Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018: The ANSP View

civil air navigation services organisation

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018 2013 - 2017 Performance Results of Air Navigation Service Providers

The ANSP View

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

Contents THE ANSP VIEW Introduction.....................................................................................................................................page 3 Measuring Performance..................................................................................................................page 4 CANSO ANS Performance Framework...........................................................................................page 5 2017 Participation...........................................................................................................................page 9 2017 Performance Data.................................................................................................................page 12 Continental Cost-Efficiency and Productivity: 2017.................................................................page 13 Oceanic Cost-Efficiency and Productivity: 2017.......................................................................page 26 Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost-Efficiency: 2017..............................................................page 33 Sources..........................................................................................................................................page 35 ANNEXES Annex 1: Data definitions..............................................................................................................page 36 Annex 2: Contextual Data.............................................................................................................page 38 Annex 3: KPI Data.........................................................................................................................page 70 Annex 4: Acronyms and abbreviations..........................................................................................page 84

2

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

Introduction Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

The CANSO Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018 contains performance indicators for identified ANSPs for the year 2017, along with trend data between the 2013 and 2017 fiscal years.

ANSPs also provided contextual comments, including any exceptional events during the year or items that may impact the comparability of their data. Additional comments on important events are included within the contextual data, providing insight into the results of the participating ANSPs.

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

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

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

3

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

Cost-Efficiency

Productivity

Cost-efficiency provides an indication of the balance between operational effectiveness (i.e.

ATCO productivity) and the cost of providing the service.

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, advances in technology are now focusing more than ever on reducing the workload of ATCOs in OPS to enable them to manage higher levels of traffic in a given volume of airspace.

Training associated with the introduction of technology, however, can lead to short-term reductions in productivity.

Cost indicators do not reflect external factors, other performance areas or the quality of service.

Moreover, there are costs associated with providing a safer and more punctual, predictable and efficient service.

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

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

4

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

Level 1 1

Cost-efficiency KPI:

Total Costs IFR flight hours

Level 2 ATCOs in OPS costs

Other costs

ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour

2A

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

2B

2D

• Frontline staff • ATCOs in non-OPS • Remaining employment costs • Remaining operational costs • Depreciation costs • Capital costs

2C

ATCOs in OPS employment cost

IFR flight hours

ATCOs in OPS employment cost

Costs excl. ATCOs in OPS employment costs

ATCOs in OPS hours

ATCOs in OPS hours

Total Costs

IFR flight hours

Level 3 Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS

3A

Annual working hours per ATCO in OPS

3B

Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS

3C

ATCOs in OPS employment cost

ATCOs in OPS hours

IFR flight hours

No. ATCOs in OPS

No. ATCOs in OPS

No. ATCOs in OPS

Figure 1: CANSO ANS performance framework

KPI 1=

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

It is important to note the dependence of the higher tier metrics on the lower tier ones. This can be established as follows: 5

KPI 2A +KPI 2C KPI 2B

KPI 2B =

KPI 3C KPI 3B

KPI 2A =

KPI 3A KPI 3B

KPI 3C ( KPI 3B ) KPI 1-KPI 2C KPI 2D = = KPI 3B

KPI 1

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

List of Key Performance Indicators Indicator

KPI

Numerator

Denominator

Cost-Efficiency and Productivity Performance Indicators

Figure References

Continental

Oceanic

2017/ Trend

2017

1

Cost per IFR flight hour

Total Cost

IFR flight hours

Figure 3

Figure 13

2A

ATCOs in OPS Employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour

Employment costs for ATCOs in OPS

ATCOs in OPS hours

Figure 4, 5

Figure 14, 15

2B

ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

IFR flight hours

ATCOs in OPS hours

Figure 6

Figure 16

2C

Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour

Costs excluding employment costs for ATCOs in OPS

IFR flight hours

Figure 7

Figure 17

2D

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

Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS

Total Costs

Figure 8

Figure 18

3A

Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS

Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS

ATCOs in OPS

Figure 9, 10

3B

Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS

ATCOs in OPS hours

ATCOs in OPS

Figure 11

3C

Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS

IFR flight hours

ATCOs in OPS

Figure 12

Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost-Efficiency Performance Indicators

Continental and Oceanic 2017/Trend

CO1

Cost per IFR flight hour

Total Cost

IFR flight hours

Figure 19

CO2D

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

Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS

Total Cost

Figure 20

Note that KPI CO1 is the combined continental and oceanic metric for KPI 1.

Likewise, KPI CO2D is the combined continental and oceanic metric for KPI 2D.

6

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

Data Processing Growth rates: Data is presented from 2017 and then for the one-year and four-year trends. The trend over four years is calculated as the compound annual growth rate (4 yr CAGR). The use of a CAGR shows clearly the overall trend between 2013 and 2017. However, it masks the fluctuations that may have taken place over the intervening years, which are also important in understanding performance trends. In addition, if 2013 was an outlier, this trend may not be representative of the trend over this timeframe.

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

ANSPs are able to revise data submitted in previous years. The data submission workbook includes validation calculations that ANSPs are encouraged to consult in the data collection phase.

The entire dataset is available to all participating ANSPs to enable closer analysis and evaluation of performance trends. The advanced KPI dataset is only available to ANSPs submitting advanced data.

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

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

Data processing: Data has been processed by Helios subject to a data processing agreement with CANSO and in accordance with European data privacy laws. It was subject to a one-step quality check for significant changes, potential errors or omissions and is subject to continued revision by participating Members.

