civil air navigation services organisation
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 2012 - 2016 ANSP Performance Results
The ANSP View
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
The CANSO Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 is a collective and entirely voluntary benchmarking effort of CANSO Member air navigation service providers (ANSPs) which covers data from the ANSPs’ 2016 fiscal year and trend data between the 2012 and 2016 fiscal years. Editorial Team Paul Cripwell, NAV CANADA, current Chair of the Global Benchmarking Workgroup (GBWG) Siree Vatanavigkit, Aeronautical Radio of Thailand (AEROTHAI), incoming Chair of the GBWG Helios - CANSO Performance Benchmarking Project Team
Contributors Nigel Fitzhardinge, Airways NZ Kunthinee Karunratanakul, AEROTHAI Krishnan Udayabhanu Rao, Airports Authority of India (AAI) Kanhaya Lal, AAI Carol Teo, Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) Edmund Heng, CAAS Christopher Gregg, Federal Aviation Administration - Air Traffic Organization (FAA-ATO) Dina Dolan, FAA-ATO Aleksandra Damsz, FAA-ATO Kristin Stadum, FAA-ATO Diana Galgoczi, HungaroControl Livia Cseh, HungaroControl Sigurleifur Kristjansson, ISAVIA Aslaug Adalsteinsdottir, ISAVIA Yoshiaki Dei, Japan Air Navigation Service (JANS) Liva Krigere, Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme (LGS) Bill Clark, NAV CANADA Ana Pinto, NAV Portugal Jolanta Wakulicz, Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA) Mindaugas Gustys, Oro Navigacija Tomas Tamašauskas, Oro Navigacija Audrius Radzevičius, Oro Navigacija Ted Fudge, Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO) Disclaimer This report has been compiled using data provided by participating ANSPs. To facilitate comparability, data for each ANSP has been transformed to be consistent with standard definitions. The resulting data and comparisons have been produced solely for the use of ANSPs, and other interested parties, to assess and appraise performance in air navigation services (ANS) provision. It is not intended that the data from this report is used for any wider purpose, nor does the data provide a definitive assessment of any metric relating to ANSP processes. December 2017
2
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
THE ANSP VIEW Introduction: The ANSP View....................................................................................................... page 4 Key Performance Indicators ........................................................................................................ page 5 Participants.................................................................................................................................. page 6 Methodology................................................................................................................................ page 8 Continental Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2016..................................................................... page 10 Oceanic Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2016.......................................................................... page 19 Sources........................................................................................................................................ page 26 Acronyms and abbreviations....................................................................................................... page 68
ANNEXES Annex 1: Data definitions............................................................................................................ page 27 Annex 2: Contextual data........................................................................................................... page 29 Annex 3: KPI Data....................................................................................................................... page 56
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - List of participating ANSPs.......................................................................................... page 6 Figure 2 - Participating ANSPs Flight Hours................................................................................ page 7 Figure 3 - CANSO ANS performance framework........................................................................ page 9 Figure 4 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)..................................................................................... page 10 Figrue 5 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)............................... page 11 Figure 6 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, PPP adjusted (USD)........ page 12 Figure 7 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity................................................................................. page 13 Figure 8 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD).............. page 14 Figure 9 - Annual ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD)............................................................ page 15 Figure 10 - Unit ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD) – PPP adjusted..................................... page 16 Figure 11 - Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS................................................................. page 17 Figure 12 - IFR hours per ATCO in OPS...................................................................................... page 18 Figure 13 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)................................................................................... page 19 Figure 14 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)............................. page 20 Figure 15 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) – PPP adjusted..... page 21 Figure 16 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity............................................................................... page 22 Figure 17 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)............ page 23 Figure 18 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)................................................................................... page 24 Figure 19 - Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs......................... page 25
3
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Introduction: The ANSP View Background This is the second part of CANSO’s Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017. It contains performance indicators for identified air navigation service providers (ANSPs) for the year 2016, along with trend data between the 2012 and 2016 fiscal years. ANSPs also provided contextual comments, including any exceptional events during the year or items that may impact the comparability of their data. Additional comments on important events are provided with the contextual data that also provides insights on the results of the participating ANSPs. For the key messages and an overview of the industry as a whole, please see the Executive Summary.
4
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Key Performance Indicators The following section presents 2016 and 2012-2016 trend data for both continental and oceanic activities in line with the CANSO ANS Performance Framework levels 1-3 (see page [12]), as well as an additional KPI on the employment cost of air traffic controllers (ATCOs) in operations (OPS) as a percentage of total cost.
Indicator
KPI
Numerator
Denominator
Cost Efficiency and Productivity Performance Indicators 1
Figure References Continental
Oceanic
2016 / Trend
2016
Cost per IFR flight hour
Total Cost
IFR flight hours
Figure 4
2A
ATCOs in OPS Employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour
Employment costs for ATCOs in OPS
ATCOs in OPS hours
Figure 5, 6 Figure 14, 15
2B
ATCOs in OPS hour productivity
IFR flight hours
ATCOs in OPS hours
Figure 7
Figure 16
2C
Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour
Costs excluding employment costs for ATCOs in OPS
IFR flight hours
Figure 8
Figure 17
3A
Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS
Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS
ATCOs in OPS
Figure 9, 10
3B
Annual Working hours ATCOs in per ATCO in OPS OPS hours
ATCOs in OPS
Figure 11
3C
Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS
ATCOs in OPS
Figure 12
IFR flight hours
Figure 13
Continental and Oceanic
Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost Efficiency Performance Indicators
2016 / Trend
CO1
Cost per IFR flight hour
Total Cost
IFR flight hours
Figure 18
CO2
Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs
Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS
Total Cost
Figure 19
Notes on this year’s KPIs This year Airways New Zealand provided data for two financial years (July 2016 - June 2017 and July 2015 - June 2016). This allows better alignment with localised reporting and provides more relevant benchmarking opportunities for other ANSPs. As the report’s trend data is between those two submissions, it is however not possible to compare trend data in this year’s report with the same metrics included in last year’s report, which were for July 2014 - June 2015 only.
5
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Participants The following ANSPs opted into this report:
Region Africa
Americas
Member
Label for Graphics
Air Traffic & Navigation Services
ATNS
Civil Aviation Authority of Uganda
CAUU
Kenya Civil Aviation Authority
KCAA
Corporacion Centroamericana de Servicios de Navegacion COCESNA Federal Aviation Administration – Air Traffic Organization FAA-ATO NAV CANADA
NAV CANADA
Servicios para la Navegación del Espacio Aereo Mexicano SENEAM Asia Pacific
Europe
Aeronautical Radio of Thailand
AEROTHAI
Airports Authority of India
AAI
Airways New Zealand
Airways NZ
Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore
CAAS
Japan Air Navigation Service
JANS
Administration de la Navigation Aérienne
ANA
Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic
ANS CR
Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü
DHMI
Estonian Air Navigation Services
EANS
Finavia
Finavia
HungaroControl Pte.Ltd. Co.
