.
Determined Cost
2015 (D)
97
Spain proposed
targets
2016 (D)
2017 (D)
DUC % change
96
93
91
89
-2.5%
-2.1%
-2.3%
-2.1%
151.75
148.34
143.06
137.92
133.01
-2.2%
-3.6%
-3.6%
-3.6%
Average % 2015-2020
Total % 2015-2020
2019 (D)
-1.6%
Average % 2015-2020
DUC (EUR 2012 base)
2018 (D)
-3.2%
-12.3%
The proposed decrease in the unit rate of 3.2% p.a on average with a 2.1% p.a. decrease in DC is in line with
the PRB recommendation of a flat cost development, which is appreciated by airspace users.
Spain comments
Same comments as for Spain CON en route related to staff costs, other costs, depreciation and asset base,
cost of capital, allocation of SAR costs and revenue from other sources apply).
Investments
Overall comments on
FAB level
Buenas tardes,
En relación al Documento de Consulta sobre el South West FAB Performance Plan
de Navegación Aérea para el periodo 2015-2019, Aena Aeropuertos, como usuario
de los servicios de tránsito de aeródromo, realiza los siguientes comentarios y
propuestas de cambio:
1. Previsiones de tráfico: Se muestra en la tabla adjunta la última previsión oficial
de operaciones de Aena aeropuertos, correspondiente a la Edición de mayo-2014.
Las previsiones de Aena Aeropuertos son más optimistas y difieren de las
presentadas en el Documento de Consulta, especialmente para el aeropuerto de
Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas.
2. Propuesta de objetivos para el Airport ATFM Arrival Delay per Flight por
Aeropuerto: la meta general propuesta se considera elevada, especialmente por el
valor asignado al aeropuerto de Barcelona-El Prat. Por ello, se ha procedido a
realizar un análisis considerando los siguientes argumentos:

Las previsiones apuntan a que durante el periodo 2015-2019 se tenderá a
recuperar progresivamente los niveles de tráfico perdidos durante el periodo 20082013.

En todos los aeropuertos, salvo en Madrid-Barajas, parece razonable que durante el
periodo 2015-2019 se exija, al menos, el mismo nivel de demoras que para el
periodo 2008-2013.

En el caso de Madrid-Barajas, se ha tenido en cuenta la excepcionalidad de los años
2010 y 2011, tanto por motivos operativos como de meteorología, excluyendo por
tanto estos años a la hora de calcular las medias.
Atendiendo a lo anterior, se adjunta tabla con la propuesta de objetivos:
Propuesta de objetivo 2015-2019:
Airport ATFM arrival delay per flight
Aeropuerto
Aena Aeropuertos
Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas
Barcelona-El Prat
Palma de Mallorca
Málaga-Costa del Sol
Aena
(**)
(*)
1,16
0,27
1,08
0,13
0,87
0,27
1,08
0,13
0,83
0,91
1,29
0,11
Gran Canaria
0,23
0,23
0,32
TOTAL
0,69
0,57
0,80
(*) Mantener en todos los aeropuertos la media de 2008-2013, salvo en
LEMD, en el que se excluirían los años 2010 y 2011
(**) Mantener en todos los aeropuertos la media de 2008-2013, salvo en
LEMD, en el que se excluiría el año 2010
3. Para la consecución del objetivo anterior también intervienen causas de demora
externas al proveedor de servicios de Navegación Aérea, como “Aerodrome
Capacity” o “Weather”:
3.1- Contribución de la causa “Aerodrome Capacity”
En primer lugar, Aena Aeropuertos, después del enorme esfuerzo inversor realizado
en la última década, dispone de unas infraestructuras aeroportuarias capaces de
absorber, en términos generales, la demanda tanto actual como futura,
especialmente en lo que se refiere al período 2015-2019. Por este motivo, la
capacidad de Aena Aeropuertos supone una mayor ventaja competitiva frente a
otros aeropuertos, y la situación de saturación y problemas de crecimiento que
existe a nivel europeo, no es extrapolable al caso de España, con lo que eso supone
para el desarrollo de una de las industrias estratégicas de este país como es el
turismo.
Por ello, se solicita que se revisen las siguientes afirmaciones reflejadas en el
documento de Consulta (página 30) sobre las limitaciones de capacidad de la
infraestructura:


Aeropuerto de Barcelona-El Prat: “The main capacity constraint is due to
environmental issues, the structural and operational capacity of the airport has
reached its limit with the current use of runways (parallel and segregated)”.
Aeropuerto de Palma de Mallorca: “It is not possible to target more ambitius
achievement, considering current runway configuration” .
En ambos casos Aena Aeropuertos considera que la capacidad de las
infraestructuras aeroportuarias está por encima de los valores actualmente
declarados y aún no se ha alcanzado ningún límite.
Además de lo anterior, se ha producido durante el período de análisis un importante
descenso de las demoras por causas “Aerodrome Capacity” (ver gráfico adjunto)
que viene a reforzar el hecho de que las infraestructuras aeroportuarias no suponen
ni van a suponer una limitación a la capacidad en los próximos años.
3.2- En cuanto contribución de la causa “Weather”, se puede afirmar que España no
puede compararse con Europa, tal y como se observa en la gráfica adjunta, con las
demoras atribuibles a distintas causas en los principales aeropuertos europeos,
entre ellas la Meteorología (Weather).
4. Por otro lado, se resalta la preocupación de Aena Aeropuertos por la postura del
proveedor de no aumentar la capacidad ni mostrar flexibilidad de adaptación
durante todo el periodo 2015-2019, entendiendo que esto va en contra del principio
de Cielo Único que no es otro que el de ir siendo cada vez más eficiente, sin
aumentar (incluso disminuir) los costes.
Tampoco se considera conveniente no incluir medidas para mejorar la capacidad,
como las que van a venir impuestas por Europa a través del PCP, o la
reestructuración del espacio aéreo en zonas actualmente con problemas de
demoras/capacidad.
5. Se quiere destacar, que se han encontrado discrepancias entre las fechas de
implantación del A-CDM en los aeropuertos de Barcelona- El Prat y de Palma de
Mallorca que figuran en los distintos documento de consulta del remitidos por AESA.
También existen discrepancias entre estos datos y el LSSIP (Local Single Sky
ImPlementation), firmado el pasado 8 de mayo y en el que estaba prevista la
implantación en 2015 para ambos aeropuertos.
Atentamente,
Rafael Fernández Villasante
Director de Operaciones, Seguridad y Servicios
South West FAB RP2 Performance Plan Consultation
Aena Navegación Aérea Comments.
In the context of the elaboration of the South West FAB RP2 Performance Plan, Aena Navegación
Aérea, as one of the main contributors to the achievement of the proposed actions and targets, has
contributed to the elaboration of the current draft, and welcomes the opportunity to share its
views on the proposal circulated for consultation.
In this framework Aena N.A, would like to highlight the following points:
Traffic
 The use of a STATFOR Low traffic profile (ref. February 2014), both for Capacity and for CostEfficiency, is considered adequate and supported as it is completely coherent with the Decision
adopted by the Commission on 11th March when establishing the traffic forecast underpinning
the European Targets.
Safety
 Aena N.A is committed to all the policies promoting safety increase.
Capacity
 Aena N.A. evaluates the 0.48 minutes of delay per flight en-route and the 0.8 minutes of
Terminal/Airport arrival delay targets as a rational approach, taking into account the evolution
of the indicator throughout the first 2 years of RP1 (74% improvement achieved) and the
optimum behavior of other quality of service indicators. It is also viewed as a coherent and
challenging target when compared to the NOP forecasts, which indicate a worse evolution of
delay in Spain using a base STATFOR traffic scenario.
 Although the current South West FAB Performance Plan proposal attempts to balance the
continuation of a strict policy in terms of cost-efficiency with the expectation of improving the
performance in the other Key Performance Areas, it has to be stressed that the targets in
capacity are ambitious with the foreseen traffic increase and the context of restricted
expenditures, and their achievement will require the effective and efficient accomplishment of
all the planned actions.
 Aena N.A. agrees with the application of incentive mechanism only to the en-route capacity
indicator, as the implications on the Terminal unit rate would be only partial (it is under contract
agreements between Airports and Air Navigation companies) and complex when applied in the
Spanish legal context.
 The applicability of the incentive scheme at FAB level is supported, as well as the establishment
of the maximum incentive value around 0.75% of the ANSPs income. The maintenance of a
symmetric function, addressing all causes with a buffer for unexpected behavior on those
outside ANSPs control, is strongly recommended in order to really incentivize a good
performance achievement. With respect to the specific values proposed in the document, a
proposed transition area of 0.15 is considered to be a more reasonable value, taking into
account the overall function and the potential impact on airspace users.
Environment
 Aena N.A. supports the environment targets considering the current level of efficiency in the
Spanish airspace, and taking into account that a share of responsibility with other involved
actors to execute the planned improvements is needed.
Aceta
Asociación de compañías españolas
de transporte aéreo
Performances.aesa@seguridadaerea.es
C/ General Perón nº 40, Portal B, 1ª planta
28020 MADRID
Madrid, 22 de mayo de 2014
Estimados amigos:
En las páginas siguientes incluyo los comentarios que nos sugiere en ACETA la información
contenida en su Documento de Consulta de fecha mayo de 2014, titulado: Draft RP2 South
West FAB Performance Plan 2015-2019 SOWEPP.
Un cordial saludo
Manuel López Colmenarejo
PRESIDENTE
Claudio Coello, 76 – 1º D – Teléfonos: 91-575 59 61 – 91-781 48 69 – Fax: 91- 781 48 66 – 28001 MADRID
1
Aceta
1. Objetivos Generales:
Todos los objetivos de este Plan deberían enmarcarse en los siguientes Objetivos Generales:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Responder a previsiones realistas de evolución de tráfico
Plantear mejoras de productividad de todos los sistemas
Perseguir la convergencia de todos los países y gestores europeos en los siguientes
objetivos:
i. Objetivos de Seguridad
ii. Objetivos de medio ambiente
iii. Objetivos de Capacidad
iv. Objetivos de Coste-Eficiencia
Plantear un escenario ambicioso que permita acercarse claramente a los objetivos
generales del Cielo Único Europeo
2. Previsiones de Tráfico
La banda baja de las previsiones de Eurocontrol del pasado mes de febrero (es la adoptada para
España), parece poco realista por ser excesivamente baja (ofrecen un crecimiento de 2019 sobre
2013 del 5,7%). Las correspondientes a la banda básica, son más realistas (ofrecen un crecimiento
de 2019 sobre 2013 del 15,7%). Estas previsiones entendemos que tienen que ver con el
dimensionado de todos los sistemas. Mantener cifras muy bajas, claramente por debajo de los
valores esperables, conducirá a dimensionar los sistemas por debajo de las necesidades reales.
Por todo lo anterior, entendemos que se deberían adoptar las previsiones de la banda básica.
3. Objetivos de Seguridad
Los objetivos de Seguridad contemplados para España en este documento, entendemos que están
alineados con los previstos en el mismo para la Unión Europea, por lo que no tenemos ninguna
consideración que añadir.
4. Objetivos de Medio Ambiente
Este objetivo coincide con una de las propuestas iniciales del Cielo Único Europeo: la simplificación
de la estructura de rutas y con ella la disminución de tiempos bloque, la disminución de consumos
de combustible y, consecuentemente, la disminución de emisiones de CO2.
Pasar la eficiencia en ruta, en los términos que está planteada, de 3,85 en 2015 a 3.28 en 2019 con
una diferencia de -0,57 parece un objetivo poco ambicioso. En 2019 este objetivo debería quedar
alineado con el general de la Unión Europea, situándose en 2,60.
En este apartado, por las repercusiones directas que tiene para los costes de las compañías que
tienen operaciones a través del Atlántico por una parte y consecuentemente para la mejora de este
indicador, tendría un gran valor resolver el problema de diferencia de tarifa unitaria de la tasa de
ruta entre Portugal Azores y España Canarias, diferencia que genera desviaciones para ahorrar
tasas que incluso compensan el mayor consumo de combustible.
2
Aceta
5. Objetivos de Capacidad
I.
Demora en Ruta. Situar el objetivo de Demora en Ruta en 0,48, cuando en 2013 se
consiguió 0,41 y a marzo de 2014 este valor se situa en 0,15, parece contradictorio. Un
valor de 0,40 parece más alineado con una vocación necesaria de mejorar o, al menos
no empeorar la calidad del servicio. Este valor cobra especial relevancia al servir de
referencia para las bonificaciones/penalizaciones previstas, como se verá después.
II.
Demoras en llegadas a terminal. El valor propuesto de 0,80 a lo largo de todos los
años parece muy alto.
Este valor debe estar alineado con la evolución de los datos históricos, a los que AENA
asigna valores de 0,47 y 0,29, en los años 2012 y 2013; el valor 0,91 al conjunto de
años 2008 a 2013 y 0,84 al conjunto 2008 a 2013 excluido el 2010.
En primer lugar el valor 0,84 no concuerda con los datos que ofrece la tabla; parece que
debería ser 0,72.
En segundo lugar parece que, además de excluir el año 2010 del grupo representativo,
habría que excluir también el 2011, con lo que el grupo daría 0,58.
A la vista de ese 0,58 de la serie representativa y del valor de 0,47 que se obtuvo en
2012, parece razonable adoptar este 0,47 como objetivo de 2015 a 2019, en vez del
0,80 propuesto.
Al cambiar 0,80 por 0,47 en el objetivo global, los objetivos para los 5 aeropuertos
considerados podrían ser:
GCLP – Gran Canaria:
0,32 (Igual que propuesto)
LEBL – Barcelona:
0,53 (Propuesto 0,91)
LEMD – Madrid:
0,53 (Propuesto 0,83)
LEMG – Málaga:
0,11 (Igual que propuesto)
LEPA – Palma de Mallorca: 0,53 (Propuesto 1,29)
En esta tabla se respetan los valores del documento inferiores al 0,47 que planteamos
para el conjunto de aeropuertos y se pone un valor máximo de 0,53 para los que superan
ese valor, de forma que como media de esos cinco aeropuertos salga el 0,47 propuesto.
6. Esquema de incentivos
El esquema propuesto de incentivos, contemplando una bonificación o penalización máximas
del 1 % al separarse ± Y del objetivo, disminuyendo a 0% al llegar a separaciones de ± X, nos
parece razonable, siempre que el valor del objetivo sea razonable. Poner un objetivo muy alto
(sería el caso del 0,48 propuesto) conduciría a una subida casi segura del 1% de la tasa. Con el
valor sugerido de 0,40 encajaría razonablemente el esquema de incentivos planteado.
7. Coste – eficiencia
El documento plantea los siguientes escenarios de coste – eficiencia:
EU global:
Portugal Lisboa:
España Canarias:
España Continental:
DUC en ruta evoluciona de 56,64 en 2015 a 49,10 en 2019
(+0,00%)
(-26,48%)
(+21,59%)
(+30,00%)
Los porcentajes entre paréntesis al final de cada línea, son las diferencias de cada valor en
2019 con el valor de 49,10 planteado ese año a nivel global para la UE
3
Aceta
Se sugiere para España:
A) Converger con UE de forma que la diferencia con el nivel global en 2019 sea solo de un
10%, la mitad del 21,03 que difiere en 2015 el índice de España Continental:
España Canarias:
DUC en ruta evoluciona de 62,80 en 2015 a 54,01 en 2019 (+10,00%)
España Continental: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 68,65 en 2015 a 54,01 en 2019 (+10,00%)
B) Mantener en 2019 el nivel de convergencia de 2015, es decir que la diferencia en 2019
sea la misma que en 2015. No divergir:
España Canarias:
DUC en ruta evoluciona de 62,80 en 2015 a 54,44 en 2019 (+10,88%)
España Continental: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 68,65 en 2015 a 59,43 en 2019 (+21,03%)
Las dos series propuestas para España en el documento divergen de la serie global de la UE.
Incrementan el porcentaje de diferencia con la UE del 10,88 en 2015 al 21,59 en 2019 en
Canarias y del 21,03 en 2015 al 30,00% en España Continental.
Las dos series A) propuestas aquí convergen con Europa a lo largo de los años del Plan.
En España Continental empieza en 2015 un 21,03% por encima de Europa y termina en
2019 solo un 10,00% por encima.
En Canarias empieza en 2015 un 10,88% por encima de UE y acaba en 2019 un 10,00%
Las dos series B) no convergen, pero no divergen. Acaban en 2019 con las mismas
diferencias que había en 2015:
En España Continental empieza en 2015 un 21,03% por encima del global de la UE y
termina en 2019 con esa misma diferencia.
En Canarias empieza en 2015 un 10,88% por encima de la UE y termina en 2019 con esa
misma diferencia.
En este apartado creemos que si la convergencia planteada con las series A) no pudiera
alcanzarse, al menos los objetivos deberían ser los de las series B).