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

Exchange rate conversion: ANSPs submit data in their chosen currency. For KPI comparison, data is presented in USD. 2017 KPI data is converted using data available at currency and foreign exchange rate website, XE.com.

For ANSPs that operate in a currency other than the USD, the assumption of lower cost may be caused in part by the strengthening USD. Between 2013 and 2017, the USD appreciated against most other world currencies, meaning each USD buys more foreign currency. This change in the relative value of the dollar effectively lowers the price that ANSPs incur in USD.

7

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

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

8

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

2017 Participation Data submissions were received from 30 ANSPs, which included 2 new participants1.

The 2017 data submission covers2: Total IFR flight hours: 43 million Total costs: USD 226,712 million Total ATCOs in operations: 28,063 Region

Member

Label for Graphics

Africa

Air Traffic & Navigation Services

ATNS

Kenya Civil Aviation Authority

KCAA

Federal Aviation Administration – Air Traffic Organization

FAA-ATO

NAV CANADA

NAV CANADA

Servicios para la Navegación del Espacio Aereo Mexicano

SENEAM

Aeronautical Radio of Thailand

AEROTHAI

Airports Authority of India

AAI

Airservices Australia

Airservices

Airways New Zealand

Airways NZ

Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore

CAAS

Japan Air Navigation Service

JANS

Papua New Guinea Air Services Ltd

PNGASL

Air Navigation Services Finland Oy

ANS Finland

Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic

ANS CR

Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü

DHMI

Direction des Services de la navigation aérienne

DSNA

Estonian Air Navigation Services

EANS

HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co.

HungaroControl

ISAVIA Ltd

ISAVIA

Luftfartsverket

LFV

Latvijas gaisa satiksme

LGS

Letové prevádzkové služby

LPS

Macedonian Air Navigation Service Provider, GOJSC

MNAV

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

NAV Portugal

SE Oro Navigacija

Oro Navigacija

Polish Air Navigation Services Agency

PANSA

Sakaeronavigatsia Ltd

Sakaeronavigatsia

skyguide

skyguide

Slovenia Control

Slovenia Control

Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services SMATSA IIc

SMATSA

Americas

Asia Pacific

Europe

Table 1: Participating ANSPs

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

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

9

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

Region

Member

Fiscal Year Dates

Legal Status

Africa

ATNS

Apr 2017 – Mar 2018*

B

KCAA

Jan 2017 – Dec 2017

B

FAA-ATO

Oct 2016 – Sep 2017

A

NAV CANADA

Sep 2016 – Aug 2017

E

SENEAM

Jan 2017 – Dec 2017

A

AEROTHAI

Oct 2016 - Sep 2017

D

AAI

Apr 2017 – Mar 2018

B

Airways NZ

Jul 2017 – Jun 2018

C

CAAS

Apr 2017 – Mar 2018

B

JANS

Apr 2017 – Mar 2018

A

ANS Finland

Jan 2017 – Dec 2017

C

ANS CR

Jan 2017 – Dec 2017

C

Americas

Asia Pacific

Europe

DHMI

B

DSNA

Jan 2017 – Dec 2017

EANS

B C

HungaroControl

Jan 2017 – Dec 2017

C

Isavia

Jan 2017 – Dec 2017

C

LFV

Jan 2017 – Dec 2017

LGS

Jan 2017 – Dec 2017

C

LPS

Jan 2017 – Dec 2017

B

MNAV

B

NAV Portugal

Jan 2017 – Dec 2017

C

PANSA

Jan 2017 – Dec 2017

B

PNGASL

Jan 2017 – Dec 2017

B

Oro navigacija

Jan 2017 – Dec 2017

C

Sakaeronavigatsia

C

skyguide

C

Slovenia Control

C

SMATSA

Jan 2017 – Dec 2017

Other3

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

Identifier

Legal Status

Count

A

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

3

B

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

10

C

A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law, but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

12

D

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

1

E

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

1

Table 3: Legal Status Definition

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

10

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

Total IFR Flight Hours 2017 (Continental)

Growth IFR Flight Hours (Continental)

FAA ATO

24,151,615

1.48%

AAI

3,308,762

7.59%

NAV CANADA

3,032,766

DSNA

ANSP

Total IFR Flight Hours 2017 (Oceanic)

Growth IFR Flight Hours (Oceanic)

2,077,611

4.64%

4.51%

648,435

4.82%

2,392,068

4.57%

157,871

JANS

2,350,845

3.94%

SENEAM

1,432,251

1.78%

DHMI

1,346,381

7.58%

AEROTHAI

808,946

8.07%

CAAS

456,426

6.12%

LFV

448,004

3.74%

PANSA

443,466

4.07%

NAV Portugal

418,277

5.09%

skyguide

342,212

ATNS

282,271

-0.68%

9,975

12.34%

Airways NZ

270,525

2.00%

122,609

4.60%

ANS CR

259,897

3.14%

HungaroControl

255,714

7.38%

SMATSA

246,294

3.51%

ANS Finland

112,468

6.80%

LPS SR

101,866

4.22%

PNGASL

84,420

24.48%

LGS

79,154

0.21%

KCAA

77,052

4.47%

EANS

72,492

6.81%

Oro navigacija

57,344

5.28%

Slovenia Control

54,191

7.08%

Sakaeronavigatsia

53,453

4.99%

Isavia

34,390

14.16%

274,588

5.58%

M-NAV

28,749

Figure 2 - Participating ANSPs Flight Hours

11

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

12

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

Continental Cost-Efficiency and Productivity: 2017 2017 Continental – Cost-Efficiency

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

Figure 3 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)

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

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

Specific ANSP comments are outlined below.