HungaroControl
Isavia Ltd
ISAVIA
Luftfartsverket
LFV
Latvijas gaisa satiksme
LGS
Letové Prevádzkové Služby
LPS
Navegação Aérea de Portugal - NAV Portugal, E.P.E
NAV Portugal
SE Oro Navigacija
Oro Navigacija
PANSA Polish Air Navigation Services Agency
PANSA
Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration
ROMATSA
Sakaeronavigatsia Ltd
Sakaeronavigatsia
Slovenia Control
Slovenia Control
Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services SMATSA IIc
SMATSA
Figure 1 - List of participating ANSPs
Note: ANSPs have the option to opt-in or opt-out of The ANSP View, which is why this list of participating ANSPs differs slightly from the participants list in the Executive Summary.
6
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP
Total IFR Flight Hours 2016 (Continental)
Growth IFR Flight Hours (Continental)
FAA-ATO
23,798,765
2%
AAI
3,075,221
15%
NAV CANADA
2,901,807
1%
JANS
2,261,685
4%
SENEAM
1,407,217
DHMI
1251491
-1%
AEROTHAI
748,521
11%
LFV
431,832
0%
CAAS
430,087
5%
PANSA
426,110
6%
NAV Portugal
398,024
11%
ROMATSA
338,782
-3%
ATNS
284,204
Airways NZ
265,211
ANS CR
251,992
4%
HungaroControl
238,135
3%
SMATSA
237,951
5%
Finavia
105,306
-6%
LPS
97,738
4%
LGS
78,990
2%
KCAA
73,758
1%
EANS
67,869
1%
Oro Navigacija
54,469
-2%
Sakaeronavigatsia
50,914
0%
Slovenia Control
50,608
1%
Isavia
30,124
11%
ANA
21,600
CAAU
18,448
Total IFR Flight Hours 2016 (Oceanic)
Growth IFR Flight Hours (Oceanic)
1,985,454
5%
618,626
7%
5%
8,879
-10%
3%
117,212
9%
260,088
11%
COCESNA Figure 2 - Participating ANSPs Flight Hours
7
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Methodology Data collection: CANSO ANSP Members provided data for this analysis. Data submission has been greatly simplified this year. The submission of data has initially focussed on the data required for this report, while additional data to support the trial KPIs is being collected on a different schedule. ANSPs are able to revise data submitted in previous years. The data submission workbook includes validation calculations that ANSPs are encouraged to consult in the data collection phase.
Growth rates: Data is presented from 2016 and then for the one-year and four-year trends. The four-year trend1 is calculated as the compound annual growth rate (CAGR)2. The use of a CAGR shows clearly the overall trend between 2012 and 2016. However, it masks the fluctuations that may have taken place over the intervening years, which are also important in understanding performance trends. In addition, if 2012 was an outlier, this trend may not be representative of the trend over this timeframe.
The entire dataset is available to all participating ANSPs to enable closer analysis and evaluation of performance trends.
The trend analysis is presented above the 2016 KPI data, and is based on the data submitted in the ANSP’s chosen currency. As a result, it is impossible to reverse engineer the USD metrics in 2016’s report, using this report.
Data processing: Data has been processed by Helios. It was subject to a one-step quality check for significant changes, potential errors or omissions and is subject to continued revision by participating Members.
PPP correction: Salaries and the cost of living vary extensively around the world. One way to correct for this is by using purchasing power parity (PPP). Employment costs for ATCOs in OPS are corrected using the International Monetary Fund (IMF) PPP conversion rates. There are, of course, limitations to this approach, as the cost of living can vary widely within a country and may be higher or lower in the region where ANS offices are located.
Separation of continental and oceanic data: Information is provided both for continental and oceanic air navigation services, where applicable. Each of these environments has different challenges associated with providing ANS. For example, it is more straightforward to provide ground infrastructure for communications and surveillance services in continental airspace than it is over vast oceans.
Q1 and Q3: The first quartile (Q1) is defined as the middle number between the smallest number and the median of the data set and the third quartile (Q3) is the middle value between the median and the highest value of the data set. The median is defined as the value separating the upper half of the data from the lower half.
Exchange rate conversion: ANSPs submit data in their chosen currency. For KPI comparison, data is presented in USD. 2016 KPI data is converted using the Bank of England 2016 exchange rates (average rate during the year) – where available – and supplemented with the data available at currency and foreign exchange rate website, XE.com. For ANSPs that operate in a currency other than the USD, the assumption of lower cost may be caused in part by the strengthening USD. Between 2012 and 2016, the USD appreciated against most other world currencies, meaning each USD buys more foreign currency. This change in the relative value of the dollar effectively lowers the price that ANSPs incur in USD.
The four-year trend uses five years of data and four years in growth terms. The compound annual growth rate is calculated by taking the nth root of the total percentage growth rate, where n is the number of years in the period being considered.
1 2
8
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
CANSO ANS Performance Framework The cost efficiency and productivity indicators for continental and oceanic services in line with the CANSO ANS Performance Framework.
Figure 3 – CANSO ANS performance framework
It is important to note the dependence of the higher tier metrics on the lower tier ones. This can be established as follows:
1=
2A + 2C 2B
2A= 3A 3B 2B= 3C 3B
9
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Continental Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2016 2016 Continental – Cost efficiency Indicator 1: Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours
Figure 4 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)
The 2016 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 416. The main driver behind CAAS’ increase in this metric was an influx of ATCOs employed in preparation for Singapore’s new three-runway system and anticipated increase in traffic at Changi Airport. This led to increased employment and training costs. It should be noted that, regarding depreciation, JANS accounts for the cost of facilities, systems and equipment related to air navigation services, and this affects this indicator as well as indicators 2C, CO1 and CO2. Isavia’s costs were driven up by a new salary agreement with the ATCOs, which resulted in an increase in total salary cost of approximately 25% for 2016 compared with 2015. 10
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2016 Continental - Cost efficiency Indicator 2A: ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS hours
Figure 5 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)
The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour is USD 80. AAI’s reduction in this metric is due to a policy decision to increase the working hours of ATCOs in OPS, which drove a 16% increase in ATCO hours. The increase in ANS CR’s metric is a result of bonuses that were paid to ATCOs due to their higher workload and additional effort resulting from the increase in air traffic recorded in 2016 in the airspace of the Czech Republic. All the bonuses were paid in accordance with a collective agreement. Moreover, the increase in air traffic led to more overtime work by ATCOs in 2016.
11
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
The reason for the significant change in Sakaeronavigatsia’s metric from last year is a decrease in ATCO hours, driven by a new order issued by the Georgian Civil Aviation Agency decreasing annual working hours from 1728 to 1452, coupled with an increase in ATCO employment costs. This was a result of inflation in 2016 and, an increase in the number of employees; 12 ATCOs were recruited in FY2016. Isavia’s increase is driven by the new salary agreement that was mentioned after Figure 4. The increase in DHMI’s ATCO costs last year was due to the decision taken by the Ministry of Labor and Social Security during the Collective Labor Agreement Debates regarding an additional payment to staff of all public entities. This decision was also binding on DHMI due to which payment was made to all staff including ATCOs
Figure 6 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, PPP adjusted (USD)
The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, after PPP adjustment is USD 127.
