1 / 17

Progress and Challenges in SES Performance Scheme: Insights from the PRB Briefing (Nov 2013)

This document outlines the performance-oriented approach of the SES Performance Scheme during RP1 (2012-14) and discusses the associated opportunities and risks for RP2 (2015-19). It reviews key performance metrics such as en-route flight efficiency, cost-efficiency, and capacity, highlighting that while performance targets for en-route ATFM delays were better than expected, capacity issues persisted due to staffing shortages. The document emphasizes the need for improving traffic management and achieving cost reductions, while also proposing new performance targets for RP2.

hina
Télécharger la présentation

Progress and Challenges in SES Performance Scheme: Insights from the PRB Briefing (Nov 2013)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SES Performance scheme: Progress or not? Viewpoints from the PRB Briefing to AVINOR 06 November 2013 Antero Lahtinen, PRB member

  2. Topics • Performance-oriented approach • Progress under RP1 (2012-14) • Opportunities and risks for RP2 (2015-19) • Conclusion

  3. SES Performance scheme schedule Monitoring

  4. Environment • Target on average horizontal en-route flight efficiency • last filed flight plan vs. great circle route  Slight divergence from planning, but on track.

  5. Capacity (1/2) • Target on en-route ATFM delays (2012): 0.7 min/flight  Performance better than target (lower average traffic) 0,70 0,63

  6. Capacity (2/2) - Norway 0,04 Norway 0,28 0,04 0,28  Target missed in 2012, mainly due to capacity/staffing issues during the Summer.

  7. Cost-efficiency 1/2 • Total costs lower than Performance Plans (-206 M€2009) • of which ~70% can be associated to structural changes. • EU-wide real en-route unit costs in 2012: +1.2% above Perf. Plans • Actual costs -3.3% lower, traffic -4.5% lower • Most ATSPs succeeded in retaining their surplus and even increased it in a context of traffic decline • Higher traffic and lower costs than planned in Norway in 2012 • Estimated surplus: 9% • Estimated RoE: 10.9%

  8. Cost-efficiency 2/2

  9. Capital Expenditure • Many investments planned in 2012 have been postponed or cancelled • CAPEX lower than planned in 2012: -340.7M (-31.2%) • Information sometimes incomplete and not always consistent • Mandatory implementation of Data and Interoperability delayed or not planned. • Norway’s actual 2012 CAPEX is missing, which makes an assessment at NEFAB level impossible and weakens the findings at EU level.

  10. What are the main performance issues? • Economy is slowing down • Highly volatile air traffic demand • Medium air transport punctuality (~83%) • Complex airport, users and ATM relationships • High ANS costs (800€/flight) • Low ATCO productivity • Fragmented Service provision & infrastructure • Labour intensive industry (63% of costs) • ANSP Monopoly, full cost recovery until 2011 • and also high delay costs… • Capacity and demand often don’t match • Social issues • Environmental impact • Safety issues? • No good risk indicators so far

  11. Total economic cost Flight-efficiency En-route: 2.0 B TMA, taxi: 1.8 B 3.8 B • ANS Total economic cost ~ €14B p.a. • Fully borne by users in Europe • Covers 3 KPAs • Environment, Capacity, Cost-Efficiency • Reflects trade-offs • Objective • To minimise TEC within acceptable boundsof safety and security TotalUser cost(ground) € 14 B ATFM Delays ER: 0.9, Apt: 0.5 1.4 B ATCO 2.4 B Support costs Other staff: 2.6 B Other oper.: 1.5 B 4.1 B UserCharges €9 B p.a. CAPEX Depreciation: 1 B Capital cost: 0.5 B 1.5 B 1 B Other costs EURO: 0.5 B MET: 0.4, NSA: 0.1 B 2011

  12. Opportunities for improvement Flight-efficiency En-route: 2.0 B TMA, taxi: 1.8 B 3.8 B • Efficiency gains in individual ANSPs (e.g. cost control) • Airspace improvements,(e.g. free routes) • More flexible management of capacity to match demand • New Technology • Rationalisation of and greater cooperation in service provision and oversight • The start of ANS restructuring through FABs or otherwise ATFM Delays ER: 0.9, Apt: 0.5 1.4 B ATCO 2.4 B Support costs Other staff: 2.6 B Other oper.: 1.5 B 4.1 B CAPEX Depreciation: 1 B Capital cost: 0.5 B 1.5 B 1 B Other costs EURO: 0.5 B MET: 0.4, NSA: 0.1 B 2011

  13. Proposed targets for RP2: Safety

  14. Proposed targets for RP2: Environment • Last filed flight plan and actual trajectory • Free route airspace

  15. Proposed targets for RP2: Capacity • PRB’s proposed target aims at maintaining the same quality of service. • Lengthy delays to be dealt within NSP and NOP

  16. Proposed targets for RP2: Cost-efficiency • The PRB proposes en-route costs reductions • -1.5% p.a. for 2015-2016 and -2.5% p.a. for 2017-2019 • Annual average reduction in en-route costs of -2.1% over 2014-19 • Less demanding effort at the beginning of RP2 to allow for required changes and adjustments • Draft EC decision: -2.5% p.a. over RP2

  17. Conclusions • Performance is the bottom line • Major change under SES II • Enforceable performance targets, incentives • Significant performance improvements in first step (RP1) • Low traffic has significant impact • Next challenge is RP2 targets

More Related