13

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ATNS

Isavia

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

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

DHMI

PANSA

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

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

14

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

2017 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 4 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)

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

15

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

AAI

Nav Portugal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

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

17

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

2017 Continental – Productivity

Indicator 2B: ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

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

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

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

18

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

2017 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 7 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)

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

19

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ATNS

PANSA

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

PANSA saw increases in operating costs for 201719 as a result of local cost- efficiency targets revision - costs rose mainly due to increased investment infrastructure projects.

Isavia

PNGASL

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

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

20

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

2017 Continental – Cost-Efficiency

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

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

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

21

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

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

22

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

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

23

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

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

24

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

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

25

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

Oceanic Cost-Efficiency and Productivity: 2017 2017 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 2017 average cost per IFR flight hour (excluding DSNA) is USD 97, compared to USD 90 in 2016. For comparison, this figure for continental flights is USD 428.

DSNA DSNA represents an outlier in the dataset, because their oceanic data is comprised of overseas territories only (for instance, French Polynesia in the South Pacific). The low number of oceanic IFR hours in these regions leads to a total of oceanic costs per IFR hour that is quite high when compared to other ANSPs. 26

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

2017 Oceanic – Cost-Efficiency

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

27

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

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

For comparison, the average figure for continental airspace is USD 125.

28

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

29

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

2017 Oceanic – Cost-Efficiency

Indicator 2C: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD)

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

The 2017 average cost excluding ATCOs in operations employment cost per IFR flight hour is USD 188. Excluding DSNA, however, the average is 69. This compares to 2016’s average of USD 65. ATNS is not included on this graph, as it does not separately calculate costs for oceanic flights, and thus it is impossible to obtain an accurate picture of what the costs are – excluding ATCO costs – for oceanic service provision.

30

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

31

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

2017 Oceanic – Cost-Efficiency

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

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

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

32

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost-Efficiency: 2017 2017 Continental and Oceanic – Cost-Efficiency Indicator CO1: Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs /IFR flight hours

Figure 19 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)

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

33

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

2017 Continental and Oceanic – Cost-Efficiency

Indicator CO2D: Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / Total costs

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

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

34

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

Sources Definitions: • EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V2.6 • EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V3.0 Exchange rate data: • bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/index. asp?Travel=NIxIRx&levels=2&XNotes=Y&A3790XNode3790.x=7&A3790XNode3790. y=5&Nodes=&SectionRequired=I&HideNums=-1&ExtraInfo=true#BM • xe.com/currencytables/ IMF World Economic Outlook database: • imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/index.aspx

35

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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 radar and ADS-B only

Surveillance coverage from radar and ADS-B.

% surveillance coverage @ 30,000ft radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

Surveillance coverage from radar, ADS-B and ADS-C.

Number of 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 en-route traffic in control areas under its jurisdiction.

Part of an ACC may also provide approach services.

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

An ACC unit is described above. An approach control unit is an ATC unit providing ATC services to arriving, departing and overflying flights within the airspace in the vicinity of an airport.

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

Definition of an approach control unit is above.

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

Definition of an approach control unit is above. Tower facilities, or a tower control unit, is an ATC unit at an airport responsible for the provision of ATC services in respect of flights that are landing and taking off and other traffic that is on the active runway(s).

Number of co-located approach, tower and ACC facilities

For definitions see above.

Number of stand-alone towers

Definition of a tower control unit is above.

36

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

Input Data Definitions Data Element

Definitions

Total Costs

The sum of operating costs, depreciation/amortization and cost of capital related to providing continental and oceanic ATC/ATFM services. Meteorological costs and EUROCONTROL costs (if applicable) are not included.

IFR flight 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 operating costs minus ATCO in OPS employment costs.

Number of ATCOs

The number of FTE ATCOs – whose employment costs were included in "ATCO employment cost" – participating in an activity that is either directly related to the control of traffic or is a necessary requirement for ATCOs to be able to control traffic.

37

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

Annex 2: Contextual Data ANSP: Airports Authority of India In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?

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

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

Technological upgradation, human capital improvements, optimization of resources

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

Contextual data element

Continental

Oceanic

Comments

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

3,570,000

6,400,000

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

100%

0%

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

100%

100%

ADS-C

Number of FIRs

1

3

Oceanic FIRs are also partially continental.

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

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

51

Number of stand-alone towers

7

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

13

38

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

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

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

Technological upgradation, human capital improvements, optimization of resources.

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

The demand is over airspace capacity.

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

Contextual data element

Continental

Comments

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

1.0401

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

777,760

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

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

The number of co-located approach/tower and standalone 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

39

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ANSP: Airways New Zealand In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?

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

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

Continuing increase in capital spend.

Ongoing development of operations strategy programme to provide resilience and service using a 1 centre, 2 locations concept.

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

No exceptional events

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual data element

Continental

Oceanic

Comments

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

Number of FIRs

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

Operational data

Facilities

40

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ANSP: Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

Yes, objectives are stated in the corporate Business Plan developed currently for years 2016 to 2019. Objectives cover 4 KPAs: safety, environment, capacity and cost-efficiency.