12
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2016 Continental - Productivity Indicator 2B: ATCOs in OPS hour productivity Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours
Figure 7 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity
The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS hour productivity is 0.71. Within Europe, traffic growth continued in 2016 with a shift towards the South-West axis. Consequently, one of the highest increases in overall traffic was observed in Portugal and NAV Portugal faced an increase in en-route traffic and high arrival/departures at airports of both FIRs. This has driven the increase in this metric. For Isavia, the increase is a result of traffic increasing, while ATCO hours went down due to industrial action.
13
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2016 Continental - Cost efficiency Indicator 2C: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs / IFR flight hours
Figure 8 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)
The 2016 average cost excluding ATCOs in operations employment cost per IFR flight hour is USD 296. ATNS’ decrease in this metric is due to a deliberate cost containment decision, made in anticipation of zero increase in tariffs.
14
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2016 Continental - Cost efficiency Indicator 3A: Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / No. ATCOs in OPS
Figure 9 - Annual ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD)
The 2016 average unit ATCO in OPS employment cost is USD 121,021. The increase in employment cost for NAV CANADA is related to the increase in traffic that resulted in an increase in the number of shifts required to meet this demand and the use of overtime to fill these shifts.
15
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Figure 10 - Unit ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD) – PPP adjusted
The 2016 average unit ATCO in OPS employment cost, after PPP adjustment, is USD 192,241.
16
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2016 Continental - Productivity Indicator 3B: Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: ATCOs in OPS hours / No. ATCOs in OPS
Figure 11 - Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS
The 2016 average annual working hours per ATCO in OPS is 1,593 hours. The reduction in Sakaeronavigatsia’s metric is due to a new order issued by the Georgian Civil Aviation Agency decreasing annual working hours from 1728 to 1452. AAI’s change in this metric is due to the policy decision to increase the working hours of ATCOs in OPS. The change in Isavia’s metric is due to industrial action. The 3% growth in AEROTHAI’s metric corresponds to the 11% growth in IFR flight hours.
17
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2016 Continental - Productivity Indicator 3C: Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: IFR flight hours / No. ATCOs in OPS
Figure 12 - IFR hours per ATCO in OPS
The 2016 average annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS is 1,101 IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS. NAV Portugal’s increase in this metric was, as before, driven by a significant increase in traffic.
18
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Oceanic Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2016 2016 Oceanic - Cost efficiency Indicator 1: Cost per IFR flight hour (USD) Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours
Figure 13 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)
The 2016 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 90. For comparison, this figure for continental flights is USD 416.
19
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2016 Cost efficiency - Oceanic Indicator 2A: ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs hour (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS Hours
Figure 14 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)
The 2016 oceanic average employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is USD 122. For comparison, the figure for continental airspace is USD 79. This figure is, however, skewed by the smaller number of ANSPs participating in this report that service oceanic airspace. For comparison, the average figure for continental airspace for the ANSPs above is USD 113. The explanation for Isavia’s increase is the same as for the continental indicator: the new salary agreement with the controllers. Note, the fact that FAA-ATO ATCO in OPS employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is higher for oceanic than continental stems from the higher cost of living in the areas that cover oceanic traffic. 20
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Figure 15 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) – PPP adjusted
The 2016 oceanic average employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is USD 118. For comparison, the average figure for continental airspace is USD 127.
21
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2016 Oceanic - Productivity Indicator 2B: ATCOs in OPS hour productivity Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours
Figure 16 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity
The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS hour productivity is 4.1 IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS hours, significantly higher than the continental figure of 0.71. As would be expected, traffic volumes in oceanic airspaces vary considerably between flight information regions (FIR). NAV CANADA and FAA-ATO exhibit the higher volumes, while ATNS has very little oceanic traffic but must still provide basic coverage at all times.
22
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2016 Oceanic - Cost efficiency Indicator 2C: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs / IFR flight hours
Figure 17 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)
The 2016 average cost excluding ATCOs in operations employment cost per IFR flight hour is USD 65. ATNS is not included on this graph, as it does not separately calculate costs for oceanic flights, and thus it is impossible to obtain an accurate picture of what costs – excluding ATCO costs – for oceanic flights.
23
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost efficiency: 2016 2016 Continental and Oceanic - Cost efficiency Indicator CO1: Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs /IFR flight hours
Figure 18 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)
The 2016 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 409. Compare this average value to that from Figure 4 – Cost per IFR flight hour (continental) – where the average value is USD 416, which, as last year, reflects the influence of a small number of ANSPs that have oceanic services with significantly lower unit costs.
24
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2016 Continental and Oceanic - Cost efficiency Indicator CO2: Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / Total costs
Figure 19 - Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs
The 2016 average employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs is 29%.
25
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Sources Definitions: EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V2.6 EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V3.0 Exchange rate data:
www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/index.asp?Travel=NIxIRx&levels=2&XNotes=Y&A 3790XNode3790.x=7&A3790XNode3790.y=5&Nodes=&SectionRequired=I&HideNums=1&ExtraInfo=true#BM www.xe.com/currencytables/ IMF World Economic Outlook database: www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/index.aspx
26
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Annex 1: Data Definitions
Contextual Data Element Definitions Data Element
Definitions
IFR hours per sq. km
This is the result of dividing the number of IFR hours for the current year of data by surface area (in square kilometres).
Sq. km – oceanic and continental
The size (the surface area) of the airspace for which an ANSP is responsible. This should include the area where ANS have been delegated to the ANSP by another provider, and exclude the area in which ANS have been delegated to another ANSP. The sq. km here should be consistent with ACC coverage with respect to total area. Differentiation for facilities controlling only upper or lower airspace will be addressed by item 3 below. (Source: PRU D1).
% surveillance coverage @ 30,000ft Surveillance coverage from radar and ADS-B. radar and ADS-B only % surveillance coverage @ 30,000ft Surveillance coverage from radar, ADS-B and ADS-C. radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs
A Flight Information Region is airspace of defined dimensions within which flight information service and alerting service are provided.
Number of ACC facilities
ACC facilities are the ATC units providing ATC services to enroute traffic in control areas under its jurisdiction. Part of an ACC may also provide approach services.
Number of co-located ACC and An ACC unit is described above. An approach control unit approach facilities is an ATC unit providing ATC services to arriving, departing and over-flying flights within the airspace in the vicinity of an airport. Number of stand-alone approach Definition of an approach control unit is above. facilities Number of co-located approach and Definition of an approach control unit is above. A tower control tower facilities unit is an ATC unit at an airport responsible for the provision of ATC services in respect of flights that are landing and taking off and other traffic that is on the active runway(s). Number of co-located approach, tower For definitions see above. and ACC facilities Number of stand-alone towers
Definition of a tower control unit is above.
