EUR 5 billion

Ansichtssache:
Performance der europäischen Flugsicherung
Statements and facts concerning the alleged low performance of European ATM
Jörg Buxbaum, Matthias Whittome, Christoph Czech
Draft Version, Status Dec 2nd 2013
1
DFS: Key Performance Areas + KPI
Safety
Capacity
Environment
Cost Efficiency
2
Air traffic Management from the political point of
view
http://www.worldfootprints.com/europes-airspace-failure-5-billion-euro-damage
Every intra-EU flight is 50km longer than necessary, which
results in $6.53 billion ( EUR 5 billion) in additional costs—
every year. http://www.iata.org/publications/airlines-international/june-2013/Pages/ceo-interviewlufthansa.aspx
Inefficiencies in Europe's fragmented airspace
bring extra costs of close to 5 billion Euros
each year to airlines and their customers. They
add 42 kilometres to the distance of an
average flight forcing aircraft to burn more fuel,
generate more emissions, pay more in costly
user charges and suffer greater delays. The
United States controls the same amount of
airspace, with more traffic, at almost half the
cost.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-523_en.htm
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pages/opinion-piece-spain.aspx
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/speeches/Pages/2013-04-12-01.aspx
3
Air traffic Management from the political point of
view
Currently the costs of providing air traffic
control for one airplane per hour are almost
twice as expensive in Europe than in the
USA. We haven't even brought up Asia in the
discussion. Costs arising from the provision of
air navigation services in Europe run to about
EUR 14 billion annually. Of these, 8.3 billion
are air navigation services charges. The
remainder is costs that the airspace user has
to bear due to inefficiencies. Thus, delays
cost about EUR 5.2 billion per year.
Interview Frank Brenner, Flugrevue, February 2013
http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content/documents/media/dg-articles-2013/1302-lps-slovakia.pdf
The Single European Sky is intended to harmonise air traffic control
better, as they are fragmented and inefficient. EU airspace is in 27
national air traffic control systems, providing services from some 60 air
traffic centres while the airspace is divided into more than 650
sectors. That means airspace is currently structured around national
boundaries and so flights are often unable to take direct routes.
http://www.dw.de/eus-single-sky-fights-national-delays/a-16682912
4
The essence of the assertions
 "Airlines and passengers annually incur financial damage of about
EUR 5 billion due to the inefficiency of the fragmented European air
traffic control system. These costs would be eliminated if the SES
requirements were met."
 "The fragmented structure of airspace translates to additional
unnecessary 42 km on average per flight in Europe."
 "The FAA in the USA controls more air traffic at about half the
costs."
5
Motivation und Rahmenbedingungen
6
Where does the EUR-5-billion figure come
from?
Possible source: The Performance Review Commission in the Performance Review Report
2012 (PRR) quoted a sum of EUR 3.64 billion annually for "ANS-related inefficiencies in the
gate-to-gate phase." According to the 2012 PRR, an additional EUR 850 million for ATFM
delay (en-route and airport ATFM delay).
EUR 500 million
En-route ATFM delay
+ EUR 790
million
+ EUR 350 million
Airport ATFM delay
+ EUR 1900
million
Taxi-out
inefficiencies
+ EUR 950
million
 = EUR 4.49 billion
Arrival and sequencemetering inefficiencies
En-route
inefficiencies
The Berechnung?
report does not touch upon whether
Datengrundlage?
and how the delays responsible
Zusammenhang
for these
mitcosts
einercan
actually be influenced by the ANSPs. There is also no mention that
überwiegend
the fragmentation
nationalof ATC in
Systemgedanke
Tatsächliche
Europe contributes
to these inefficiencies nor what SES measures
orientierten
should be
Flugsicherung?
implemented to
berücksichtigt?
Beeinflussbarkeit?
achieve which potential improvements.
Optimierungspotential?
Örtliche Ausprägung?
http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/prr-2012.pdf , page 33
7
Can these delay costs be influenced?