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

EU regulations on Performance and Charging Scheme

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

Internal performance monitoring system with predefined objectives to be met

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

No factors or exceptional events were noticed in 2017

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

Continental

Comments

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

3.3973

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

76,500

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

0

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

3

Number of stand-alone towers

1

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

41

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

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ANSP: Air Navigation Services Finland Oy (Previously Finavia) Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

SES-regulation/performance requirements

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

1. FAB co-operation projects 2. For ANS Finland rostering principles review 3. Investment / procurement programs 4. Staff reductions

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

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

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

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

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government). General Companies act is applied.

Contextual data element

Continental

Comments

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

0.2736

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

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

0

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

5

Number of stand-alone towers

15

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

1

42

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

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ANSP: Air Traffic & Navigation Services (South Africa) Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

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

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

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

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

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

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

None.

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

Contextual data element

Continental

Oceanic

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.0304

0.0008

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

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%

Number of FIRs

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

Comments

Operational data

Oceanic services are provided by ATSO and not ATCO

Facilities

43

Oceanic is provided in one of the centres

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

Continental

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

0.5434

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

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

44

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

Contextual data element

Continental

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

1.3710

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

1

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

44

Number of stand-alone towers

0

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

45

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ANSP: Direction des Services de la navigation Aérienne Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

Yes, European ones

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

Traffic increase and duration of ATCO initial training

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

Rostering optimization

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

Traffic increase

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

Contextual data element

Continental

Oceanic

IFR hours per sq. km.

2.37

0.0084

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

1,010,000

15,437,214

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

100%

1.88%

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

100%

95.02%

Number of FIRs

5

2

Number of ACC facilities

5

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

12

6

Number of stand-alone towers

74

4

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

2

Comments

Operational data

Facilities

46

For overseas, this covers New Caledonia, Tahiti, La Réunion, Saint Pierre, Cayenne and Antilles facilities.

Overseas TMA within foreign FIRs (French Antilles) are not taken into consideration

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ANSP: Estonian Air Navigation Services 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

Continental

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

0.8300

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

77,400

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

1

Number of stand-alone approach facilities Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

1

Number of stand-alone towers Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

1

47

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

Continental

Oceanic

IFR hours per sq. km.

1.6283

0.0343

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

14,832,411

60,628,411

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

100%

Comments

Operational data

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

48

Excludes federal contract towers

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ANSP: HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

Performance scheme KPI targets

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

The main driver of the European performance is the performance scheme. The ANSPs have to bear cost and traffic risk however they do not have influence on traffic.

Continuously changing legal framework.

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

Effective resource allocation due to extra traffic and flexible sectorization in order to minimize delay and overtime of ATCOs.

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

Continuously significant growth in 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

Continental

Comments

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

2.4588

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

49

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ANSP: Japan Air Navigation Service Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

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

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

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

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

1. Introduction of Integrated Air Traffic Control Data Processing System 2. Enhancement of capacity and efficiency of the Tokyo metropolitan airports 3. Optimization of the Tokyo metropolitan airspace and establishment of new routes

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

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

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

Contextual data element

Continental

Comments

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

0.2799

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

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

100%

Number of FIRs

1

50

Radar except oceanic sectors.

ADS-B: Installation ongoing ADS-C: Applicable within oceanic sectors.

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ADS-C: Applicable within oceanic sectors.

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

13

Number of stand-alone towers

20

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

51

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ANSP: Kenya Civil Aviation Authority Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

Ensure safe and efficient air navigation services

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

Modernization of ANS system, capacity building

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

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

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

Contextual data element

Continental

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

77,052

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

796,844

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

12.5% ADS-C 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

2

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

52

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ANSP: Luftfartsverket (LFV) Contextual data element

Continental

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

0.7145

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 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

14

Number of stand-alone towers Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

53

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ANSP: Latvijas gaisa satiksme Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

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

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

Continental

Comments

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

0.8200

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

95,900

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

0%

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

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

0%

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

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

54

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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 long-term demand for air transport and maintain a safe, fast and orderly flow of air traffic at the same time 3. To minimize LPS SR’s negative impact on flight efficiency in Europe by minimizing ATFM delays in Slovak airspace.

4. To ensure economic efficiency of air traffic management in Slovakia 5. To minimise the negative impact of air traffic on the quality of environment

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

Severe impact of highly seasonal nature of air traffic volume in Slovak airspace peaking in the summer period

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

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

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

No.

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

Contextual data element

Continental

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

2.0917

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

55

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

56

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ANSP: Macedonian Air Navigation Service Provider Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contextual data element

Continental

Comments

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

1.1546

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

24,900

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

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

1

Number of stand-alone towers

0

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

1

57

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

Continental

Oceanic

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.1944

0.2112

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

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%

Number of FIRs

7

1

Operational data

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

58

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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 drivers or issues for performance within your region?

SES Regulations time frame and associated requirements and targets.

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

Developments in continental KPIs reflect the positive effects of cost containment efforts, coupled with increased productivity.

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

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

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

Continental

Oceanic

Comments

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

0.6234

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

671,000

5,180,000

Lisboa & Santa Maria FIRs

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

90.8%

26.3%

Continental: Radar Oceanic: Radar + ADS-B

1

1

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

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs Facilities

59

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ANSP: Oro navigacija Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

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

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

Performance scheme, macroeconomic development, political situation.

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

Various optimization-modernization initiatives, technological investment projects

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

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

Depreciation costs were lower than those projected in PP by -6.5% (93,5%) as several investment projects are being delayed as a consequence of itself delayed (due to legal issues) new ACC and administration building.