27
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Input Data Definitions Data Element
Definitions
Total Costs
The sum of operating costs, depreciation/amortisation and cost of capital related to providing continental and oceanic ATC/ ATFM services. Meteorological costs and EUROCONTROL costs (if applicable) are not included.
IFR flight hours
Total number of controlled IFR flight hours in continental and oceanic airspace.
ATCO hours
Total annual working hours for ATCOs in operations – including breaks and overtime. Holiday is not included.
ATCO employment cost
Total employment costs including gross wages and salaries, payments for overtime and other bonuses, employer contribution to social security scheme and taxes, pension contributions and other benefits for ‘ATCOs in operations’. This excludes: mission related expenditures, including travel expenditures and training fees, as these are considered operating costs.
Other costs
Total Costs - ATCO in OPS employment costs.
Number of ATCOs
The number of FTE ATCOs – whose employment costs were included in ‘ATCO employment cost’ – participating in an activity that is either directly related to the control of traffic or is a necessary requirement for ATCOs to be able to control traffic.
28
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Annex 2: Contextual Data ANSP: AEROTHAI In your opinion, what are the main The traffic growth along with limitations in airspace drivers or issues for performance infrastructure are the main drivers for operational/airspace organisation improvements, air traffic flow management and within your region? increased safety measures. What are the main initiatives you Thailand Modernization CNS/ATM System (TMCS) project are undertaking to improve your which is a nation-wide ANS infrastructure enhancement, and deployment of service improvement projects in accordance performance? with applicable Aviation System Block Upgrades (ASBU) strategies and APAC Seamless ATM Plan. Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.
Slower traffic growth rate compare to 2015 was due to the limited capacity of the airspace and infrastructure. AEROTHAI is working on enhancing capacity while maintaining and improving safety standard.
Legal status: A company established as a public-private partnership to provide the services on behalf of the government, and part-owned by the government.
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
IFR hours per sq. km.
0.9624
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
777,760
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
Number of FIRs
Comments
1
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
1
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
6
Number of stand-alone towers
14
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
29
The number of co-located approach/ tower and stand-alone towers and their respective numbers of ATCOs do not reflect actual facilities. These numbers are split by the currently available data, of which some physical stand-alone towers may be represented
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Airports Authority of India In your opinion, what are the main Traffic growth, availability of technology, and government drivers or issues for performance initiatives for structural reform in civil aviation by converting it into mass transportation. within your region? What are the main initiatives you Technological upgradation, human capital improvements, are undertaking to improve your optimisation of resources. performance? Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
Oceanic
3,570,000
6,400,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
0%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
100%
1
3
Comments
IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
Number of FIRs
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
0
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
49
Number of stand-alone towers
7
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
12
30
ADS-C
Partially continental, partially oceanic
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Airways New Zealand In your opinion, what are the main Upgrading of aircraft sizes and a recent increase in total traffic. drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you Continuing increase in capital spend. Ongoing development are undertaking to improve your of ops strategy programme to provide resilience and service using a 1 centre, 2 locations concept. performance? Were there any factors that impacted No exceptional events. your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
Oceanic
IFR hours per sq. km.
0.3073
0.0041
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
863,100
28,790,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
100%
Oceanic: FANS1A equipped aircraft
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
100%
Oceanic: FANS1A equipped aircraft
1
1
Number of ACC facilities
0
1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
0
0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
7
0
Number of stand-alone towers
10
0
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
0
Number of FIRs
Facilities
31
Comments
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Administration de la navigation aérienne In your opinion, what are the main Single European Sky (SES) performance targets and regulation; drivers or issues for performance functional airspace block (FAB) performance targets and projects; and European SES Implementation Plan (ESSIP). within your region? What are the main initiatives you Annual setting / reviewing of KPI´s and PI´s as per service areas are undertaking to improve your in KPAs: safety, capacity, environment, and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF); specific targets and actions are monitored. performance? Were there any factors that impacted 2015 = first year of applying SES performance plan and your individual ANSP performance establishing a full set of KPIs helped to improve performance. in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Legal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions
Contextual data element Operational data IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
Continental 5.4 4,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
0%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
0%
Number of FIRs
1
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
0
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
1
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
1
Number of stand-alone towers
0
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
32
Comments
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Yes, objectives are stated in the corporate Business Plan developed currently for years 2015 to 2019. Objectives cover 4 KPAs: safety, environment, capacity and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF).
In your opinion, what are the main EU regulations on Performance and Charging Scheme. drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you Internal performance monitoring system with predefined are undertaking to improve your objectives to be met. performance? Were there any factors that impacted No factors or exceptional events were noticed in 2016. your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
IFR hours per sq. km.
3.3353
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
76,300
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
Number of FIRs
1
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
3
Number of stand-alone towers
1
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
33
Comments
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Air Traffic & Navigation Services Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
To provide safe, expeditious and efficient air traffic management solutions and associated services, whilst ensuring long-term economic, social and environmental sustainability.
Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
Oceanic
0.0304
0.0008
9,279,080
12,720,920
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
0%
0%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
95%
0%
2
1
Number of ACC facilities
0
0
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
0
0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
9
0
Number of stand-alone towers
10
0
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
2
0
IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
Number of FIRs
Comments
Oceanic services are provided by ATSO and not ATCO
Facilities
34
Oceanic is provided in one the centres
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.
Contextual data element Operational data IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
Continental 0.512 840,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
69%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
Number of FIRs
1
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
1
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
0
Number of stand-alone towers
2
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
35
Comments
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Civil Aviation Authority of Uganda Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Yes. It aims at delivering a range of services to ensure the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic within the Ugandan airspace.
In your opinion, what are the main Business, tourism and UN operations. drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you Airspace redesign, installation/modification of ANS facilities, are undertaking to improve your training of staff and airport expansion to comply with ICAO ASBU and implementation of performance based navigation performance? (PBN). Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
Contextual data element Operational data IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
Continental
Comments
0.07 249,690
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100% radar coverage within 180 nautical miles (NM) radius from NN and 90% coverage outside 180NM
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100% radar coverage within 180 NM NN and 90% radar coverage beyond 180 NM NN
Number of FIRs
1
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
1
Located at Entebbe
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
None
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
1
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
1
Number of stand-alone towers
2
Entebbe airport
Entebbe and Gulu airports
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
36
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.
Overflights continued to rise in a context of important changes in traffic patterns due to airspace closures in Iraq and Syria. New procedures for approach, arrival and departure were implemented at 8 airports.
Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
IFR hours per sq. km.
1.2744
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
982,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs
2
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
2
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
2
Number of stand-alone approach facilities Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
44
Number of stand-alone towers Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
37
Comments
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Federal Aviation Administration – Air Traffic Organization Legal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions.