The share of ANSP delay minutes (ATFCM en-route) of this total primary delay (without
reactionary delay) is about 8 percent. ATFCM Airport is not part of this as an ANSP has little
influence on factors such as runway closures and night curfews.
The airlines themselves were actually responsible for 54 percent of delay costs in 2012.
In 2012, the delay caused by airlines resulted in costs of about EUR 3.4 billion.
http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content/documents/official-documents/facts-and-figures/coda-reports/CODA-Digests2012/coda-digest-annual-2012.pdf
http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/prr-2012.pdf
ATFM En-Route: Standard demand/capacity problems, reduced capacity caused by industrial action or staff shortage, equipment fail ure, military exercise or extraordinary demand due to capacity reduction in neighbouring area
ATFM Airport: Airport and/or runway closed due to obstruction, industrial action, staff shortage, political unrest, noise abatement, night curfew, special flights
8
“5 Mrd EUR Schaden pro Jahr”: Résumée
Perspektive 2:
„≈1 Mrd EUR“
Perspektive 1:
„5 Mrd EUR“
+ Betrachtung
Gesamtkostenoptimum
9
Source of the "42 additional unnecessary km"
Possible source: When this "fact" is
stated, the source is not given. The
latest horizontal en-route flight efficiency
is of about 3.17 percent in Europe
(direct route extension), which,
however, only amounts to 28 km.
Origin
airport
1000
= optimal
routing?
900
Flight path in km
800
700
600
500
400
300
Destination
airport
Direct Route extension = A : D
http://atmseminar.eurocontrol.fr/past-seminars/5th-seminar-budapest-hungary-june-2003/papers/paper_023
http://www.kolloquium-flugfuehrung.de/pdf/2011-01-18%20MANFRED%20DIEROFF%20DFS%20-%20Kolloquium%20Flugfuehrung.pdf
http://www.atmseminar.org/seminarContent/seminar6/papers/p_055_MPM.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/media/consultations/doc/2013-07-03-sesrp2/report.pdf, Page 34
10
200
100
0
Mean route flown in
Europe (without TMA)
 Route extension
= 3.17% or 28 km
Optimum (great
circle)
Reasons for Flight Extensions
Separation
Airspace availability
(e.g. military airspace)
Airspace structure
(disentangling traffic
flows, TMA design)
€
En-route weather
Flight planning
optimised with regard
to ANS costs
11
Flight planning
optimised with regard
to wind
How to influence Flight Extension
 Free route in upper airspace
 Relocation of military exercise areas
 Optimized FUA
Flight
Efficiency
Some possibilities for improvement:
4%
 Optimised flight route designs
 Uniform ANSP unit rates in Europe
3%
Europe 2012
2019 ?
Current goals and limits to optimisation:
Currently, according to the PRB assessment, the
assumption is that flight efficiency in Europe (KEA)
can at best be improved from the current 3.17% to
2.5% by 2019. Per flight this would mean future flight
paths that are shorter by about 0.6 percent or 6 km
(which equals about 25 seconds of flying time).
2%
1%
0%
Further improvements are not visible at the moment.
A reduction to 0 km is not possible.
http://atmseminar.eurocontrol.fr/past-seminars/5th-seminar-budapest-hungary-june-2003/papers/paper_023
http://www.caa.lv/upload/userfiles/files/SES%20Performance%20targets%20_%20achievements.pdf
12
Potentially achievable flight efficiency
without active measures, such as
relocation of military exercise areas
Increase in
air traffic density and
complexity
Possible measures to increase en-route Flight
Efficiency
En-route efficiency Europe (KEA)
Joint activities of NM
and European ANSPs
Contributing FABEC
measures:
 IP South East Phase 1 & 2
 Free Route Step 1
 CBA Land Central West
 XMAN/AMAN Basic
3%
Joint activities of NM
and European ANSPs
Contributing FABEC
measures:
 Free Route Step 2 & 3
Potential relocation of military
airspace out of the core area
(impact on Military Mission
Effectiveness?)