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

Continental

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

0.7666

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

74,800

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

60

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

3

Number of stand-alone towers

1

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

61

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ANSP: Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA) Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

Objectives related to the Performance Plan/SES Regulations and 4 key performance areas: safety, capacity, cost-effectiveness and environment.

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

SES Regulations, FABs Performance Plans requirements, Performance and Charging Scheme regulations; changes in traffic paths due to the Ukrainian situation.

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

Vertical split implementation: separation of air traffic flows, reducing delays, shortening the flight paths, reducing CO2 emissions and improving the competitiveness offered by the Polish Air Navigation Services Agency services for users of Polish airspace.

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

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

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

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

Contextual data element

Continental

Comments

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

1.3277

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

62

Radar only

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

0

63

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ANSP: Papua New Guinea Air Services Ltd Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

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

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

Safety and efficiency

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

Upgrading and modernization of CNS/ ATM equipment and ANS systems

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

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

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

Contextual data element

Continental

Comments

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

3.6 million

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

N/A

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

6

Number of stand-alone towers

0

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

64

Radar only

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

Geopolitical situation.

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government) Contextual data element

Continental

Comments

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

0.61

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

87,600

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

2

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

5

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

4

Number of stand-alone towers

2

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

6

65

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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 drivers or issues for performance within your region?

Politics - SENEAM is subject to the government budget. The budget is based on previous years and does not take into consideration the cost of living increase.

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

Implementing new technologies and standards

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

No

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

Contextual data element

Continental

Oceanic

Comments

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

0.3545

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

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

Number of FIRs

1

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

4

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

4

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

15

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

22

Number of stand-alone towers

37

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

66

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ANSP: skyguide Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

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

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

Traffic density and complexity

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

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

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

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

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government) Contextual data element

Continental

Comments

Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

4.910

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

69,700

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

2

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

2

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

9

Number of stand-alone towers

13

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

67

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

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

Changes in traffic flows.

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

Providing capacity and cost control.

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

No.

Legal status: A corporatized entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual data element

Continental

Comments

IFR hours per sq. km.

2.7096

Total IFR flight-hours controlled by the ANSP used

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

Operational data

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

68

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

ANSP: Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services SMATSA LLC In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?

SES requirements.

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

No

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

Integrated civil/military ANSP. Contextual data element

Continental

Comments

Operational data 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

69

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 2018

Annex 3: KPI Data 1: Continental Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs (USD) / IFR flight hours ANSP