Contextual data element Operational data IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. – oceanic and continental Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
Continental
Oceanic
1.6045
0.0327
14,832,411
60,628,411
Comments
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs
21
5
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
21
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
3
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
27
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
132
Number of stand-alone towers
131
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
1
38
Excludes federal contract towers
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Finavia
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
SES-regulation/performance requirements.
In your opinion what are the main 1. FAB co-operation projects, 2. For Finavia rostering principles drivers or issues for performance review, 3. Investment / procurement programmes, 4. Staff reductions. within your region? What are the main initiatives you Preparation of corporatisation (separate ANS and airports are undertaking to improve your businesses in individual companies in 2017). performance? Were there any factors that impacted Less traffic than expected resulting in less income. your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
IFR hours per sq. km.
0.2562
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
411,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
0%
Number of FIRs
Comments
1
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
1
ACC facilities at two sites (Tampere and Helsinki) operated dynamically by common management.
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
5
Number of stand-alone towers
18
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
1
39
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co In your opinion, what are the main The main driver of European performance is the performance drivers or issues for performance scheme. The ANSPs have to bear cost and traffic risk, however they do not have influence on traffic. Continuously changing within your region? legal framework. What are the main initiatives you Effective resource allocation due to extra traffic and flexible are undertaking to improve your sectorisation in order to minimise delay and overtime of ATCOs. performance? Were there any factors that impacted Increased traffic due to the Ukrainian situation. your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
Comments
IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
104,000
Hungarian airspace and the upper airspace over Kosovo
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
0%
0% ADS-B and ADS-C coverage but 100% radar coverage at 30,000ft
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
0%
0% ADS-B and ADS-C coverage but 100% radar coverage at 30,000ft
Number of FIRs
2
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
0
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
0
Number of stand-alone towers
1
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
40
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Isavia Ltd In your opinion, what are the main Safety. drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you Upgrading of our flight data processing system (FDPS) and are undertaking to improve your associated systems. performance? Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
Oceanic
Comments
0.0632
Combined oceanic and continental
5,400,000
Combined oceanic and continental
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
30%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
80%
1
2
BIRD/BGGL
1
1
Combined continental/oceanic/ approach
Number of FIRs
Facilities Number of ACC facilities Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach facilities Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
1
Number of stand-alone towers
2
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
41
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Japan Air Navigation Service In your opinion what are the main Drivers: Accommodating increasing air traffic demand drivers or issues for performance particularly in Tokyo metropolitan region Issues: Restrictions on airspace/flight routes due to noise within your region? abatement. What are the main initiatives you Implementation of integrated ATC data processing system and are undertaking to improve your airspace reformation. performance? Were there any factors that impacted The (actual) flight hours in Fukuoka FIR have increased 4% your individual ANSP performance compared to the previous year. In particular, the international in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in flights and over flights have grown 7% and 9% respectively. the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Legal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions.
Contextual data element Operational data IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
Continental
Comments
0.2692 8,400,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs
100%
1
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
4
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
14
Number of stand-alone towers
19
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
42
Radar except oceanic sectors. ADS-B: Installation ongoing ADS-C: Applicable within oceanic sectors.
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Kenya Civil Aviation Authority
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
To plan, develop, manage, regulate and operate a safe, economically sustainable and efficient civil aviation system in Kenya, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act, 2013.
In your opinion, what are the main To provide a safe, efficient and effective civil aviation. drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you Implementation of SMS, upgrade of communication, are undertaking to improve your navigation and surveillance (CNS) equipment. performance? Were there any factors that impacted N/A your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
796,844
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100% radar
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
12.5% ADS-C
Number of FIRs
1
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
3
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
3
Number of stand-alone towers
5
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
1
43
Comments
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Luftfartsverket (LFV)
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
IFR hours per sq. km.
0.6887
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
627,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs
1
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
2
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
2
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
1
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
21
Number of stand-alone towers Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
44
Comments
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Latvijas gaisa satiksme
Does your ANSP have stated Volatility of traffic, uncertainty with traffic to/from Russian Federation. Territory, cost-effectiveness pressures. objectives? If so, what are they? Were there any factors that impacted No. your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
95,200
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
Number of FIRs
1
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
0
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
0
Number of stand-alone towers
1
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
45
Comments
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Letové Prevádzkové Služby (LPS SR) Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
LPS pursues the following objectives: 1. To maintain the level of safety unchanged with the growing volume of traffic in the Slovak airspace. 2. To create an operational environment, mature enough to meet a long-term demand for air transport and maintain a safe, fast and orderly flow of air traffic at the same time 3. To minimise LPS SR’s negative impact on flight efficiency in Europe by minimizing ATFM delays in Slovak airspace. 4. To ensure economic efficiency of air traffic management in Slovakia 5. To minimise the negative impact of air traffic on the quality of environment
In your opinion, what are the main Severe impact of highly seasonal nature of air traffic volume in drivers or issues for performance Slovak airspace peaking in the summer period. within your region? What are the main initiatives you The projects related to improvement of voice communication are undertaking to improve your capabilities have been launched. performance? Procurement of the radio system for 8,33 kHz air - ground voice channel spacing and VoIP implementation started in 2015 and the pilot project for optimisation of voice communication systems and IP networks was initiated in 2016. Were there any factors that impacted The Government elections followed by the change of Head of your individual ANSP performance the Ministry of Transport. in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
IFR hours per sq. km.
2.0069
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
48,700
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs
1
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
2
Number of stand-alone towers
3
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0 46
Comments
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: NAV CANADA
Legal status: A private sector company that is owned and/or operated by private interests to provide the service on behalf of the government, either by statute or contract.
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
Oceanic
0.1860
0.2015
15,601,538
3,070,462
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
20%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
100%
7
1
IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
Number of FIRs
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
7
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
0
Number of stand-alone towers
41
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
47
Comments
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: NAV Portugal
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Yes. We have a 5-year Business Plan with objectives and targets.
In your opinion, what are the main SES Regulations time frame and associated requirements and drivers or issues for performance targets. within your region? What are the main initiatives you Developments in continental KPIs reflect the positive effects of are undertaking to improve your cost containment efforts coupled with increased productivity. performance? Were there any factors that impacted Portuguese FIRs suffered significant and unexpected traffic your individual ANSP performance increases again in 2016. in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Legal status: A company established as a public-private partnership to provide the service on behalf of the government, and part-owned by the government.
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
Oceanic
Comments
Lisboa & Santa Maria FIRs
IFR hours per sq. km.