?
2%
Absolute limit for
busy airspace?
?
?
?
2016
2019
2030?
1%
0%
2012
(Schematic representation, effects of the measures would have to be calculated at
European level.)
13
“42 unnötige Kilometer pro Flug”: Résumée
Perspektive 1:
Optimierungspotential
42 km pro Flug
Marathon
Perspektive 2:
Optimierungspotential
Von 28 km auf 22 km =
6 km pro Flug
+ Betrachtung
Gesamtkostenoptimum
Athen
14
A comparison of ATM in the USA and Europe
U.S.A.
Europe
(Continental)
airspace
10.4 million
km2
11.5 million km2
Sectors (max)
955a
679a
Controlled
flights per day
43,600b
26,000b
Pax per day
2.2 millionc
2.2 millionc
EUR/US Dollar
USD
1,500
Pax miles per
day
1.07 billiond
ATCOs
16,793e
16,700e
Cost of ATM
per year
$ 10.7 billion f
EUR 8.0 billion f
... in EUR 2013
... in PPP
1.18 billiond
1,375
1,250
1,125
1,000
0,875
1999 2001
EUR 8.3
billion g
EUR 8.0 billion
EUR 8.6
billion h
EUR 8.0 billion h
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
15
2003
2005
2007
2009 2001
2013
g
2008 U.S./Europe Comparison of ATM-related Operational Performance
2010 U.S./Europe Comparison of ATM-Related Operational Performance
Amount of IFR Passenger Flights x average amount of seats x SLF
Pax x average distance (from 2010 U.S./Europe Comparison of ATM-Related Operational
Performance)
FAA Air Traffic Controller Workforce Plan 2012 – 2021, 2010 U.S./Europe Comparison of
ATM-Related Operational Performance (EUROCONTROL)
Cost USA: Budget FAA ATO FY 2012, Cost Europe: Eurocontrol PRR 2010
Exchange Rate 1,3 $/EUR
Purchasing Power Parities for GDP,
according OECD value 2005 – 2012 for Europe vs US$
Different working conditions / work methods
Statistics relating
to controllers
USA / FAA
Germany / DFS
France / DSNA
Annual leave
13 - 26 days
32 - 37 days
25 - 27 days
Working hours per
week
40 hrs
31 – 37 hrs (including
breaks)
35 hrs (including breaks)
Maternity leave
Not standard practice
70 days per child
108 - 182 days per child
Paid sick days
Up to 13 days p.a.
(cumulates, if not
taken)
6 weeks to unlimited
(depending on contract)
3 months 100% paid sick
leave, then 9 months at
50%
Educational leave
Not standard practice
5 days p.a.
6 days p.a.
Recuperation cures
Not standard practice
3 – 7 days p.a.
Not standard practice
The higher traffic numbers per controller in the USA are
connected with the working conditions and other work methods:

Higher percentage of single sector operations (the concept
that four eyes see more than two is not standard practice)

Temporarily/Totally unmanned FAA towers
Source for FAA data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Source of DFS data: DFS
Source of DSNA Data: DSNA
16
Comparison between types of IFR flights in USA
and Europe
The most apparent difference is the large number of IFR general aviation flights in the USA.
Source for FAA data: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, FAA ETMS, OPSNET, 2009
Source for European data: EUROCONTROL 2009 with deductions for IFR Cargo and GA IFR
17
Comparison of transport performance between
USA and Europe
1.07
billion
NM
1.18
billion
NM
The performance indicator for pax miles per day is higher in Europe than the USA.