KPI

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

AAI

80.92

6.68%

-1.99%

AEROTHAI

347.90

2.23%

Airways NZ

395.10

3.49%

2.93%

ANS CR

580.02

3.16%

1.35%

ANS Finland

625.83

-7.18%

1.62%

ATNS

330.28

19.00%

6.79%

CAAS

363.88

2.17%

6.33%

DHMI

371.86

11.09%

10.49%

DSNA

662.37

-1.77%

-0.75%

EANS

309.42

1.11%

3.56%

FAA ATO

452.38

-0.20%

-1.08%

HungaroControl

464.48

-0.44%

-2.02%

Isavia

221.61

22.72%

36.65%

KCAA

138.60

-29.52%

JANS

519.09

-4.52%

-3.38%

LFV

445.97

-6.95%

-0.62%

LGS

279.80

12.30%

10.61%

LPS SR

692.56

0.23%

-1.33%

M-NAV

495.01

NAV CANADA

328.77

2.08%

1.00%

NAV Portugal

369.60

6.27%

-3.25%

Oro navigacija

529.75

-0.64%

0.89%

PANSA

491.42

14.04%

5.57%

PNGASL

59.15

-13.88%

Sakaeronavigatsia

530.87

10.79%

SENEAM

100.11

-1.75%

skyguide

1195.15

Slovenia Control

679.67

-7.42%

SMATSA

362.86

3.05%

70

12.44%

0.43%

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

KPI

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

AAI

21.32

25.70%

7.81%

AEROTHAI

34.25

19.17%

Airways NZ

94.45

0.93%

2.57%

ANS CR

122.34

4.82%

7.78%

ANS Finland

88.18

-17.87%

2.58%

ATNS

33.33

-6.10%

2.47%

DHMI

66.43

15.77%

12.97%

DSNA

117.87

3.26%

1.67%

EANS

70.61

3.28%

3.55%

FAA ATO

120.04

0.61%

2.29%

HungaroControl

103.67

3.62%

1.51%

Isavia

133.36

-6.70%

58.60%

JANS

39.93

0.29%

0.01%

KCAA

28.17

27.98%

LFV

103.20

-11.67%

3.51%

LGS

55.34

26.84%

12.85%

LPS SR

139.12

20.09%

7.02%

M-NAV

44.95

NAV CANADA

119.21

2.66%

4.16%

NAV Portugal

146.75

17.79%

0.49%

Oro navigacija

53.72

3.13%

3.77%

PANSA

131.59

17.49%

4.88%

PNGASL

31.58

41.19%

Sakaeronavigatsia

19.92

4.57%

SENEAM

28.45

-22.07%

skyguide

210.53

Slovenia Control

99.64

1.29%

SMATSA

61.12

-3.20%

71

24.77%

5.60%

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

KPI

KPI PPP

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

AAI

21.32

73.15

22.41%

4.72%

AEROTHAI

34.25

95.20

19.12%

Airways NZ

94.45

87.03

0.87%

2.01%

ANS CR

122.34

210.12

4.97%

7.56%

ANS Finland

88.18

84.94

-17.51%

2.78%

ATNS

33.33

77.10

-9.25%

-1.55%

DHMI

66.43

180.61

11.44%

7.14%

DSNA

117.87

128.19

4.27%

2.29%

EANS

70.61

111.62

2.91%

2.85%

FAA ATO

120.04

120.04

0.61%

2.29%

HungaroControl

103.67

211.10

2.97%

0.20%

Isavia

133.36

98.29

-7.08%

56.24%

JANS

39.93

43.78

1.67%

0.36%

KCAA

28.17

62.57

22.78%

LFV

103.20

107.84

-11.52%

3.57%

LGS

55.34

97.01

26.59%

12.63%

LPS SR

139.12

255.53

20.83%

8.06%

M-NAV

44.95

127.30

NAV CANADA

119.21

123.92

2.25%

3.97%

NAV Portugal

146.75

212.28

18.75%

0.78%

Oro navigacija

53.72

102.93

2.68%

3.54%

PANSA

131.59

277.31

17.82%

5.41%

PNGASL

31.58

38.52

38.90%

Sakaeronavigatsia

19.92

53.96

2.08%

SENEAM

28.45

63.11

-22.64%

skyguide

210.53

160.60

Slovenia Control

99.64

148.50

1.97%

SMATSA

61.12

151.50

-5.10%

72

21.64%

3.82%

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

2B: Continental ATCOs in OPS hour productivity Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours ANSP

