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