0.5840
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
671,000
5,180,000
90.8%
26.3%
1
1
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
1
1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
0
0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
7
0
Number of stand-alone towers
3
0
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
0
48
Continental: radar Oceanic: radar + ADS-B
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Oro navigacija
In your opinion, what are the main Performance scheme, political situation (for example sanctions drivers or issues for performance for Russia). within your region? Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
74,700
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
Number of FIRs
1
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach facilities Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
3
Number of stand-alone towers
1
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
49
Comments
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: PANSA Polish Air Navigation Services Agency Does your ANSP have stated Objectives related to the Performance Plan/SES Regulations and 4 key performance areas: safety, capacity, costobjectives? If so, what are they? effectiveness and environment. In your opinion, what are the main SES Regulations, FABs Performance Plans requirements, drivers or issues for performance Performance and Charging Scheme regulations; changes in traffic paths due to the Ukrainian situation. 2016 traffic growth within your region? (movements) 7.5% compared to 2.8% base forecast and 4.5% high forecast (statistics and forecast data for 2016). What are the main initiatives you As a part of improving the comprehensive airspace are undertaking to improve your management, the first stage of the vertical split in FIR Warsaw was implemented. It is based on current GAT ACC sectors in performance? two layers. The expected outcome of implementing a vertical split: separation of air traffic flows, reducing delays, shortening the flight paths, reducing CO2 emissions and improving the competitiveness offered by the Polish Air Navigation Services Agency services for users of Polish airspace. Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
Revision of the Baltic Functional Airspace Block Performance Plan for Air Navigation Services for second reference period (2015-2019) concerns only the cost-efficiency KPA. Following partial closure of the Ukrainian airspace, Poland lost a lot of overflying heavy traffic (A380, B747, B777) going from North/ West to the South/East, crossing southern half of Warsaw FIR. Poland is still experiencing an increase in lighter traffic; however, there is a significant discrepancy between the dynamics of service units and movements due to the abovementioned change in aircraft structure and routes used.
Legal status: State body, acting as a legal entity with an autonomous budget.
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
IFR hours per sq. km.
1.2760
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
334,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
0%
Number of FIRs
1
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
3
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
0
Number of stand-alone towers
15
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
50
Comments
Radar only
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Yes.
In your opinion, what are the main Main issues: variability of traffic, EU/national regulatory drivers or issues for performance constraints, significant deviation of inflation (actual vs. forecast). within your region? What are the main initiatives you Performance Scheme Regulation and associated KPAs/KPIs. are undertaking to improve your performance? Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental Oceanic
IFR hours per sq. km.
1.3338
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
254,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs
1
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
2
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
0
Number of stand-alone towers
16
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
51
Comments
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Sakaeronavigatsia In your opinion, what are the main Geopolitical situation. drivers or issues for performance within your region? Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government)
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
Comments
IFR hours per sq. km.
0.5701
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
89,300
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Radar only
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
Radar only
Number of FIRs
1
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
1
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
0
Number of stand-alone towers
0
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
52
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Servicios a la Navegación en el Espacio Aéreo Mexicano Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Safety and efficiency in operations.
In your opinion, what are the main Politics - SENEAM is subject to the government budget. The drivers or issues for performance within budget is based on previous years and does not take into your region? consideration the cost of living increase. What are the main initiatives you Implementing new technologies and standards. are undertaking to improve your performance? Were there any factors that impacted No. your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Legal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions.
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
Oceanic
Comments
4,039,820
2,915,843
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
90%
0%
Approximate
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
0%
0%
Approximate
1
1
IFR hours per sq. km. Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
Number of FIRs
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
0
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
4
2 APP facilities radar 2 APP facilities non-radar
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
32
4 located within the ACC are not included
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
23
Number of stand-alone towers
0
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
4
53