Source for FAA data: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, FAA ETMS, OPSNET
Source for European data: EUROCONTROL with deductions for IFR Cargo and GA IFR
Average Miles from 2010 U.S./Europe Comparison of ATM-Related Operational Performance
Average Passengers per IFR Scheduled: 78 (USA) 91 (Europe); average pax per IFR GA: 2
18
Vergleich USA-Europa – Flüge pro Fluglotse
Weit häufiger
Einfachbesetzung
statt
Vieraugenprinzip
Anzahl
kontrollierte
Flüge pro
Fluglotse
(Europa)
Arbeits- und
Fehlzeiten
Unterschiede
größtenteils
Unterschiedliche
gesellschaftlich
Bewertung der
bedingt
Sicherheitsrelevanz
Luftfracht generiert
wenig Taskload
(Nachtflüge)
IFR GA generiert wenig
Taskload (andere
Lufträume, Flugplätze)
Verkehrsmix
(durch ANSP
nicht zu
beeinflussen)
Anzahl
kontrollierte
Flüge pro
Fluglotse
(USA)
Die unterschiedliche, durchschnittliche Lotsenproduktivität in Europa und den USA liegt
an Faktoren, die überwiegend außerhalb von SES-Arbeitsfeldern liegen.
Diese Faktoren umfassen Arbeitsprinzipien, Arbeitsbedingungen sowie die Art und
räumliche / zeitliche Verteilung des zu kontrollierenden Luftverkehrs.
Darstellung schematisch auf Basis der Ausgangsdaten von kontrollierten Flügen und Anzahl der Fluglotsen.
19
:
[Billion Miles]
[Billion EUR PPP]
ATM costs per passenger mile
=
When the costs of ATM (PPP) are looked at in relation to passenger miles, the unit costs
are 16% lower in Europe.
Purchasing Power Parities for GDP, according OECD value 2005 – 2012 for Europe vs US$
20
The FAA tax structure
2012 FAA
Funds 2
2012 FAA
Budget
US Taxpayer
General Fund
(US Treasury)
$ 4.6 billion
Earnings 20111
ATO Budget
$ 10.7 billion
Passenger Tax
Transportation
of Persons by
Air
$ 7.9 billion
Use of Intern.
Air Facilities
$ 2.4 billion
Transportation
of Property
$ 0.44 billion
Aviation Fuel
Commercial
Use
$ 0.35 billion
Aviation Gas
NonCommercial
$ 0.19 billion
Fuel Tax
1 Share
2
of earnings according FY 2012
Fund share for Essential Air Service ($ 0.14 billion in 2012) neglected
http://www.aci-na.org/sites/default/files/airport_and_airway_trust_fund-july2013.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/media/AATF_Fact_Sheet.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41798.pdf
21
Airport and
Airway Trust
Fund
$ 11.3 billion
FAA
Budget
Total:
$ 15.9
billion
Non-ATO
Budget
$ 5.2 billion
(e.g. new
Runways,
aviation safety)
The FAA tax structure ... adopted to Germany
Funds
Budget (ATM
+ Non-ATM
Taxpayer
EUR 110 million
Public Fund
EUR 660
million*
Earnings
Passenger Tax
Domestic
Passenger ticket
tax
EUR 434 million
Domestic Flight
Segment Tax
ATM Budget
EUR 1.53
billion
EUR 173
million
Use of Intern. Air
Facilities
EUR 663 million
EUR 181 million
Overflight Fees
Frequent Flyer Tax
Domestic Cargo /
Mail
“German
Airport and
Airway Trust
Fund”
EUR 1,624
billion
EUR 83
million
EUR 90
million
* 28.9 % of FAA budget in 2012 was paid by the US treasury (tax money)
Earnings from Fuel Tax und Trust Fund share for Essential Air Service neglected
22
Non-ATM
Budget
EUR 0.75
billion
(e.g. new
Runways,
aviation safety)
Adjusted
DFS
Budget
EUR 1.42
billion
Reimbursement
for MUAC,
EUROCONTROL,
Weather Service,
NAS
The FAA tax structure applied to Germany1
+32%
The DFS budget would increase by 32 percent if the FAA tax structure were applied to
Germany.
Overall ATM charges for Germany would amount up to EUR 1.530 Mio - reimbursement of cost for MUAC, EUROCONTROL, weather services and NAS have been considered.
