performance review commission, and performance management of the european atm system keith c....
TRANSCRIPT
Performance Review Commission,
and performance management
of the European ATM system
Keith C. Williams, Chairman PRC
Origin of performance review
1997: European ATM Institutional Strategy Moving from solutions-based to performance-oriented strategy Includes the creation of a strong, transparent, independent
European performance review and target setting system Performance Review Commission (PRC) advises on ATM matters
Performance indicators Proposed performance targets Guidelines for economic regulation
Incorporated in EUROCONTROL Revised Convention 1998: Creation of PRC (12 independent members)
Supported by permanent Performance Review Unit (10 p)
2004: Performance Review is part of Single European Sky regulations
Role of Performance review
Feedback information for policy makers, ANS management, stakeholders Closes the performance loop Least intrusive form of regulation
Policy makers
Policyobjectives Achieved
Performance
LegislationInstitutions
Industrial Organisation
Air Navigation
ANS ProvidersSupervisory authorities
Common functions
Airspaceusers
Airportoperators
PerformanceReview
Advice on performance
issuesPerformance information
Consultation Raw
information
Policy makers
Policyobjectives Achieved
Performance
LegislationInstitutions
Industrial Organisation
Air Navigation
ANS ProvidersSupervisory authorities
Common functions
Airspaceusers
Airportoperators
PerformanceReview
Advice on performance
issuesPerformance information
Consultation Raw
information
Policy makers
Policyobjectives Achieved
Performance
LegislationInstitutions
Industrial Organisation
Air Navigation
ANS ProvidersSupervisory authorities
Common functions
Airspaceusers
Airportoperators
PerformanceReview
Advice on performance
issuesPerformance information
Consultation Raw
information
PRC documents
Performance Review Reports Demand for ANS: Traffic Provision of ANS
Safety Capacity/Delays Flight efficiency Cost-effectiveness
Special items
ATM Cost-Effectiveness reports (ACE) ANSP Benchmarking
Factual data Cross-ANSP comparisons Trend analysis
Special reports E.g. Fragmentation, Civil/Military
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
37 States9.6 M flights
How the PRC analyses ANS performance
Performance Indicators
PerformanceDrivers
CapacityDelays
Safety
FlightEfficiency
ANS Key Performance
Areas
ANSPerformance
Ground Delays
Aviation performance
Accidents Incidents
Traffic demand
CapacityAirline
Performance
Airport Performance
Horizontal Flight efficiency
Vertical Flight Efficiency
Airspace design & use
Civil/Military use of airspace
Safety maturityLegislative, Cultural Env.
Safety Management
Productivity
Support Costs
Complexity
Fragmentation
CostEffectiveness
Other costs (12%)
ATCO Unit Costs ANSP costs (88%)
Cost of living
Safety
Agreed performance objectives “Number of accidents, severe incidents shouldn’t increase” Interim target: agreed safety management maturity in all States/ANSPs by end 2008
Mechanisms to deliver performance Regulations: In place; complete and uniform application is an issue Safety management: Maturity improving
Progress to date Many actions in progress Incident reporting
Information flow to be firmed up Legal and cultural impediments Key Performance Indicators being developed
Limited trend information Severe incidents don’t appear to increase
ATM capacity and delays
1.3 1.41.21.83.13.65.54.12.9 1.2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
min
utes
per
flig
ht
-1 000
0
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
Flig
hts ('000)
En-route ATFM delay per flight (May-Oct.)
Airport ATFM delay per flight (May-Oct.)
En route target En route
optimum
Target: 1.0min/flight
Actual: 1.4min/flight
Summer (May-October)
source : EUROCONTROL/CFMU
0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8
Focus on ground delays
Airborne delays assessed under flight-efficiency
Agreed performance objectives “Sufficient [en-route] capacity to accommodate
demand in typical busy hours” ATFM En-route delay < 1 min/flight (near optimum)
Performance management Capacity planning and management
coordinated through EUROCONTROL Magnitude
ATFM delay cost: En-route € 550M, Airport € 500M Progress to date
ATM-related delays: 21% of Air transport delays Major improvements since 1999,
but challenge due to sustained traffic growth Main Issues
Matching capacity and demand efficiently Main issue is airport capacity (outside ATM)
Primary delay (2006)
79%12%
9% Managed by ATM: 21%
Key Performance Indicator
ATFM Delays: Target setting
Trade-off delay/cost of capacity Target setting based on understanding of optimum
Flight Efficiency
No agreed performance objective yet Safety remains paramount Trade-off with capacity
Progress to date Coordination of airspace design & use
under EUROCONTROL Focus has been on capacity so far Very slow improvement in flight efficiency
Magnitude Economic impact of Route extension ~ € 2 200M p.a. Direct link with environmental impact (Emissions) Vertical and terminal airspace inefficiencies to be added
Issues to be resolved Flight-efficiency is a major ATM issue Airspace design is the main underlying issue
Continental dimension of airspace design issues Civil-military aspects
PRC uses same framework as ANSEP
Key Performance Indicator
Actual Route (A)
Great Circle (G)
Direct route Extension
Direct Course (D)
TMA Interface
Route ExtensionA
DG
30 NM
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
rout
e ext
ensio
n (k
m/fl
ight
)
Direct en route
TMA Interface
Proposed target
- 2 km per f light
ANSP benchmarking
ANSP benchmarking First PRC report in 2003 Requires
Information disclosure Validation Stability in time
Institutionalised benchmarking ≠ Voluntary benchmarking
ANSEP performance framework draws on PRC experience PRC uses same framework as ANSEP
PRC proposed target: -3% p.a. in real unit cost terms
Mechanism to deliver performance User pressure, PRC benchmarking Co-ordinated planning under EUROCONTROL States’, ANSP initiatives
Progress to date Progressive improvement in unit cost since 2003
> 2 billion euro saved from 2003 to 2008 if trend remains Break in trend coincides with first benchmarking report
Unit cost approximately twice higher than in US Main causes
Low average productivity Fragmentation of service provision Weak governance of monopoly ANSPs in many States
Magnitude High cost of user charges (7.2 billion euro in 2005)
In spite of progressive improvements, Cost-effectiveness is a major ATM issue (billions of euro)
Cost-effectiveness
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
P
2007
P
2008
P
2009
P
2010
P
Eur
o 20
05/ k
m
100
130
160
190
220
250
Cost Per Km Total Costs (1997= index 100) Traff ic (1997=index 100)
Average 1997-2003
PRC proposed target
Key Performance Indicator
Conclusions
High stakes in ANS performance (billions of € or $ per annum) Experience with performance-oriented approach in Europe
since 1998 Prerequisites for efficient performance-oriented strategies
Reliable information flow Target setting, performance monitoring Adequate regulation Performance management processes Independent performance review (with permanent support)
Strong governance of monopoly service providers Accountability for performance