KPI

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

AAI

0.809

-4.59%

3.59%

AEROTHAI

0.354

10.61%

Airways NZ

0.659

-3.76%

1.02%

ANS CR

0.886

1.12%

3.20%

ANS Finland

0.408

4.29%

-1.01%

ATNS

0.454

-9.40%

-1.68%

CAAS

0.645

-0.15%

-4.80%

DHMI

0.810

0.29%

1.67%

DSNA

0.643

3.23%

1.55%

EANS

0.831

8.87%

1.57%

FAA ATO

1.108

2.74%

3.20%

HungaroControl

0.926

3.58%

5.76%

Isavia

1.435

-4.89%

19.26%

JANS

0.949

5.04%

5.30%

KCAA

0.306

-6.28%

LFV

0.580

11.54%

3.78%

LGS

0.843

23.81%

4.61%

LPS SR

0.738

1.53%

2.22%

M-NAV

0.284

NAV CANADA

1.257

5.24%

3.52%

NAV Portugal

0.943

4.79%

5.60%

Oro navigacija

0.427

4.83%

1.15%

PANSA

0.771

0.28%

0.45%

PNGASL

0.670

45.71%

Sakaeronavigatsia

0.386

7.50%

SENEAM

0.800

1.27%

skyguide

0.755

Slovenia Control

0.450

13.45%

SMATSA

0.739

-2.76%

73

7.63%

3.07%

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

AAI

54.55

-2.31%

-4.37%

AEROTHAI

251.08

0.26%

Airways NZ

251.75

2.72%

3.77%

ANS CR

442.00

3.01%

0.48%

ANS Finland

409.97

2.47%

0.64%

ATNS

256.80

24.28%

7.59%

DHMI

289.86

9.92%

10.32%

DSNA

479.11

-2.44%

-1.06%

EANS

224.45

3.69%

4.20%

FAA ATO

344.00

0.41%

-1.15%

HungaroControl

352.51

-0.59%

-1.34%

Isavia

128.65

49.91%

39.65%

JANS

477.02

-4.52%

-3.23%

KCAA

46.49

-64.02%

LFV

267.17

5.42%

-0.98%

LGS

214.15

-16.36%

2.81%

LPS SR

503.99

-5.18%

-3.18%

M-NAV

336.72

NAV CANADA

233.91

4.04%

1.16%

NAV Portugal

213.93

2.20%

-2.01%

Oro navigacija

403.92

-0.33%

0.39%

PANSA

320.80

12.44%

6.22%

PNGASL

12.04

-39.99%

Sakaeronavigatsia

479.22

12.48%

SENEAM

64.79

16.31%

skyguide

1509.85

Slovenia Control

458.14

-5.74%

SMATSA

280.16

4.13%

74

12.09%

-0.13%

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

KPI

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

AAI

0.326

23.50%

6.19%

AEROTHAI

0.278

5.39%

Airways NZ

0.363

1.34%

-1.36%

ANS CR

0.238

0.49%

3.04%

ANS Finland

0.345

-15.16%

1.98%

ATNS

0.222

-12.92%

-2.40%

DHMI

0.221

3.91%

0.56%

DSNA

0.277

1.82%

0.86%

EANS

0.275

-6.17%

-1.55%

FAA ATO

0.240

-1.88%

0.21%

HungaroControl

0.241

0.48%

-2.04%

Isavia

0.419

-20.07%

-2.68%

JANS

0.081

0.00%

-1.71%

KCAA

0.665

93.75%

LFV

0.399

-14.89%

0.36%

LGS

0.235

-8.77%

-2.48%

LPS SR

0.272

18.00%

6.10%

M-NAV

0.320

NAV CANADA

0.289

-4.44%

-0.38%

NAV Portugal

0.421

5.78%

-1.64%

Oro navigacija

0.238

-0.99%

1.68%

PANSA

0.347

2.74%

-1.10%

PNGASL

0.796

12.51%

Sakaeronavigatsia

0.097

-12.20%

SENEAM

0.355

-21.68%

skyguide

0.233

Slovenia Control

0.326

-3.57%

SMATSA

0.228

-3.40%

75

3.10%

2.02%

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

KPI

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

AAI

41,981

26.88%

8.32%

AEROTHAI

99,395

13.18%

N/A

Airways NZ

128,832

0.93%

2.57%

ANS CR

188,798

6.91%

7.97%

ANS Finland

137,940

-13.03%

3.25%

ATNS

54,297

-6.77%

3.27%

DHMI

79,713

15.76%

10.74%

DSNA

151,369

3.26%

1.67%

EANS

76,046

-28.70%

-6.29%

FAA ATO

218,948

1.16%

3.13%

HungaroControl

161,763

3.78%

-26.43%

Isavia

228,356

-4.01%

2.62%

JANS

80,468

0.29%

0.01%

KCAA

40,559

27.98%

LFV

171,557

-17.15%

3.77%

LGS

59,047

7.33%

10.35%

LPS SR

215,830

23.27%

7.31%

M-NAV

67,923

NAV CANADA

180,823

-5.35%

3.01%

NAV Portugal

264,677

18.13%

0.33%

Oro navigacija

86,646

2.19%

4.93%

PANSA

140,903

16.03%

3.89%

PNGASL

81,163

99.39%

Sakaeronavigatsia

26,292

-0.77%

SENEAM

56,792

-22.09%

skyguide

263,625

Slovenia Control

141,235

1.22%

SMATSA

72,738

-1.38%

76

15.46%

6.16%

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

KPI

KPI PPP

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

AAI

41,981

144,056

23.56%

5.22%

AEROTHAI

99,395

276,272

13.14%

Airways NZ

128,716

118,710

0.87%

2.01%

ANS CR

188,798

324,263

7.06%

7.76%

ANS Finland

137,940

132,877

-12.65%

3.45%

ATNS

54,297

125,593

-9.89%

-0.79%

DHMI

79,713

216,738

11.44%

5.01%

DSNA

151,369

164,622

4.27%

2.29%

EANS

76,046

120,216

-28.95%

-6.92%

FAA ATO

218,948

218,948

1.16%

3.13%

HungaroControl

161,763

329,407

3.13%

-27.38%

Isavia

267,006

168,315

-4.40%

1.09%

JANS

80,468

88,208

1.67%

0.36%

KCAA

40,559

90,098

22.78%

LFV

171,557

179,284

-17.01%

3.83%

LGS

59,047

103,510

7.11%

10.13%

LPS SR

215,830

396,405

24.04%

8.36%

M-NAV

67,923

192,343

NAV CANADA

180,823

187,978

-5.73%

2.83%

NAV Portugal

264,677

382,859

19.09%

0.61%

Oro navigacija

86,646

166,028

1.74%

42.73%

PANSA

140,903

296,928

16.35%

4.42%

99,006

96.16%

PNGASL Sakaeronavigatsia

26,292

71,231

-3.13%

SENEAM

56,792

126,000

-22.66%

skyguide

259,425

201,105

Slovenia Control

141,235

210,490

1.90%

SMATSA

72,738

180,284

-3.31%

77

12.57%

4.37%

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

KPI

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

AAI

1,969

0.94%

0.48%

AEROTHAI

2,902

-5.03%

Airways NZ

1,364

0.00%

0.00%

ANS CR

1,543

2.00%

0.18%

ANS Finland

1,564

5.90%

0.66%

ATNS

1,629

-0.71%

0.78%

CAAS

1,819

0.00%

0.00%

DHMI

1,200

-0.01%

-1.98%

DSNA

1,284

0.00%

0.00%

EANS

1,077

-30.96%

-9.51%

FAA ATO

1,824

0.55%

0.82%

HungaroControl

1,560

0.16%

0.25%

Isavia

1,712

2.88%

-35.30%

JANS

2,015

0.00%

0.00%

KCAA

1,440

0.00%

LFV

1,663

-6.20%

0.26%

LGS