Madrid, 22 de mayo de 2014
4
2. Spanish Airport and ANSP National forum, 25 April 2014
Attendance List
June 2014
Meeting Slides
June 2014
6ª REUNIÓN DEL “SUBGRUPO DE NUEVOS INDICADORES DE NAVEGACIÓN AÉREA”
OBJETIVOS SW FAB PERFORMACE PLAN (2015 – 2019)
Abril de 2014
Departamento de Performance
Eduardo Abia
Isabel Izquierdo
OBJETIVO
Consulta a los usuarios del espacio aéreo los objetivos propuestos en las áreas clave operativas para el
plan SOWEPP de rendimientos 2015-2019.
La consulta se centra en los aspectos de:
• Capacidad en ruta y aeropuertos; y
• Medio ambiente;
• Para el SW FAB;
• Para el segundo período de referencia.
2
MARCO REGULATORIO
En el segundo período de referencia RP2:
• Reglamento de la Comisión Europea No 390/2013 de 3 de mayo de 2013 por el que se establece el
sistema de evaluación del rendimiento de los servicios de navegación aérea y de las funciones de red.
•
Reglamento de la Comisión Europea No 391/2013 de 3 de mayo de 2013 por el que se establece un
sistema común de tarificación de los servicios de navegación aérea.
•
Decisión de Ejecución (2014/132/UE) del 11 de marzo de 2014 la Comisión Europea por la que la Comisión
establece los objetivos de rendimiento de la red de gestión del tránsito aéreo y los umbrales de alerta
para el segundo período de referencia (2015-19).
3
PLANIFICACIÓN ACTIVIDADES SOWEPP
25/04/2014
Consulta interna usuarios navegación aérea
CAPACIDAD y MEDIO AMBIENTE
24/04/2014
Consulta usuarios IATA
COSTE - EFICIENCIA
29/04/2014
Consulta interna usuarios
aeropuertos
CAPACIDAD y MEDIO AMBIENTE
20/05/2014
Consulta usuarios FAB
abril
junio
mayo
julio
20/05/14
Versión intermedia
SOWEPP
29/04/14
Documento consulta
sobre el SOWEPP
03/06/14
Fecha límite
comentarios al
SOWEPP
4
27/06/14
Aceptación del
SOWEPP
10/06/14
Entrega versión
final SOWEPP
CONSIDERACIONES PRELIMINARES
Evolución del tráfico
Vuelos IFR
• Previsiones de tráfico en línea con las previsiones publicadas por STATFOR en febrero 2014.
• Se considera que el tráfico va a evolucionar a nivel FAB siguiendo la tendencia de las previsiones de
febrero de 2014 de STATFOR para España Continental.
RP2 SOWEPP Forecast
IFR Flights
Flights (000)
Spain Overall
Annual variation %
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
1.618
1.622
1.648
1.656
1.671
1.691
1.711
0.2%
1.6%
0.5%
0.9%
1.2%
1.2%
5
CONSIDERACIONES PRELIMINARES
Número de movimientos de llegada IFR en aeropuertos
•
La previsión tiene en cuenta la información presentada en la conferencia de slots de IATA. No obstante, la
tendencia creciente del tráfico está por confirmarse.
RP2 SOWEPP Forecast
IFR arrival movements at airports
GCLP: Gran Canaria
LEBL: Barcelona
LEMD: Madrid-Barajas
LEMG: Málaga
LEPA: Palma de Mallorca
2013
Arrival movs.
46.787
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
53.763
54.121
54.323
54.850
54.991
0,67%
0,37%
0,97%
0,26%
142.090
144.514
150.263
154.313
2,24%
1,71%
3,98%
2,70%
169.547
171.142
174.035
176.438
1,01%
0,94%
1,69%
1,38%
55.537
57.071
58.927
Annual variation %
Arrival movs.
138.176
138.980
Annual variation %
Arrival movs.
166.466
167.859
Annual variation %
Arrival movs.
50.165
53.083
53.748
1,25%
3,33%
2,76%
3,25%
84.695
85.451
86.640
88.893
92.064
94.321
1,39%
2,60%
3,57%
2,45%
Annual variation %
Arrival movs.
Annual variation %
6
CUESTIONES
1
¿Os parecen razonables las previsiones de tráfico para
vuelos IFR?
2
¿Cuál es vuestra opinión sobre las previsiones de
movimientos de llegada IFR en aeropuertos?
3
¿Alguna consideración adicional a tener en cuenta?
7
OBJETIVOS DE CAPACIDAD
Los objetivos de capacidad se proporcionan para dos indicadores:
Demoras ATFM en vuelo para ruta
Demoras ATFM en vuelos de llegada:
• atribuidas a servicios de navegación aérea en aproximación y
aeropuerto; y
• ocasionadas por restricciones al aterrizaje en el aeropuerto de
destino.
8
Demoras ATFM en vuelo para ruta.
•
Se calculan como la media de minutos de demora ATFM en ruta por vuelo.
•
Se ha establecido un objetivo a nivel europeo.
•
El objetivo se debe proponer a nivel FAB. Si bien, por razones de monitorización y de cara a los incentivos,
se va a proporcionar también a nivel nacional.
•
El Network Manager ha proporcionado valores de referencia a nivel FAB.
Capacity KPI #1: En route ATFM delay per flight
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Union-wide targets
0,50
0,50
0,05
0,50
0,50
0,30
0,31
0,31
0,30
0,30
Upper limit
0,50
0,50
0,50
0,50
0,50
Lower limit
0,30
0,30
0,30
0,30
0,30
AENA
0,48
0,48
0,48
0,48
0,48
SW FAB Target
•
•
Teniendo en cuenta lo anterior, AESA ha propuesto un rango de objetivos a nivel SW FAB.
Los valores indicados para AENA son los proporcionados por el proveedor de servicio.
4
¿Consideráis que los objetivos en ruta a nivel FAB
propuestos contribuyen adecuadamente a los objetivos
europeos?
9
Justificación de los valores propuestos:
• La mejora en el área de capacidad ha sido significativa durante los dos últimos años del primer período de
referencia: 74% de mejora en el indicador de demora ATFM en ruta en 2013 con respecto al valor del
2011.
•
Los pronósticos de tráfico indican un incremento continuado de la demanda.
•
Aumentar la capacidad para acomodar la demanda implica una mayor inversión y más personal
controlador, lo cual no está en los planes de AENA.
•
Teniendo en cuenta lo anterior, no se prevé una mejora de los valores para el segundo período de
referencia para Aena, proponiendo un valor de 0,48 min/vuelo para el período.
10
Esquema de incentivos seleccionado a nivel FAB para capacidad en ruta
•
•
•
•
El valor “T” es la meta (target) del SW FAB.
Máxima penalización o incentivo a aplicar (valor “max”) : 1% de los ingresos en ruta del ANSP.
El valor “X” de la “Dead Band” se ha establecido en 0,02 min/vuelo. Representa más o menos un 4% del
margen del “target”.
Área de transición (de “T-X” a “T-Y”): el máximo bonus o penalización se alcanza para un valor de “Y” de
0,15 min/vuelo
Penalty
Bonus
max
Target
T
T -Y
T+X
T-X
T+Y
Dead band
-max
11
CUESTIONES
5
¿Consideráis adecuado el mecanismo de incentivos
propuesto?
6
¿Alguna consideración adicional respecto al mecanismo
de incentivos?
12
Interdependencias:
•
Las interdependencias entre capacidad y coste-eficiencia son claras: por un lado aumentar la capacidad
conlleva un coste, y por otro un defecto de capacidad conduce a la demora, la cual tiene un coste.
•
Como se ha comentado, aumentar la capacidad implica aumentar la inversión y la disponibilidad del
personal. AENA no tiene previsto aumentar la contratación de controladores.
•
El sistema no es lo suficientemente flexible para adaptarse a cualquier tipo de variación, como la
estacionalidad del tráfico.
•
La prioridad en RP2 continua siendo coste-eficiencia. AENA ha optado por no comprometer las metas en
esta área y de ahí se derivan los valores que ha propuesto para capacidad.
13
CUESTIONES
7
¿Cuál es vuestra opinión con respecto a la
contribución de España a los objetivos del SW FAB?
8
¿Cuál es vuestra opinión con respecto al plan de
capacidad de España?
14
Demoras ATFM en vuelos de llegada imputable a servicios de navegación aérea de aproximación y de
aeropuerto.
•
No se ha establecido objetivo a nivel europeo para este parámetro.
•
AESA propone inicialmente un rango de valores a nivel FAB.
•
Aena ha proporcionado valores a nivel nacional.
Capacity KPI #2: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay
per flight
Reference values for Spain
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Upper value
0,47
0,47
0,47
0,47
0,47
Lower value
0,27
0,27
0,27
0,27
0,27
Spain
0,80
0,80
0,80
0,80
0,80
Consistencia con NSP:
• Los planes son consistentes con el objetivo estratégico SO6 “Integración completa de las operaciones en
aeropuertos y de la red” y está en consonancia con el proyecto estratégico del Network Manager.
15
Demoras ATFM en vuelos de llegada para área terminal y aeropuerto.
•
Aena ha proporcionado los siguientes valores para los principales aeropuertos.
Capacity KPI #2: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per
flight – Breakdown at airport level
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
GCLP – Gran Canaria
0,32
0,32
0,32
0,32
0,32
LEBL – Barcelona
0,91
0,91
0,91
0,91
0,91
LEMD – Madrid-Barajas
0,83
0,83
0,83
0,83
0,83
LEMG – Málaga
0,11
0,11
0,11
0,11
0,11
LEPA – Palma de Mallorca
1,29
1,29
1,29
1,29
1,29
16
CUESTIONES
9
Considerando que no se han establecido objetivos a nivel europeo,
¿estáis de acuerdo con los objetivos de capacidad en área terminal y
aeropuerto propuestos por España?
10
¿Cuál es vuestra opinión respecto a los planes asociados?
11
¿Consideráis que la explicación sobre las
interdependencias contribuye a aclarar las metas
escogidas?
17
OBJETIVOS DE MEDIO AMBIENTE
El indicador es el índice de eficiencia horizontal en ruta (KEA). Este índice compara la longitud de la trayectoria
real volada por la aeronave con la longitud de la ruta ortodrómica correspondiente.
• Se aplica a nivel FAB.
• El objetivo europeo es alcanzar una media horizontal de la eficiencia en ruta en vuelo del 2,6% en 2019.
• El Network Manager ha propuesto unos valores de referencia a nivel FAB.
• Los objetivos propuestos a nivel FAB se corresponden con los del NM.
Environment KPI #1: Horizontal en route flight efficiency (KEA)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
-
-
-
-
2,60%
3,85%
3,71%
3,57%
3,43%
3,28%
SW FAB Targets
3,85%
3,71%
3,57%
3,43%
3,28%
Union-wide targets
18
Justificación de los valores propuestos:
•
La propuesta es aceptable teniendo en cuenta los valores propuestos por el Network Manager y el plan
de acción existente a nivel SOWEPP.
•
Los objetivos son coherentes con las mejoras propuestas en la estructura de rutas.
•
Los objetivos se basan en:
–
–
la combinación de los niveles de eficiencia en Portugal, donde se ha implantado FRA a partir de FL245.
la mejora gradual prevista en el espacio aéreo español mediante la implantación de un plan de mejora de la eficiencia
horizontal en vuelo.
Elementos del plan de mejora de la eficiencia horizontal en vuelo:
•
•
•
•
Mejoras potenciales en las rutas más ineficientes.
Introducción de “free routing”.
Mejora de la gestión de la red.
Coordinación civil-militar.
19
Plan a nivel SW FAB para la mejora de la eficiencia horizontal en vuelo:
+ Free Route Airspace (FRA):
Durante RP2 se implantará a nivel FAB el proyecto de FRA para los tráficos en el eje Lisboa – Madrid - Brest,
según el cual se mejorarán las rutas ATS:
• en la interfaz Madrid y Brest.
• con la implementación de FRA H24 en los sectores de Santiago y Asturias, desde FL245 hasta UNL.
+ Proyectos de Gestión de la red:
• Proyecto TMA Canarias.
• Proyecto interfaz SW FAB / Marsella
• Proyecto interfaz SW FAB/Burdeos
• Proyecto dualización Casablanca
• Proyecto TMA Madrid (OPTIMA)
• Proyecto TMA Barcelona
• Proyecto mejoras red ATS
• TMA Faro
• TMA Lisboa
20
MEDIOAMBIENTE / DIMENSIÓN CIVIL - MILITAR
+ Coordinación civil-militar:
• A nivel SW FAB: proyecto optimización FUA con representantes militares en el comité operacional.
Actividades y acciones asociadas:
–
–
–
Mejoras en la red ATS ya previstas en el ERNIP.
Definición de un plan de medidas comunes a nivel FAB a implantar durante RP2.
Coordinación militar en proyectos de eficiencia en vuelo (proyecto interfaz Marseille y Bordeaux) y acciones de
mejora de la red ATS del tipo CDR.
Adicionalmente a nivel español se ha establecido un organismo permanente estratégico (OPGEA) entre AENA
y el Estado Mayor del Aire con objeto de implantar medidas mitigadoras del impacto ambiental.
21
Interdependencias:
• Aspectos técnicos de cuantificación: dificultad para desvincular los efectos de los TMAs..
•
KEA vs KEP: AENA sigue la recomendación de adherirse al plan de vuelo, lo que va en contra de dar
directos.
•
Planificación de rutas por los operadores basándose en las tasas: coste del combustible frente al coste de
las tarifas de ruta. Este fenómeno tiene consecuencias en distintas áreas:
–
–
–
Medioambiente: los vuelos siguen trayectorias
más largas y menos eficientes.
Capacidad: los flujos de tráfico cambian y pueden
congestionar sectores.
Costes: los flujos de tráfico cambian y pueden
reducir los ingresos de los proveedores.
22
CONSULTA
12
¿Los objetivos propuestos a nivel FAB para el indicador KEA de
medio ambiente teniendo en cuenta los proyectos y
consideraciones pertinentes son adecuados?
13
¿Cuál es vuestra opinión sobre estos objetivos y los proyectos
presentados?
14
¿Consideráis que la explicación sobre las interdependencias
contribuye a aclarar las metas escogidas?
23
Gracias por su atención
24
Demora ATFCM en ruta
ESPAÑA
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014 (marzo)
2015-2019
Demora ATFCM por
vuelo (RUTA)
0,60
0,78
1,93
1,56
0,48
0,41
0,15
--
Objetivo
1,93
----0,80
0,75
0,50
0,48
1,56
0,80
0,78
0,75
0,60
0,48
0,41
0,50
0,48
0,15
2008
2009
2010
2011
Demora ATFCM Ruta (real)
2012
2013
2014
(marzo)
2015-2019
Objetivos (RP1/RP2)
 Medidas :





