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