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Slovenia Control In your opinion, what are the main Changes in traffic flows. drivers or issues for performance within your region? What are the main initiatives you Providing capacity and cost control. are undertaking to improve your performance? Were there any factors that impacted No. your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
IFR hours per sq. km.
2.5304
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
20,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
Number of FIRs
1
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
0
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
2
Number of stand-alone towers
2
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
54
Comments Total IFR flight-hours controlled by the ANSP used
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services SMATSA LLC
In your opinion, what are the main SES requirements. drivers or issues for performance within your region? Were there any factors that impacted No. your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic. Legal status: Limited liability company, 100% state-owned (92% owned by Serbia and 8% owned by Montenegro). Integrated civil/military ANSP.
Contextual data element Operational data
Continental
IFR hours per sq. km.
1.8446
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental
129,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
Number of FIRs
1
Facilities Number of ACC facilities
1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
7
Number of stand-alone towers
1
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
55
Comments
The size (the surface area) of the airspace for which SMATSA is responsible includes the airspace of Bosnia & Hercegovina within which SMATSA provides ATC services.
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Annex 3: KPI Data 1: Continental Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs (USD) / IFR flight hours
ANSP
KPI
2015-2016
4 yr CAGR
FAA-ATO
453.28
0.00%
-1.20%
AAI
62.65
1.34%
NAV CANADA
315.54
-2.48%
JANS
551.46
-4.26%
SENEAM
100.71
DHMI
402.25
15.69%
AEROTHAI
333.63
-5.53%
LFV
507.53
-4.71%
-0.12%
CAAS
355.59
13.20%
10.52%
PANSA
410.43
-1.93%
1.47%
NAV Portugal
339.68
-10.23%
-8.66%
ROMATSA
528.07
9.60%
1.29%
ATNS
267.71
-1.68%
5.47%
Airways NZ
374.07
-1.21%
0.57%
ANS CR
533.85
-0.36%
1.44%
1.09%
HungaroControl
451.49
2.56%
-1.79%
SMATSA
338.45
-7.74%
-1.21%
Finavia
658.47
2.61%
5.57%
LPS
674.80
-1.35%
-1.51%
LGS
312.62
-2.84%
5.00%
KCAA
200.12
-9.75%
EANS
298.88
3.72%
6.96%
Oro navigacija
566.32
10.81%
2.56%
Sakaeronavigatsia
504.00
7.35%
6.14%
Slovenia Control
717.00
1.75%
2.63%
Isavia
159.76
22.91%
ANA
800.17
56
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2A: Continental ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS hours
ANSP
KPI
2015-2016
4 yr CAGR
FAA-ATO
119.31
1.51%
2.73%
AAI
16.25
-6.27%
NAV CANADA
113.76
7.39%
JANS
40.39
-0.10%
SENEAM
36.08
DHMI
68.95
25.61%
AEROTHAI
28.18
6.49%
LFV
123.68
PANSA
106.68
3.45%
NAV Portugal
121.68
-4.87%
-7.25%
ROMATSA
109.13
9.27%
12.35%
ATNS
34.24
13.44%
7.27%
Airways NZ
91.32
-1.79%
3.84%
ANS CR
110.82
13.20%
7.54%
HungaroControl
110.82
6.80%
5.01%
SMATSA
60.70
8.20%
4.01%
Finavia
104.86
-0.94%
6.70%
LPS
113.15
-0.40%
6.67%
LGS
42.61
0.16%
6.19%
KCAA
22.39
-0.73%
EANS
66.77
1.36%
11.17%
Oro navigacija
50.87
2.26%
4.29%
Sakaeronavigatsia
20.04
22.33%
19.13%
Slovenia Control
96.08
3.18%
3.47%
Isavia
126.44
46.15%
ANA
132.51
57
3.79%
6.63% 0.54%
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2A: Continental ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD), PPP adjusted
ANSP FAA-ATO
KPI
KPI PPP
119.31
119.31
AAI
16.25
59.72
NAV CANADA
113.76
121.20
JANS
40.39
43.06
SENEAM
36.08
81.55
DHMI
68.95
162.07
AEROTHAI
28.18
79.93
LFV
123.68
121.85
PANSA
106.68
235.38
NAV Portugal
121.68
178.76
ROMATSA
109.13
253.57
ATNS
34.24
84.96
Airways NZ
91.32
86.28
ANS CR
110.82
200.18
HungaroControl
110.82
234.65
SMATSA
60.70
159.64
Finavia
104.86
102.98
LPS
113.15
211.47
LGS
42.61
76.63
KCAA
22.39
50.96
EANS
66.77
108.46
Oro navigacija
50.87
100.25
Sakaeronavigatsia
20.04
52.86
Slovenia Control
96.07
145.63
Isavia
126.45
105.78
ANA
132.51
130.70
58
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2B: Continental ATCOs in OPS hour productivity Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours
ANSP
KPI
2015-2016
4 yr CAGR
FAA-ATO
1.08
3.38%
3.03%
AAI
0.85
-1.09%
NAV CANADA
1.19
1.98%
JANS
0.90
6.79%
SENEAM
0.79
DHMI
0.81
0.07%
AEROTHAI
0.32
5.31%
LFV
0.52
-0.27%
0.60%
CAAS
0.65
-4.14%
-4.60%
2.37%
PANSA
0.77
4.88%
-1.05%
NAV Portugal
0.90
13.25%
5.54%
ROMATSA
0.64
1.70%
4.13%
ATNS
0.50
7.47%
-0.44%
Airways NZ
0.68
8.08%
7.08%
ANS CR
0.88
3.80%
2.47%
HungaroControl
0.89
6.49%
5.27%
SMATSA
0.76
11.13%
1.66%
Finavia
0.39
-5.77%
-3.87%
LPS
0.73
2.03%
4.42% -2.70%
LGS
0.68
1.51%
KCAA
0.33
-7.13%
EANS
0.76
-3.00%
4.78%
Oro navigacija
0.41
1.72%
-0.35%
Sakaeronavigatsia
0.36
10.44%
2.88%
Slovenia Control
0.40
3.16%
1.02%
Isavia
1.51
25.04%
ANA
0.44
59
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2C: Continental Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs / IFR flight hours
ANSP
KPI
2015-2016
4 yr CAGR
FAA-ATO
342.61
0.60%
-1.49%
AAI
43.46
4.54%
NAV CANADA
220.27
-5.50%
JANS
506.77
-4.06%
SENEAM
55.08
DHMI
316.89
13.30%
AEROTHAI
245.52
-7.71%
LFV
268.36
PANSA
271.73
NAV Portugal ROMATSA
0.96%
-4.34% -2.22%
1.40%
204.43
-5.96%
-5.95%
356.30
10.68%
-1.26%
ATNS
199.32
-3.94%
4.74%
Airways NZ
240.68
3.80%
2.89%
ANS CR
407.43
-2.96%
0.46%
HungaroControl
327.51
3.45%
-2.35%
SMATSA
258.60
-9.21%
-2.19%
Finavia
390.76
0.95%
2.53%
LPS
519.10
-1.04%
-2.50%
LGS
250.04
-3.21%
4.08%
KCAA
131.47
-16.53%
EANS
211.40
3.40%
7.32%
Oro navigacija
441.40
14.12%
2.01%
Sakaeronavigatsia
448.17
6.59%
5.19%
Slovenia Control
474.66
2.66%
2.74%
Isavia
75.92
30.34%
ANA
500.30
ANA
0.44
60
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
3A: Continental Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / No. ATCOs in OPS
ANSP
KPI
2015-2016
4 yr CAGR
FAA-ATO
216432
2.82%
3.20%
AAI
31728
-1.18%
NAV CANADA
187174
8.63%
JANS
81382
-0.10%
SENEAM
72065
DHMI
82748
16.95%
AEROTHAI
86093
9.34%
LFV
219277
PANSA
115662
0.20%
NAV Portugal
218826
-5.29%
-7.40%
ROMATSA
131960
6.30%
11.32%
ATNS
56177
12.14%
7.13%
Airways NZ
124560
-1.79%
3.84%
ANS CR
167668
13.35%
7.86%
HungaroControl
172659
5.81%
4.41%
SMATSA
70892
4.62%
2.80%
Finavia
154899
1.27%
6.40%
LPS
170992
-1.04%
7.01%
LGS
53731
0.24%
8.36%
KCAA
32248
-0.73%
EANS
104159
1.36%
9.30%
Oro navigacija
82812
2.40%
5.27%
Sakaeronavigatsia