1,067

-15.39%

-2.22%

LPS SR

1,551

2.65%

0.28%

M-NAV

1,511

NAV CANADA

1,517

-7.81%

-1.10%

NAV Portugal

1,803

0.29%

-0.17%

Oro navigacija

1,613

-0.91%

1.12%

PANSA

1,071

-1.24%

-0.94%

PNGASL

2,570

41.22%

Sakaeronavigatsia

1,320

-5.10%

SENEAM

1,998

0.00%

skyguide

1,252

Slovenia Control

1,417

-0.06%

SMATSA

1,190

1.88%

78

-7.46%

0.53%

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

KPI

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

AAI

1,592.28

-3.69%

4.08%

AEROTHAI

1,026.58

5.06%

Airways NZ

898.75

-3.76%

1.02%

ANS CR

1,367.88

3.14%

3.39%

ANS Finland

639.02

10.44%

-0.36%

ATNS

738.93

-10.04%

-0.92%

CAAS

1,173.33

-0.15%

-4.80%

DHMI

972.12

0.28%

-0.34%

DSNA

825.99

3.23%

1.56%

EANS

894.96

-24.84%

-8.09%

FAA ATO

2,020.16

3.30%

4.04%

HungaroControl

1,444.71

3.74%

6.02%

Isavia

2,456.43

-2.15%

-22.83%

JANS

1,912.81

5.04%

5.30%

KCAA

440.30

-6.28%

LFV

959.00

4.58%

3.80%

LGS

899.48

4.76%

2.30%

LPS SR

1,144.56

4.22%

2.50%

M-NAV

429.09

NAV CANADA

1,906.20

-2.98%

2.38%

NAV Portugal

1,700.31

5.09%

5.43%

Oro navigacija

688.57

3.87%

2.28%

PANSA

825.82

-0.97%

-0.50%

PNGASL

1,722.85

105.77%

Sakaeronavigatsia

509.07

1.99%

SENEAM

1,607.00

1.77%

skyguide

945.34

Slovenia Control

637.54

13.38%

SMATSA

879.62

-0.93%

79

-0.40%

3.61%

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

KPI

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

Airways NZ

52.68

-0.96%

-5.21%

DSNA

875.30

FAA ATO

81.86

-17.15%

-6.03%

Isavia

196.39

7.94%

5.17%

NAV CANADA

57.79

4.70%

-1.33%

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

KPI

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

Airways NZ

101.89

-0.74%

2.80%

ATNS

11.97

5.33%

8.33%

DSNA

154.62

FAA ATO

158.21

0.41%

2.64%

Isavia

123.59

-4.28%

-7.36%

NAV CANADA

117.01

-0.64%

4.74%

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

KPI

KPI PPP

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

Airways NZ

101.89

93.89

-0.80%

2.24%

ATNS

11.97

27.69

1.81%

4.07%

DSNA

154.62

168.16

FAA ATO

158.21

158.21

0.41%

2.64%

Isavia

123.59

91.09

-4.68%

-8.74%

NAV CANADA

117.01

121.65

-1.04%

4.55%

80

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

KPI

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

Airways NZ

3.91

1.51%

7.76%

ATNS

0.16

14.96%

-13.93%

DSNA

0.73

FAA ATO

6.52

9.36%

5.93%

Isavia

3.23

-3.88%

2.38%

NAV CANADA

6.93

2.16%

4.73%

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

KPI

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

Airways NZ

26.61

10.47%

-5.32%

DSNA

662.77

FAA ATO

57.58

-18.53%

-8.07%

Isavia

158.14

10.18%

11.20%

NAV CANADA

40.91

8.11%

-1.86%

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

KPI

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

Airways NZ

0.495

-1.27%

0.63%

DSNA

0.243

FAA ATO

0.297

10.81%

3.11%

Isavia

0.195

-7.75%

-13.97%

NAV CANADA

0.292

-7.10%

1.36%

81

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

KPI

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

AAI

80.92

6.68%

-1.99%

AEROTHAI

347.90

2.23%

Airways NZ

288.31

2.57%

1.49%

ANS CR

580.02

4.18%

1.35%

ANS Finland

625.83

-7.18%

1.62%

ATNS

319.01

18.53%

6.86%

CAAS

363.88

2.17%

6.33%

DHMI

371.86

DSNA

675.55

-8.28%

-2.56%

EANS

309.42

FAA ATO

423.03

-0.65%

-1.36%

HungaroControl

464.48

-0.44%

-2.02%

Isavia

199.20

9.57%

7.19%

JANS

519.09

-4.52%

-3.38%

KCAA

138.60

-29.52%

LFV

445.97

-6.95%

-0.62%

LGS

279.80

12.30%

10.61%

LPS SR

692.56

0.23%

-1.33%

M-NAV

495.01

NAV CANADA

281.04

2.13%

0.68%

NAV Portugal

369.60

6.27%

-3.25%

Oro navigacija

529.75

-0.64%

0.89%

PANSA

491.42

14.04%

5.57%

PNGASL

59.15

-13.88%

Sakaeronavigatsia

530.86

10.79%

SENEAM

100.11

-1.75%

skyguide

1195.15

Slovenia Control

679.67

-7.42%

SMATSA

362.86

3.05%

82

12.44%

0.43%

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

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

KPI

2016-2017

4 yr CAGR

AAI

0.326

23.50%

6.19%

AEROTHAI

0.278

5.39%

Airways NZ

0.370

1.10%

-1.28%

ANS CR

0.238

0.49%

3.04%

ANS Finland

0.345

-15.16%

1.98%

ATNS

0.230

-12.55%

-2.13%

DHMI

0.221

DSNA

0.304

8.27%

2.55%

EANS

0.275

FAA ATO

0.240

-1.67%

0.29%

HungaroControl

0.241

0.48%

-2.04%

Isavia

0.223

-8.57%

-11.34%

JANS

0.081

0.00%

-1.71%

KCAA

0.665

93.75%

LFV

0.399

-14.89%

0.36%

LGS

0.235

-8.77%

-2.48%

LPS SR

0.272

18.00%

6.10%

M-NAV

0.320

NAV CANADA

0.289

-4.53%

-0.31%

NAV Portugal

0.421

5.78%

-1.64%

Oro navigacija

0.238

-0.99%

1.68%

PANSA

0.347

2.74%

-1.10%

PNGASL

0.796

35.46%

Sakaeronavigatsia

0.097

-12.20%

SENEAM

0.355

-21.68%

skyguide

0.233

Slovenia Control

0.326

-3.57%

SMATSA

0.228

-3.40%

83

3.10%

2.02%

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

Annex 4: Acronyms and abbreviations 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

84

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

KPI

Key performance indicator

OPS

Operations

PBN

Performance based navigation

PPP

Purchasing power parity

Q1

First quartile

Q3

Third quartile

SAF

Safety

SES

Single European sky

STATFOR

EUROCONTROL’s Statistics and Forecast Service

85

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018

Visit us:

canso.org

86