Despliegue de sectorización máxima en verano
Desdoblamiento de sectores / aumento configuraciones máximas
Mejoras en la arquitectura SACTA
Mejora de los procedimientos ATFCM
Cooperación con proveedores colaterales
1
Mejora de la Eficiencia en Vuelo (KEA)
 Estudio del indicador KEA e identificación de las fuentes de ineficiencia
Influencias
Uso flexible del espacio aéreo (FUA)
Encaminamientos RAD
Operativa en fase de Aproximación
Ineficiencia del punto de entrada
Planificación ineficiente de las aerolíneas
Ausencia de ruta más directa
Autorización de directos en táctica
Capacidad de actuación
de AENA
NO
SÍ
SÍ
NO
NO
SÍ
SÍ
2
Demora ATFCM en Aeropuertos (Arribada)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2008-2013
2008-2013 (sin año 2010)
Suma ARR
606.419
545.393
544.298
562.429
516.785
486.257
3.261.581
2.699.152
Suma Min ARR
481.702
392.827
1.010.669
688.826
245.018
139.113
2.958.155
2.269.329
Indicador Unificado
0,79
0,72
1,86
1,22
0,47
0,29
0,91
0,84
• Indicador unificado 2008-2013 (real):
• Indicador unificado 2008-2013 (real sin 2010):
0,91 min/vuelo
0,84 min/vuelo
• Indicador unificado 2015-2019 (objetivo):
0,80 min/vuelo
Aeropuertos analizados: Madrid/Barajas, Barcelona/El Prat, Palma Mallorca, Málaga, Gran Canaria
3
Demora ATFCM en Aeropuertos (Arribada): Importancia causas “externas NA”
(2008-2013)
Aeropuerto
GCLP
LEBL
LEMD
LEMG
LEPA
Principales causas externas NA
32% Ejercicios Militares
28% Capacidad Aérodromo
62% Meteorologia adversa
14% Medioambiente
32% Meteorología
20% Capacidad Aeródromo
21% Meteorología
34% Meteorología
Capacidad
Aeródromo
25%
Resto ATC
3%
Meteorologia
33%
Resto Otras
7%
Capacidad ATC
32%
Resto ATC: falta personal ATC, equipos ATC, huelga ATC
Resto Otras: medioambiente, ejercicio militares, eventos especiales, accidentes, equipos noATC, huelga noATC, otros
4
Ejemplos días con mayor demora ATFCM por “causas externas NA”
 Gran Canaria:
 17-jun-09
 6-nov-10
Ejercicio Militar NEWFIP09
Huelga handling
2.368 minutos
1.990 minutos
17,8 min/arr
10,5 min/arr
Capacidad reducida (niebla)
Capacidad reducida (niebla)
Trabajos en pista
10.418 minutos
17.769 minutos
3.455 minutos
24,9 min/arr
37,1 min/arr
9,78 min/arr
Niebla
Trabajos en pista RWY15L/33R
27.847 minutos
12.115 minutos
51,28 min/arr
21,25 min/arr
 Barcelona:
 07-abr-14
 14-mar-08
 6-feb-11
 Madrid:
 17-ene-11
 25-jul-10
 Palma:
 07-may-13
 03-sep-11
 5-jul-08
Capacidad aeródromo
7.769 minutos
Capacidad reducida (tormentas) 6.564 minutos
Huelga de Handling (Acciona)
3.928 minutos
29,8 min/arr
14,5 min/arr
14,11 min/arr
Meteorología
9,24 min/arr
 Málaga:
 06-abr-09
1.313 minutos
5
Comparativa metas provisionales en otros Planes de Rendimiento RP2
Arribadas / Movimientos IFR totales
2013 en aeropuertos sujetos a
Performace Scheme
Meta Retraso ATFM de llegada
por vuelo agregada por Estado
1.88—1.27
Reino Unido
123.813 / 247.628
740.560 / 1.484.815
España
486.186 / 973.417
0.8
Noruega
234.922 / 476.331
0.63
Suecia
109.922 / 219.838
0.35
Austria
1.1
6
Meeting Minutes
June 2014
MINISTERIO
DE FOMENTO
SUBGRUPO DE NUEVOS INDICADORES DE
NAVEGACIÓN AÉREA
Acta de la quinta reunión (R06)
1.- LUGAR, FECHA, HORA Y DURACIÓN DE LA REUNIÓN
Oficinas de AESA (Avenida del General Perón nº 40, Edificio Mapfre, 4ª Planta, 28020
Madrid), martes, 25 de abril de 2014, 10:30-13:00.
2.- ASISTENTES
NOMBRE
Cristina Montero
Antonio Ruiz de la Mata
Luis Castillo Bernat
Ramón Montero
Steve McGrawth
Juan Rola
José Antonio Aznar
Elena Vega
Ana Gómez-Pineda
Eduardo Abia
María Isabel Izquierdo
ORGANIZACIÓN
Aena Aeropuertos
Aena Aeropuertos
DGAC
Aceta
Ryanair
Ryanair
Aena Navegación Aérea
Aena Navegación Aérea
AESA
SENASA
SENASA
3.- AGENDA
A continuación se expone el orden del día de la reunión prevista:
1.- Comentarios al acta de la reunión anterior.
2.- Consulta de las metas de capacidad y medioambiente, junto con la información sobre
coordinación civil-militar (FUA) que incluirá el plan de rendimientos del SW FAB para RP2
(SOWEPP).
Página 1 de 7
Acta de reunión de subgrupo de nuevos indicadores de navegación aérea (R06)
3.- Establecer próximos pasos a seguir.
4.- ACTAS
A modo de introducción, AESA comenta el calendario de presentación del plan a nivel FAB,
indicando que el plan se va a presentar el día 20/05 en una consulta de usuarios. Los
objetivos que se van a presentar en esta reunión son los de capacidad en ruta y aeropuertos y
medio ambiente para el segundo período de referencia (2015 a 2019). El día anterior, AESA
mantuvo una reunión con IATA para tratar el tema de costes.
4.1 Comentarios al acta de la reunión anterior
Respecto al primer punto de la agenda, no se realizaron comentarios por parte del grupo al
acta de la reunión anterior.
4.2 Consulta de la parte operacional del SOWEPP
A continuación, siguiendo con el segundo punto de la agenda, AESA realizó una
presentación sobre las metas de capacidad en ruta y aeropuertos, así como de las metas de
medioambiente propuestas en el plan para el SW FAB y el segundo período de referencia.
Tráfico
En primer lugar, se presentan las previsiones de tráfico propuestas para vuelos IFR en ruta en
España para los años 2015 a 2019. Las previsiones están en línea con la evolución de tráfico
publicada por STATFOR en febrero de 2014 para el “escenario conservador”.
En relación a la evolución de tráfico en ruta propuesta, el representante de ACETA considera
que son significativamente conservadoras teniendo en cuenta los valores de tráfico del primer
trimestre de 2014, los cuales apuntan hacia una recuperación. Añade también que, según la
información proporcionada por Aena, el tráfico se incrementó en un 1% en el primer trimestre
y el número de pasajeros aumentó en un 3%. Por otra parte, en el último comité de horarios
que tuvo lugar recientemente, el número de slots solicitados de cara a este verano se
incrementó en un 4% con respecto al año pasado para la misma temporada. El grupo solicita,
por tanto, (R06-01) que ACETA aporte toda la información disponible sobre este tema.
Con respecto a las previsiones de tráfico proporcionadas para los aeropuertos españoles con
más de 70.000 movimientos IFR al año, Aena Aeropuertos indica que ellos realizan sus
propias previsiones de tráfico totalmente independientes de Aena Navegación Aérea. Las
previsiones de Navegación Aérea se calculan utilizando una herramienta proporcionada por
Eurocontrol (NEST), mientras que Aena Aeropuertos, además de tener en cuenta la
información de STATFOR, consideran el número de slots solicitados. Se solicita, por tanto,
(R06-02) que Aena Aeropuertos proporcione a AESA sus propias previsiones para los
aeropuertos seleccionados.
Página 2 de 7
ACETA asevera que, aún faltando los datos de 2014, las previsiones son muy conservadoras
llegando incluso a ser irreales. Opina asimismo, que el negocio de AENA estará
dimensionado de acuerdo a las previsiones de tráfico que se hagan y que, por tanto, unas
previsiones demasiado conservadoras la limitan.
AESA incide que las previsiones presentadas son las elaboradas por AENA. Las previsiones
están sujetas a mucha incertidumbre y, dado que se está hablando del negocio de AENA, el
cual está condicionado por las disposiciones normativas, se ha optado por apoyarles en esta
aproximación. AENA añade que las previsiones están hechas en base a los datos históricos y
éstos no son positivos.
Capacidad de ruta
A continuación, AESA presenta los objetivos de capacidad. En relación al objetivo de
capacidad en vuelo para ruta, se comenta que el objetivo europeo está establecido en 0,50
minutos de retraso ATFM medio por vuelo para cada año del período. El Network Manager,
por su parte, ha proporcionado valores de referencia para el FAB que oscilan entre los 0,30 y
0,31 min de retraso ATFM medio por vuelo. El valor indicado por Aena para este período se
mantiene constante y se ha establecido en 0,48 min/vuelo.
A este respecto, el representante de ACETA comenta que si la demora ATFM media del año
pasado fue de 0,41 min/vuelo, no le parece razonable que se proponga una cifra superior
para el nuevo período.
AENA indica que los valores propuestos se corresponden con la fijación de una meta
estratégica, no de que el nivel de rendimiento se vaya a situar allí. Para apoyar su argumento,
AENA indica que sin ir más lejos la meta del PNER (plan de rendimientos de RP1) para 2013
era de 0,75 min/vuelo, y sin embargo el rendimiento fue de 0,41.
ACETA responde que no es sólo una cuestión de que la meta vaya por encima del
rendimiento, sino que desde Europa se pide más. AENA defiende que no es bueno ser
demasiado optimista a la hora de fijar metas. Atendiendo al histórico nunca se han obtenido
datos tan buenos como los que se proponen desde Europa
El representante de Ryanair se interesó por conocer las medidas adoptadas por Aena en
años anteriores y la efectividad de las mismas, con objeto de comprobar su contribución en la
mejora de este valor en el 2013. De otro modo, la mejora de dicho valor solamente se podrá
justificar con el descenso del tráfico. Para Ryanair son tan importantes los objetivos como las
medidas adoptadas o que se van a adoptar y el análisis de su efectividad. Ryanair sugiere
que se analice la efectividad de las medidas adoptadas en la última temporada, teniendo en
cuenta sobre todo los momentos de máximo tráfico.
A este respecto, Aena Navegación Aérea aclara que sí se van a tomar ciertas medidas, como
por ejemplo aumentar el despliegue de sectores hasta llegar a la máxima sectorización en
verano (desdoblar ciertos sectores), pero resulta muy difícil identificar y cuantificar cuál va a
ser contribución de manera particular porque la situación varía constantemente. Habla de la
Página 3 de 7
redistribución de los controladores de las torres que se han liberalizado como una medida
paliativa de la demora.
Aena Aeropuertos muestra su perplejidad ante los valores propuestos por AENA, a los que
califica como una congelación de la capacidad de aquí a 2019. Sostiene que hay inputs
irrefutables como el reglamento del PCP (“Pilot Common Project”), que incide en mejoras de
los TMAs de alta densidad. Hay zonas de espacio aéreo especialmente saturadas, y que se
debe incidir en mejorar la capacidad en estas zonas. Según su criterio, el SOWEPP debe
reflejar estas cuestiones.
AESA muestra la versión actual de borrador del NOP 2014-2019 (“Network Operations Plan”)
en el que ha de basarse el SOWEPP. Comenta, que conforme a los datos aportados por
AENA y a las simulaciones realizadas por el Network Manager, existe una descompensación
entre metas propuestas por AENA y el rendimiento esperado.
AENA comenta que la información que constará en la versión final del NOP ha cambiado y
que por tanto las conclusiones planteadas por AESA ya no son válidas. De cara a completar
el plan del SW FAB para el segundo período, se solicita (R06-04) a Aena Navegación Aérea
que proporcione a AESA la última información actualizada del NOP.