27870
10.35%
11.88%
Slovenia Control
136271
2.62%
3.45%
Isavia
210458
30.36%
ANA
137814
61
5.01%
8.93% 0.27%
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
3A: Continental Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS (USD), PPP adjusted
ANSP
KPI
KPI PPP
FAA-ATO
216432
216432
AAI
31728
116593
NAV CANADA
187174
199410
JANS
81382
86759
SENEAM
72065
162907
DHMI
82748
194493
AEROTHAI
86093
244193
LFV
219277
216037
PANSA
115662
255199
NAV Portugal
218826
321480
ROMATSA
131960
306610
ATNS
56177
139382
Airways NZ
124560
117691
ANS CR
167668
302868
HungaroControl
172659
365573
SMATSA
70892
186464
Finavia
154899
152120
LPS
170992
319576
LGS
53731
96636
KCAA
32248
73379
EANS
104159
169201
Oro navigacija
82812
163182
Sakaeronavigatsia
27870
73535
Slovenia Control
136271
206558
Isavia
210458
176068
ANA
137814
135930
62
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
3B: Continental Annual working hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: ATCOs in OPS hours / No. ATCOs in OPS
ANSP
KPI
2015-2016
4 yr CAGR
FAA-ATO
1814
1.28%
0.46%
AAI
1952
5.43%
NAV CANADA
1645
1.15%
JANS
2015
0.00%
SENEAM
1998
DHMI
1200
-6.90%
AEROTHAI
3055
2.68%
LFV
1773
0.23%
2.15%
CAAS
1819
0.00%
0.00%
PANSA
1084
-3.14%
-0.26%
NAV Portugal
1798
-0.44%
-0.16%
ROMATSA
1209
-2.72%
-0.91%
ATNS
1641
-1.15%
-0.13%
Airways NZ
1364
0.00%
0.00%
ANS CR
1513
0.13%
0.30%
HungaroControl
1558
-0.93%
-0.57%
SMATSA
1168
-3.31%
-1.16%
Finavia
1477
2.23%
-0.28%
LPS
1511
-0.64%
0.32% 2.04%
1.18%
LGS
1261
0.08%
KCAA
1440
0.00%
EANS
1560
0.00%
-1.69%
Oro navigacija
1628
0.14%
0.94%
Sakaeronavigatsia
1391
-9.79%
-6.08%
Slovenia Control
1418
-0.54%
-0.01%
Isavia
1664
-10.80%
ANA
1040
63
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
3C: Continental Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: IFR flight hours / No. ATCOs in OPS
ANSP
KPI
2015-2016
4 yr CAGR
FAA-ATO
1955.54
4.70%
3.51%
AAI
1653.35
4.27%
NAV CANADA
1964.66
3.15%
JANS
1821.00
6.79%
SENEAM
1579.37
DHMI
969.40
-6.84%
AEROTHAI
977.18
8.13%
LFV
916.84
-0.04%
2.77%
CAAS
1175.10
-4.14%
-4.60%
3.58%
PANSA
833.87
1.59%
-1.31%
NAV Portugal
1617.98
12.75%
5.37%
ROMATSA
768.21
-1.07%
3.17%
ATNS
821.40
6.23%
-0.57%
Airways NZ
933.84
8.08%
7.08%
ANS CR
1326.27
3.94%
2.78%
HungaroControl
1392.60
5.50%
4.67%
SMATSA
887.88
7.45%
0.48%
Finavia
578.61
-3.67%
-4.14%
LPS
1098.18
1.37%
4.75%
LGS
858.59
1.59%
-0.71%
KCAA
469.80
-7.13%
EANS
1190.68
-3.00%
3.01%
Oro navigacija
662.88
1.86%
0.58%
Sakaeronavigatsia
499.15
-0.37%
-3.38%
Slovenia Control
562.31
2.61%
1.00%
Isavia
2510.33
11.54%
ANA
459.57
CAAU
200.52
64
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
1: Oceanic Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours
ANSP
KPI
2015-2016
4 yr CAGR
FAA-ATO
96.15
-2.71%
-2.18%
NAV CANADA
54.08
-10.99%
-1.29%
Airways NZ
49.53
-3.81%
-4.88%
Isavia
160.96
4.95%
2A: Oceanic ATCO in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS Hours
ANSP
KPI
2015-2016
4 yr CAGR
FAA-ATO
157.57
-0.69%
2.67%
NAV CANADA
115.38
3.51%
1.32%
Airways NZ
100.17
-1.69%
3.04%
Isavia
114.22
27.93%
2A: Oceanic ATCO in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD), PPP adjusted ANSP
KPI
KPI PPP
FAA-ATO
157.57
157.5672
NAV CANADA
115.38
122.9196
Airways NZ
100.17
94.64606
Isavia
114.22
95.55947
2B: Oceanic ATCO in OPS hour productivity Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours
ANSP
KPI
2015-2016
4 yr CAGR
FAA-ATO
6.18
3.81%
4.56%
NAV CANADA
6.79
3.94%
4.39%
ATNS
0.16
14.09%
-14.09%
Airways NZ
3.85
13.93%
1.51%
Isavia
3.36
-1.71%
65
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2C: Oceanic Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD) Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours
ANSP
KPI
2015-2016
4 yr CAGR
FAA-ATO
70.67
-2.10%
-2.31%
NAV CANADA
37.08
-15.12%
-0.49%
Airways NZ
23.51
10.19%
-10.10%
Isavia
126.97
-0.22%
CO1: Combined Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs /IFR flight hours
ANSP
KPI
2015-2016
4 yr CAGR
FAA-ATO
425.78
-0.26%
-1.40%
AAI
62.65
1.34%
NAV CANADA
269.60
-3.58%
JANS
551.46
-4.26%
SENEAM
100.71
DHMI
402.25
15.69%
AEROTHAI
333.63
-5.53%
LFV
507.53
-4.71%
-0.12%
CAAS
355.59
13.20%
10.52%
PANSA
410.43
-1.93%
1.47%
NAV Portugal
339.68
-10.23%
-8.66%
0.75%
ROMATSA
528.07
9.60%
1.29%
ATNS
259.60
-1.20%
5.55%
Airways NZ
274.60
-2.64%
1.59%
ANS CR
533.85
-0.36%
1.44%
HungaroControl
451.49
2.56%
-1.79%
SMATSA
338.45
-7.74%
-1.21%
Finavia
658.47
2.61%
5.57%
LPS
674.80
-1.35%
-1.51%
LGS
312.62
-2.84%
5.00%
KCAA
200.12
-9.75%
EANS
298.88
3.72%
6.96%
Oro navigacija
566.32
10.81%
2.56%
Sakaeronavigatsia
504.00
7.35%
6.14%
Slovenia Control
717.00
1.75%
2.63%
Isavia
160.83
6.54%
ANA
800.17
66
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
CO2: Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / Total costs
ANSP
KPI
2015-2016
4 yr CAGR
FAA-ATO
24%
-1.81%
0.91%
AAI
31%
-6.49%
NAV CANADA
30%
8.12%
JANS
8%
-2.29%
SENEAM
45%
DHMI
21%
8.50%
AEROTHAI
26%
7.05%
LFV
47%
PANSA
34%
0.58%
0.13%
NAV Portugal
40%
-6.42%
-3.79%
ROMATSA
33%
-1.97%
6.52%
ATNS
26%
3.39%
1.76%
Airways NZ
37%
-8.14%
-2.92%
0.22%
6.12%
ANS CR
24%
9.45%
3.46%
HungaroControl
27%
-2.21%
1.57%
SMATSA
24%
5.53%
3.57%
Finavia
41%
2.46%
5.13%
LPS
23%
-1.04%
3.73%
LGS
20%
1.56%
3.94%
KCAA
34%
18.44%
EANS
29%
0.75%
-0.80%
Oro navigacija
22%
-9.28%
2.04%
Sakaeronavigatsia
11%
3.18%
9.09%
Slovenia Control
34%
-1.70%
-0.20%
Isavia
24%
19.27%
ANA
37%
COCESNA
29%
67
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Annex 2: Contextual Data ACC Area control centre ADS-B Automatic dependent surveillance - broadcast ADS-C Automatic dependent surveillance - contract AG Annual growth ANS Air navigation services ANSP Air navigation service provider ASBU Aviation System Block Upgrades ATC Air traffic control ATCO Air traffic controller ATFM Air traffic flow management ATM Air traffic management APP Approach ATSO Air traffic services officer CAGR Compound annual growth rate CAP Capacity CEF Connecting Europe facility CNS Communication, navigation and surveillance ENV Environment FAB Functional airspace block FDPS Flight data processing system FIR Flight information region GAT General air traffic IFR Instrument flight rules IMF International monetary fund KPI Key performance indicator OPS Operations PBN Performance based navigation PPP Purchasing power parity Q1 First quartile Q3 Third quartile SAF Safety SES Single European sky STATFOR Statistics and Forecasts
68
civil air navigation services organisation
TRANSFORMING
GLOBAL ATM PERFORMANCE