23
A comparison of air navigation costs
The assertion that ATM per passenger and flight is cheaper in the USA is not necessarily
so. The charges systems are, however, very difficult to compare.
USA
Europe / DFS
Kind of charges
Passenger-oriented charges per
flight (ticket tax or overflight tax)
Aircraft-oriented charges per
distance flown and aircraft mass
Charges are used for
FAA (ATO budget share approx.
67%)
ANSPs
A passenger pays for a domestic
flight over 560 km … *
1)
EUR 7.11 (EUR 5.00 en-route
charge + EUR 2.11 approach
fee)***
2)
… if the one-way ticket costs
$130 / EUR 100 **
Air transportation excise
tax: 7.5% of ticket price
$3.70 segment fee
$13.45 Ticket Tax + $ 5.47
General Tax = $18.92  equals
$12,68 or EUR 9.75 for
FAA/ATO (67% budget share)
In this calculation, the passenger pays 37% more in the USA.
Currency exchange rate JUL 2013: 1.30 $/€
24
EUR 7.11
*
**
***
Such as Munich-Hamburg
Without additional fees for baggage etc.
DFS 2013, Embraer 190, 86 pax
A comparison of air navigation costs
Embraer 190 / 86 pax
Cost parity
at 1360 km
ATM Cost per Pax
ATM Cost per Pax
Airbus A320 / 165 pax
FAA (ATO)
En-Route Flight
Distance [km]
Cost parity
at 800 km
FAA (ATO)
En-Route Flight
Distance [km]
While the cost per passenger in the USA (for domestic flights) is independent from the
travel distance, it is not in Germany.
Currency exchange rate JUL 2013: 1.30 $/€
25
Share of ANSP/FAA costs in operating costs /
ticket prices
Compared to total operating costs
Europe 2011 (source: AEA)
Compared to average domestic
ticket price 2012 (source: FAA)
The share of ATM costs in the operating costs and ticket prices shows as well that the
costs of ATM in Europe are in no way twice as high as in the USA.
Assumption Europe: No accounting for a profit margin per flight (about 5%, which would raise the share of costs of the ANSP to about 5.9%.)
Assumption USA:
Average domestic air fare Q IV 2012 round trip $374 according to DOT Bureau of Statistics
http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/prr-2012.pdf
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/airfares
http://web.mit.edu/TicketTax/Karlsson_Incidence_of_Ticket_Taxes_and_Fees_in_U.S._Domestic_Air_Travel.pdf
26
General ATM Cost Comparison USA - Europe
(PPP)
FAA
D in%
Europe
Cost per year
2
Cost per km airspace
(continental)
8.600.000.000 €
827 €
8.000.000.000 €
696 €
-7%
-16%
 Cost per controlled
Flight
540 €
843 €
56%
 Cost per Scheduled
Flight (no GA, MIL)
845 €
925 €
9%
 Cost per controlled
Mile (Scheduled Flights,
no GA, no MIL)
1,72 €
1,69 €
-2%
10,78 €
2,20 €
10,13 €
1,85 €
-6%
-16%
 Cost per Passenger
 Cost per 100 PaxMiles
Share in Total Operating
/ Ticket Costs for Airlines
9%
Purchasing Power Parities for GDP, according OECD value 2005 – 2012 for Europe vs US$
27
6%
-33%
Vergleich USA-Europa Résumée
Mehr Sektoren
Keine
Staatszuschüsse
(DFS)
Mehr Flüge
Geringeres
ATM-Budget
Niedrigere
Kosten pro Pax
Wechselkurs?
Mehr
Passagierkilometer
Höhere LotsenArbeitszeiten
Vieraugenprinzip
Viel IFR-General
Aviation
28
Kosten und Leistung – eine Frage der
Perspektive
pro Passagierkilometer
Prio 1: Sicherheit
für die Nutzer des
Luftverkehrsystems
Personal
Technik
29
Thank you for your attention
30