Incentivos
Con respecto al esquema de incentivos lineal propuesto para la capacidad en ruta, el grupo
pregunta si el mecanismo a establecer será automático y cómo se aplica. AESA explica que
este mecanismo será automático y afectará al cálculo de la tarifa del siguiente año. El
mecanismo de incentivos compara el rendimiento real (del año N) con respecto al objetivo, y
en función de si se ha cumplido o no y en qué medida, se traslada manteniendo, bajando o
subiendo la tarifa (del año N+2) fijada en el plan de rendimientos.
AESA comenta a este respecto que, si bien entiende el contexto económico y la situación
prevista a nivel de personal en Aena para el segundo período, no le parece razonable usar
una meta tan conservadora como 0,48 min/vuelo para capacidad en ruta, en particular para
los años 2015 y 2016. Sobre todo teniendo en cuenta el valor alcanzado en el 2013 (0,41
min/vuelo) y el pequeño aumento de tráfico previsto. Esta situación podría dar lugar a que en
el 2015 AENA reciba una bonificación si alcanza una demora por debajo de los valores de
referencia propuestos, pero más alta que la demora de los últimos años. Se propone seguir
trabajando en esta meta.
Capacidad de terminal
Se presentan las metas de capacidad de terminal propuestas por AENA para el SOWEPP,
consistentes en 0.80 min/vuelo para todos los años de RP2 y valores de referencia por
aeropuerto.
Con respecto a las metas propuestas para la demora en vuelos de llegada imputable a
servicios de navegación aérea de aproximación y de aeropuerto, el representante de Aena
Aeropuertos comenta que le sorprende el valor propuesto para el aeropuerto de Barcelona
Página 4 de 7
(0,91min/vuelo) porque el histórico es de 0,27 min/vuelo (promedio 2008-2013) y ha sido el
aeropuerto que mejor se ha comportado.
AENA Navegación Aérea comenta que ellos han intentado calcular un indicador unificado
teniendo en cuenta los datos históricos de los últimos 6 años, considerando además las
causas de la demora. Entre esas causas están algunas que no tienen que ver con la gestión
de la capacidad ATC, como por ejemplo la capacidad de aeródromo y la climatología. En el
caso de Barcelona se estaría al límite de capacidad por cuestiones meteorológicas y, por
ejemplo, en Palma de Mallorca por restricciones debidas a la capacidad del aeródromo como
infraestructura. Por último, AENA indica que es la primera vez que se rueda el sistema con
este indicador y quizá conviene ser prudente.
Dado que Aena Aeropuertos dispone de sus propias cifras y previsiones, lo cual podría dar
lugar a una contribución diferente, (R06-03) AESA solicita que Aena Aeropuertos proporcione
lo antes posible dichos valores en función de sus datos y consideraciones.
Medioambiente
Con respecto al objetivo de medioambiente, índice de eficiencia horizontal en ruta (KEA), se
informa al grupo que este índice se aplica a nivel FAB. El objetivo europeo es alcanzar una
media horizontal de eficiencia en ruta del 2,6% en el año 2019. El Network Manager en este
caso ha propuesto unos valores de referencia para el FAB, los cuales han sido adoptados
íntegramente. Estos objetivos son coherentes con las mejoras propuestas en la estructura de
rutas y con el plan a nivel SW FAB para la mejora de la eficiencia horizontal en vuelo.
AENA presenta el resultado de un estudio del indicador KEA en el que se identifican las
fuentes de ineficiencia. En primer lugar, hay que aclarar que AENAna discrepa con la
metodología de Eurocontrol dado que la ineficiencia en ruta se aplica fuera de un radio de
40MN alrededor de los aeropuertos, y algunos TMAs en España (como el de Madrid) son más
extensos. Por tanto, ineficiencias en la fase de aproximación se imputan al indicador de ruta.
Las fuentes identificadas de ineficiencia son:
mejoras necesarias en el ámbito FUA,
encaminamientos RAD, operativa en fase de aproximación,
ineficiencia del punto de entrada,
planificación de las aerolíneas basada en otros parámetros (como costes por tarifas),
ausencia de rutas más directas
y autorización de directos en táctica.
AENA manifiesta que hay un cierto nivel estructural de ineficiencia, el cual es asintótico y a
partir del mismo no se puede mejorar. En el caso del SW FAB, en Portugal está implantado
“Free Route Airspace” (FRA) por encima de FL 245 y aún así tienen una ineficiencia del 2%.
Página 5 de 7
En cualquier caso, influye la planificación de las aerolíneas, no sólo por las tasas sino por
condiciones meteorológicas.
Con respecto a la planificación ineficiente de las compañías, quienes podrían preferir utilizar
rutas más largas a cambio de pagar tarifas más baratas, ACETA y Ryanar comentan que
estos factores afectan únicamente a vuelos de largo recorrido. Un ejemplo de ello es el
proveedor de servicios suizo, cuyas tarifas son bastante elevadas. A pesar de ello, las
compañías siguen sobrevolando su espacio aéreo ya que hay otros elementos a tener en
cuenta como los vientos, el ahorro de combustible y la asignación de niveles de vuelo
óptimos. Ryanair dice que la clave está en ver qué porcentaje real representan estos vuelos.
A continuación, el representante de Ryanair comenta que se ha creado un grupo de trabajo
para eficiencia en vuelo entre Aena y usuarios del aeropuerto de Palma de Mallorca, el cual
se reunirá el día 20 de mayo. En dicha reunión se tratará un posible problema con los niveles
de vuelo asignados para los vuelos domésticos.
4.3 Pasos a seguir
Por último, se trata el tercer punto de la agenda, por el cual AESA pregunta sobre las
medidas FUA para este objetivo, a lo que AENA responde que ellos tienen definidas medidas,
si bien aún no están coordinadas con los militares. AESA solicita (R06-05) que se le
proporcione información del plan FUA y, a su vez, se coordine con los militares.
AESA, llegado a este punto, pregunta al grupo si conocen cuál es la contribución del Network
Manager a estos planes. El Network Manager dispone de un presupuesto de 180M€ y con
ese presupuesto podrían realizar ciertos trabajos para AESA/AENA. Ellos tienen que mejorar
en la planificación de los planes de vuelo, ya que no han cumplido su objetivo porque las
aerolíneas siguen teniendo planes repetitivos y no optimizan sus planes de vuelo. Se les
puede pedir que contribuyan. DGAC manifiesta que considerará esta reflexión.
Por último, el representante de ACETA solicita que (R06-06) se distribuyan las presentaciones
de la reunión al grupo lo antes posible.
5.-ACUERDOS ADOPTADOS
1. A continuación se indican las acciones acordadas a realizar:
Acción nº
R06-01
R06-02
R06-03
R06-04
Acción
Aportar toda la información disponible sobre la evolución
del tráfico en el primer trimestre del año 2014.
Proporcionar a AESA las previsiones de tráfico para el
segundo período de referencia y los aeropuertos de: Gran
Canaria, Palma de Mallorca, Madrid-Barajas, Barcelona y
Málaga.
Proporcionar a AESA lo antes posible sus propias
estimaciones para los objetivos de los aeropuertos
seleccionados.
Proporcionar información del NOP actualizada a AESA.
Página 6 de 7
Responsable
ACETA
Aena Aeropuertos
Aena Aeropuertos
Aena Navegación
Acción nº
R06-05
R06-06
Acción
Responsable
Proporcionar información a AESA del plan FUA de Aena en
coordinación con los militares.
Distribuir las presentaciones de la reunión al grupo lo antes
posible.
Aérea
Aena Navegación
Aérea
AESA
6.-ANEXOS
Anexo 1. Estado de las acciones acordadas en las reuniones anteriores del Subgrupo de de
Nuevos Indicadores de Navegación Aérea.
Es importante indicar que estas acciones no fueron revisadas durante la reunión. Sin
embargo, AESA ha comprobado que todas las acciones han sido llevadas a cabo y
finalizadas antes o durante la reunión.
Acción nº
Acción
Responsable
R05-01
Mantener informado al grupo de las fechas y
propuestas para el foro y consulta de usuarios.
AESA
R05-02
Investigar la posibilidad de dirigirse a los
grupos de coordinación con los militares con
los datos de este análisis y, de este modo,
buscar maneras de mejora conjunta.
AESA
R05-03
Realizar una presentación con el análisis de la
performance de los indicadores para el grupo
global que tendrá lugar el día 7 de marzo.
Aena
Página 7 de 7
Estado
Cerrada. El grupo
fue informado de la
planificación.
Cerrada. Este tema
se trató en la
reunión del grupo
general y durante la
6ª reunión de este
subgrupo
Cerrada. Se realizó
el día 7 de marzo.
June 2014
DIRECCIÓN DE NAVEGACIÓN AÉREA DIVISIÓN DE SISTEMAS DE GESTIÓN Y SEGURIDAD Indicador “Demora ATFCM arribadas”. Consideraciones
El indicador RP2 “demora ATFCM en arribadas por vuelo IFR” según se encuentra
definido en el reglamento UE390/2013, corresponde a los minutos ATFCM que el
proveedor de servicio de control de aeródromo establece en el volumen de arribadas
al aeropuerto, por cualquiera de las causas ATFCM identificadas por NMEurocontrol en su documento “ATFCM Operational Procedures - apartado 4.4.1.
Regulation Cause”.
Dentro de dichas causas, se pueden identificar: En un primer grupo, las relacionadas
directamente con la prestación del servicio de control de aeródromo, las denominadas
causas NA (capacidad ATC, falta personal ATC, equipos ATC y huelga ATC).
En un segundo grupo, en el establecimiento de medidas ATFCM en arribadas influyen
otra serie de factores, que se agrupan bajo la denominación de “causas externas
NA”, y que corresponden entre otros, a la meteorología adversa (nieblas, deshielo,
etc), capacidad de aeródromo, ejercicios militares, medioambiente, huelgas No ATC
etc.
En el período 2008-2013, elegido para este estudio y para el conjunto de los 5
aeropuertos españoles con tráfico por encima de los 70.000 movimientos IFR anuales,
las “causas NA” acumulan el 35% del total de los minutos ATFCM de arribada, casi el
mismo orden de magnitud que el 33% de meteorología adversa y por encima del 25%
de la causa “capacidad aeródromo”.
De las 3 causas principales de regulación en arribadas ( que suponen el 90% del total
de minutos ATFCM entre el 2008 y 2013), 2 se pueden considerar externas a NA
(meteorología y capacidad aeródromo) y 1 es responsabilidad de NA (capacidad ATC).
Aeropuerto
GCLP
Capacidad Aeródromo
25%
Resto ATC
3%
Meteorologia
33%
LEBL
LEMD
Resto Otras
7%
Capacidad ATC
32%
LEMG
LEPA
Principales causas externas NA
32% Ejercicios Militares
28% Capacidad Aérodromo
62% Meteorologia adversa
14% Medioambiente
32% Meteorología
21% Meteorología
34% Meteorología
Figura 1: Reparto de causas de demora en los 5 aeropuertos principales (2008 a-2013)
Analizando el impacto de las causas de regulación para cada uno de los aeropuertos,
nos encontramos con que en 3 de ellos, más del 60% de los minutos de regulaciones
fueron asignados a causas externas NA, mientras que en los 2 restantes, la proporción
entre las causas se sitúa de forma casi equilibrada 50/50. Los minutos ATFCM por
causas NA, por aeropuerto, se distribuyen en 2008-2013:



Barcelona:
Palma Mallorca/Gran Canaria:
Madrid/Barajas y Málaga:
10% de minutos por causas NA
13% de minutos por causas NA
43% al 50% de minutos por causas NA
1 DIRECCIÓN DE NAVEGACIÓN AÉREA DIVISIÓN DE SISTEMAS DE GESTIÓN Y SEGURIDAD Barcelona/El Prat
El aeropuerto de Barcelona/El Prat presenta como principal causa de regulación en las
arribadas la meteorología adversa (nieblas, cumulonimbos, tormentas) de forma
habitual, con una media del período del 62%.
Salvo el año 2008, donde la causa “medioambiente (ruido)” estuvo en minutos en el
orden de magnitud de la meteorología, el resto de causas apenas alcanzan por sí
solas una importancia por encima del 10% del total.
Los minutos ATFCM de los volúmenes de arribada al aeropuerto de los tres primeros
meses del 2014, corresponden con “meteorología adversa”.
DEPENDENCIA
Minutos ATFCM
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
LEBL
C‐ATC Capacity Resto (ATC) G‐Aerodrome Capacity Resto (Otras) W‐Weather
277
2.494
1.470
25.227
29.627
966
6.258
824
4.387
13.576
1.577
1.277
1.547
5.312
14.958
510
3.143
208
5.417
20.637
7.312
25.070
396
582
103
8.673
3.726
13.754
4.049
47.758
112.541
DEPENDENCIA
Minutos ATFCM
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
CAUSA
C‐ATC Capacity
Resto (ATC)
G‐Aerodrome Capacity
Resto (Otras)
W‐Weather
Año
2 DIRECCIÓN DE NAVEGACIÓN AÉREA DIVISIÓN DE SISTEMAS DE GESTIÓN Y SEGURIDAD Palma Mallorca
En el aeropuerto de Palma de Mallorca, de forma histórica, más del 50% de los
minutos ATFCM de las regulaciones establecidas en los volúmenes de arribadas al
aeropuerto tiene como causa principal “Capacidad Aeródromo”, relacionada
principalmente con la alta ocupación de los stands del aeropuerto en las jornadas de
mayor tráfico de los meses del verano.
Otro 34% de la demora en el aeropuerto corresponde a la meteorología adversa
(tormentas/cumulonimbos), que de forma habitual tienen lugar en los meses de
temporada de invierno.
En el primer trimestre del año 2014, el 100% de la demora ATFCM de arribada en el
aeropuerto ha sido por tormentas, habiéndose establecido regulaciones sólo en el mes
de enero 2014.
DEPENDENCIA
Minutos ATFCM
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
LEPA
14.347
14.337
61.705
3.928
31.757
2.364
248
44.324
3.220
31.286
12.666
2.839
34.741
2.528
26.617
8.535
9.932
78.641
39.934
5.237
509
39.359
1.562
31.057
1.834
39.338
151
34.620
44.983
27.865
298.108
11.389
195.271
DEPENDENCIA
Minutos ATFCM
160.000
140.000
120.000
100.000
80.000
60.000
40.000
20.000
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
CAUSA
C‐ATC Capacity
Resto (ATC)
Resto (Otras)
W‐Weather
Año
3 DIRECCIÓN DE NAVEGACIÓN AÉREA DIVISIÓN DE SISTEMAS DE GESTIÓN Y SEGURIDAD Gran Canaria
El aeropuerto de Gran Canaria presenta como principal causa de establecimiento de
regulaciones en las arribadas, la causa “externa NA” correspondiente a “gestión
espacio aéreo / ejercicios militares”, registrando la práctica totalidad de sus minutos
en meses puntuales (ejemplo: abril 2013-ejercicio DACT 2013 Disimilares), no estando
repartida de forma uniforme en el año.
Reseñar en este aeropuerto el impacto en 2011 de las obras de acondicionamiento de
la pista, que motivaron una reducción de capacidad de pista, y las consiguientes
regulaciones en los días de mayor volumen de tráfico (causa externa NA: capacidad
aeródromo).
No se han registrado regulaciones en el volumen de arribadas en el primer trimestre
del año 2014.
DEPENDENCIA
GCLP
Minutos ATFCM
2008
594
1.470
6.302
1.811
1.118
2009
1.809
7.030
1.035
2010
525
1.540
171
4.869
3.076
2011
1.796
365
13.089
7.474
2.747
2012
868
716
6.983
2013
548
301
6.935
478
Total
6.140
3.375
20.579
35.102
8.454
DEPENDENCIA
Minutos ATFCM
30.000
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
CAUSA
C‐ATC Capacity
Resto (ATC)
Resto (Otras)
W‐Weather
Año
4 DIRECCIÓN DE NAVEGACIÓN AÉREA DIVISIÓN DE SISTEMAS DE GESTIÓN Y SEGURIDAD Madrid/Barajas
El aeropuerto de Madrid/Barajas es el que mejor cuadra con el perfil medio de los 5
aeropuertos comentado en el primer apartado. Entre las 3 causas principales se
reparten el 94%, con un porcentaje mayor para capacidad ATC (42%), seguido de
meteorología (32%) y capacidad aeródromo (20%).
Estos tres porcentajes se igualarían (~28% por causa), sin contabilizar los años 2010 y
2011.
A lo largo del año 2014, el 90% de los minutos ATFCM de las regulaciones en
arribada, corresponden con “meteorología adversa”.
DEPENDENCIA
LEMD
Minutos ATFCM
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
68.891
973
124.985
37.820
50.409
30.506
9.894
109.418
6.285
105.894
426.757
13.276
124.392
54.691
273.563
260.492
2.493
37.220
10.170
177.027
77.231
1.708
10.750
915
28.759
10.591
511
2.334
1.487
23.540
874.468
28.855
409.099
111.368
659.192
DEPENDENCIA
Minutos ATFCM
1.000.000
900.000
800.000
700.000
600.000
500.000
400.000
300.000
200.000
100.000
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
CAUSA
C‐ATC Capacity
Resto (ATC)
Resto (Otras)
W‐Weather
Año
5 DIRECCIÓN DE NAVEGACIÓN AÉREA DIVISIÓN DE SISTEMAS DE GESTIÓN Y SEGURIDAD Málaga
Málaga es en el que las causas “externas NA imprevisibles” (meteorología,
medioambiente, accidente, etc…) presentan menor impacto y la demora ATFCM en
las arribadas se reparte de forma más o menos equilibrada entre capacidad ATC
(causa NA) como principal causa de la demora arribada y capacidad aeródromo
(causa externa NA).
No se han registrado regulaciones en las arribadas en el primer trimestre del año
2014.
DEPENDENCIA
Minutos ATFCM
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
LEMG
132
738
254
431
605
2.855
265
7.080
537
2.766
3.009
427
25
258
28
5.274
639
1.264
72
1.747
2.937
209
3.836
4.362
505
1.767
57
18.569
2.574
10.599
1.298
9.039
DEPENDENCIA
Minutos ATFCM
16.000
14.000
12.000
10.000
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
CAUSA
C‐ATC Capacity
Resto (ATC)
Resto (Otras)
W‐Weather
Año
6 Buenos días,
Sin ánimo de entrar en ningún debate estéril y con espíritu igualmente
constructivo, se realizan los siguientes comentarios:
 En primer lugar, todos sabemos que después del enorme esfuerzo inversor
realizado en la última década, Aena Aeropuertos dispone de unas
infraestructuras aeroportuarias capaces de absorber perfectamente, en
términos generales, la demanda tanto actual como futura, especialmente en
lo que se refiere al período 2015-2019. Por este motivo, nuestra capacidad
supone una mayor ventaja competitiva frente a otros aeropuertos, y la
situación de saturación y problemas de crecimiento que existe a nivel
europeo, no es extrapolable al caso de España, con lo que eso supone para
el desarrollo de una de las industrias estratégicas de este país como es el
turismo.
 Además de lo anterior, se ha producido durante el período de análisis un
importante descenso de las demoras por causas “Aerodrome Capacity” que
viene a reforzar el hecho de que las infraestructuras aeroportuarias no
suponen ni van a suponer una limitación a la capacidad en los próximos
años.
 Por otro lado, y retomando nuestros argumentos iniciales, volvemos a
insistir en que las previsiones apuntan a que durante el periodo 2015-2019
se tenderá a recuperar progresivamente los niveles de tráfico perdidos
durante el periodo 2008-2013. Por lo que parece razonable e incluso
conservador, que durante el periodo 2015-2019 se exija, como mucho, el
mismo nivel de demoras que para el periodo 2008-2013 (0,57), eliminando
las posibles distorsiones para el caso de LEMD en 2010-2011.
 En cuanto a temas de Weather, dios mediante, poco tenemos que decir,
salvo que no nos podemos comparar con Europa. Aquí el tiempo es mucho
mejor por suerte.
Por último, estamos completamente de acuerdo en que la meta solo es alcanzable
con la contribución activa de todas las partes implicadas.
Quedamos a vuestra entera disposición para intercambiar puntos de vista, abordar
y tratar más en profundidad el tema si así lo consideráis.
Un saludo,
Antonio
Buenas tardes Ana,
Tal y como quedamos en la reunión del pasado viernes, en la que nos presentasteis
la propuesta de objetivos para el futuro Performance Plan de Navegación Aérea
para el periodo 2015-2019 (antiguo PNER - Plan Nacional de Evaluación de
Rendimientos), te adjunto a continuación la información solicitada:

Previsiones de tráfico de Aena Aeropuertos: Te adjunto la última previsión
oficial de operaciones, correspondiente a la Edición de Octubre-2013:
Actualmente estamos a punto de fijar las nuevas previsiones (Edición Abril-2014),
si bien me han confirmado que hasta dentro de unas semanas no se cerrarán. En
cuanto que nos lleguen, os las enviamos.
Podrás comprobar que hay gran diferencia entre nuestras estimaciones y las
realizadas por Aena, principalmente en el caso de Madrid-Barajas (que es lo de lo
que precisamente se quejaba ACETA).
AEROPUERTO
PREVISIÓN OPERACIONES LLEGADA
Barcelona-El Prat
Gran Canaria
Adolfo Suárez MadridBarajas
Palma Mallorca
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
138.900 142.350 145.750 149.200 152.650
138.980 142.090 144.514 150.263 154.313
48.150 49.100 50.150 51.250 52.200
53.763 54.121 54.323 54.850 54.991
167.050 172.650 178.600 185.050 191.650
167.859 169.547 171.142 174.035 176.438
52.950 54.650 56.250 57.800 59.350
53.083 53.748 55.537 57.071 58.927
85.850 88.100 90.800 93.450 95.850
85.451 86.640 88.893 92.064 94.321
Previsión Aena Aeropuertos (Ed. Oct-13)
Previsión Aena
Propuesta de objetivos para el Airport ATFM Arrival Delay per Flight por
Aeropuerto: Tal y como ya os adelantamos, la propuesta para el aeropuerto de
Barcelona nos parecía especialmente desproporcionada, por lo que hemos
procedido a realizar un análisis considerando los siguientes argumentos:

Las previsiones apuntan a que durante el periodo 2015-2019 se tenderá a
recuperar progresivamente los niveles de tráfico perdidos durante el periodo 20082013.

En todos los aeropuertos, salvo en Madrid-Barajas, parece razonable que durante el
periodo 2015-2019 se exija, al menos, el mismo nivel de demoras que para el
periodo 2008-2013.

En el caso de Madrid-Barajas, se ha tenido en cuenta la excepcionalidad de los años
2010 y 2011, tanto por motivos operativos como de meteorología, excluyendo por
tanto estos años a la hora de calcular las medias.
Atendiendo a lo anterior, se adjunta tabla y archivo con la propuesta de objetivos:
Aeropuerto
Aena Aeropuertos
Aena
(**)
(*)
1,16
0,87
0,83
Barcelona-El Prat
0,27
0,27
0,91
Palma de Mallorca
1,08
1,08
1,29
0,13
0,13
0,11
Gran Canaria
0,23
0,23
0,32
TOTAL
0,69
0,57
0,80
Por otro lado, aprovecho de nuevo la ocasión para volver a manifestarte nuestra
preocupación por la postura del proveedor de no aumentar la capacidad ni
mostrar flexibilidad de adaptación durante todo el periodo 2015-2019,
entendiendo que esto va en contra del principio de Cielo Único que no es otro que
el de ir siendo cada vez más eficiente, sin aumentar (incluso disminuir) los costes.
Tampoco vemos razonable, no incluir medidas para mejorar la capacidad, como las
que van a venir impuestas por Europa a través del PCP, o la reestructuración del
espacio aéreo en zonas actualmente con problemas de demoras/capacidad.
Aunque entendemos que la decisión ya está tomada, al menos a efectos de
performance en la parte de aeropuertos, hubiéramos considerado conveniente
incluir los aeropuertos por encima de los 20.000-30.000 IFR/año, con lo que para
RP2 hubieran pasado a monitorizarse, en vez de los 12 actuales de RP1, 14-16
aeropuertos, en lugar de los 5 finales.
Para cualquier comentario o cuestión adicional, no dudes en contactar con nosotros.
Un saludo,
Dpt. Desarrollo Servicios Navegación Aérea
Dirección de Operaciones, Seguridad y Servicios
Aena Aeropuertos
PREVISIÓN DE OPERACIONES TOTAL
Edición: Octubre 2013
AEROPUERTO
Barcelona-El Prat
Gran Canaria
Palma Mallorca
TOTAL Aeropuertos
HISTÓRICO
PREVISIÓN
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
321.693
278.981
277.832
303.054
290.004
276.496
272.700
277.800
284.700
291.500
298.400
305.300
-8,7%
-13,3%
-0,4%
9,1%
-4,3%
-4,7%
-1,4%
1,9%
2,5%
2,4%
2,4%
2,3%
116.252
101.557
103.093
111.271
100.393
95.483
94.700
96.300
98.200
100.300
102.500
104.400
1,7%
-12,6%
1,5%
7,9%
-9,8%
-4,9%
-0,8%
1,7%
2,0%
2,1%
2,2%
1,9%
469.746
435.187
433.706
429.390
373.192
333.065
323.900
334.100
345.300
357.200
370.100
383.300
-2,8%
-7,4%
-0,3%
-1,0%
-13,1%
-10,8%
-2,8%
3,1%
3,4%
3,4%
3,6%
3,6%
119.821
103.539
105.634
107.397
102.162
102.359
102.800
105.900
109.300
112.500
115.600
118.700
-7,6%
-13,6%
2,0%
1,7%
-4,9%
0,2%
0,4%
3,0%
3,2%
2,9%
2,8%
2,7%
193.379
177.502
174.635
180.152
173.966
170.138
168.700
171.700
176.200
181.600
186.900
191.700
-2,0%
-8,2%
-1,6%
3,2%
-3,4%
-2,2%
-0,8%
1,8%
2,6%
3,1%
2,9%
2,6%
2.420.072 2.168.580 2.119.665 2.140.308 1.924.866 1.790.861 1.770.200 1.815.500 1.866.000 1.919.700 1.975.300 2.029.400
-3,3%
-10,4%
-2,3%
1,0%
-10,1%
-7,0%
-0,7%
2,6%
2,8%
2,9%
2,9%
2,7%
NOTA: La suma total se presenta con valores redondeados a la centena.
Fecha: 15 de Noviembre de 2013
PREVISIÓN DE OPERACIONES LLEGADA AENA AEROPUERTOS Vs AENA
AEROPUERTO
Barcelona-El Prat
Gran Canaria
Palma Mallorca
2015
138.900
138.980
48.150
53.763
167.050
167.859
52.950
53.083
85.850
85.451
2016
142.350
142.090
49.100
54.121
172.650
169.547
54.650
53.748
88.100
86.640
PREVISIÓN
2017
145.750
144.514
50.150
54.323
178.600
171.142
56.250
55.537
90.800
88.893
2018
149.200
150.263
51.250
54.850
185.050
174.035
57.800
57.071
93.450
92.064
2019
152.650
154.313
52.200
54.991
191.650
176.438
59.350
58.927
95.850
94.321
Previsión Aena Aeropuertos (Ed. Oct-13)
Previsión Aena
4,50
3,50
Aena
Barcelona-El Prat
Palma de Mallorca
Gran Canaria
TOTAL
(**)
(*)
1,16
0,27
1,08
0,13
0,23
0,69
0,87
0,27
1,08
0,13
0,23
0,57
3,00
0,83
0,91
1,29
0,11
0,32
0,80
2,00
1,50
150.000
1,00
0,50
0,00
100.000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Barcelona-El Prat
1,80
0,60
200.000
2,50
0,70
250.000
4,00
Aena Aeropuertos
Aeropuerto
160.000
Vuelos Llegada
Palma de Mallorca
100.000
1,60
1,40
0,50
1,20
0,40
140.000
90.000
1,00
0,80
0,30
0,20
120.000
0,60
80.000
0,40
0,10
0,20
0,00
100.000
0,00
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
0,30
Vuelos Llegada
70.000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
60.000
0,50
Vuelos Llegada
Gran Canaria
60.000
0,45
0,25
0,40
0,35
0,20
0,30
0,15
50.000
0,25
50.000
0,20
0,10
0,15
0,10
0,05
0,05
0,00
40.000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Vuelos Llegada
0,00
40.000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Vuelos Llegada
3. Spain RP2 cost-effectiveness stakeholder consultation, 24 April 2014
Attendance List
June 2014
South West FAB Performance Plan for RP2
Spain Cost-efficiency consultation meeting
24 April 2014
ATTENDANCE LIST
Angeles Pozo Romero/Iberia
Nicole Ammann/Swiss
Hengxuan Tian/Air Canada
Robert Meinderts/KLM-AF
Peter Currant / IATA
Javier Valdes Colunga/IATA
Laurie OToole/IATA
Angel Soret / AESA
Ana Gómez-Pineda / AESA
Leandro Calvo / AESA
Carlos Oliver / AESA
Ricardo López / AESA
Celia Ríos / AENA
Emiliano Morona / AENA
3. Spain RP2 cost-effectiveness stakeholder consultation, 24 April 2014
Meeting Slides
Small adjustments regarding the presentation displayed on the 24th:


Pages 2 and 5: better explanations of the entities, so the names are the same of the tables 1 & 2.
Page 5: now it is the right graph for AESA. In the other one there were two graphs of AENA instead
June 2014
DIRECCIÓN DE SEGURIDAD DE LA
AVIACIÓN CIVIL Y PROTECCIÓN AL
USUARIO
DIVISIÓN DE SUPERVISIÓN ECONÓMICA
Y DE NAVEGACIÓN AÉREA
BILATERAL MEETING WITH IATA
(AENA & AESA)
2º Reference Period (2015 – 2019)
1
MADRID, 24th April 2014
TOTAL COSTS EVOLUTION
2
SERVICE UNITS EVOLUTION
‐10,2%
‐6,2%
‐12,3%
‐13,2%
PNER1
3
CON
Forecast SU (NPP)
Actual SU
2010
8.320
8.642
2011
9.110
9.099
2012
9.401
8.444
2013
9.626
8.447
103,9%
99,9%
89,8%
87,7%
CAN
Forecast SU (NPP)
Actual SU
2010
1.515
1.540
2011
1.618
1.666
2012
1.705
1.599
2013
1.746
1.516
101,7%
103,0%
93,8%
86,8%
2014
9.857
2014
1.795
SPAIN COST‐EFFICIENCY POLICY
- STABILITY ON DETERMINED COSTS
- STABILITY ON UNIT RATE
ALL RP1 & RP2:
CONTINENT UNIT RATE:
CANARY ISLAND UNIT RATE :
4
71,69 €/US
58,36 €/US
TOTAL COSTS EVOLUTION RP2
5
SPAIN CONTINENT EN ROUTE COSTS & DUC RP2 (2015 ‐ 2019)
CONTINENT: COSTS & DUC
2014
631.750
633.410
76,22
76,42
8.288
2015
564.288
627.406
63,55
75,28
8.880
2016
559.873
614.069
62,65
72,77
8.936
2017
553.989
601.015
61,43
70,48
9.018
2018
551.088
588.238
60,37
68,06
9.128
2019
546.650
‐232.234
575.734
59,17
65,79
9.238
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Anual Reduction
‐10,68%
‐0,78%
‐2,13%
‐1,05%
‐2,13%
‐0,52%
‐2,13%
‐0,81%
‐2,13%
‐2,8%
‐1,9%
‐16,63%
‐1,40%
‐3,33%
0,63%
‐1,95%
‐3,16%
0,92%
‐1,72%
‐3,43%
1,22%
‐1,99%
‐3,33%
1,21%
‐4,7%
‐2,9%
CONTINENT: ANUAL COST REDUCTION
6
‐0,95%
‐1,49%
7,14%
CANARY ISLANDS EN ROUTE COSTS & DUC RP2 (2015 ‐ 2019)
CANARY ISLANDS: COSTS & DUC
CANARY ISLANDS: ANUAL COST REDUCTION
2014
97.873
98.130
64,56
64,60
1.516
2014
2015
90.049
95.915
58,82
62,56
1.531
62,56
2015
‐7,99%
‐8,90%
7
‐2,26%
‐3,16%
0,99%
2016
89.443
93.751
58,54
63,56
1.528
63,56
2016
2017
88.794
91.635
58,00
62,00
1.531
62,00
2017
2018
87.486
89.567
56,92
60,57
1.537
60,57
2018
2019
86.406
87.546
‐16.494
56,00
58,96
1.543
58,96
2019
Anual Reduction
‐0,67%
‐2,26%
‐0,73%
‐2,26%
‐1,47%
‐2,26%
‐1,23%
‐2,26%
‐2,4%
‐2,3%
‐0,48%
1,60%
‐0,20%
‐0,92%
‐2,45%
0,20%
‐1,86%
‐2,31%
0,39%
‐1,62%
‐2,66%
0,39%
‐2,8%
‐1,8%
4. Portugal RP2 cost-effectiveness stakeholder consultation, 10 April 2014
June 2014

Annex A: Public consultation material

Transcription

Similar documents

Programa de Practicas

Arquitectura FLOS [Free / Libre Open Source Architecture] 1a PARTE

Descargar PDF - The Mexican Rock Climbing Guide Book

the Bury St Edmunds cycle map

Ejes y suspensiónes

The Polo Book

Paracas, nuestra Reserva

engine - motor - Trading Parts Corp

Manual para organizadores de congresos

M od ula r Conve yor Syste m

manual de seguridad de vuelo para operadores