Upload
dylan-oliver
View
44
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
SES Performance Scheme : Driving Performance Improvement in European ATM /ANS. CIPFA Meeting. Peter Grififths PRB Chairman 15/10/2014. Content of the presentation. The Performance Scheme (PS) The Performance Review Body (PRB) The Theory ANS in aviation context Performance Plans - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Performance Review Bodydesignated bythe European Commission
SES Performance Scheme: Driving Performance Improvement in European ATM /ANS
CIPFA Meeting
Peter Grififths
PRB Chairman15/10/2014
Performance Review Body 2
Content of the presentation
• The Performance Scheme (PS)
• The Performance Review Body (PRB)
• The Theory
• ANS in aviation context
• Performance Plans
• US- EU OPS Comparison
• Future performance improvements
• Human Factor
• Conclusions
Performance Review Body 3
The Performance Scheme (PS)
• One of the key pillars of the SES by setting EU-Wide and Local targets, performance monitoring and corrective actions .
• The PS is organised around fixed Reference Periods (RP). RP1 runs 2012-2014, RP2 runs 2015-2019.
• Targets set are legally binding for EU Member States.
• The Performance Regulation principles:
– 4 Key Performance Areas (KPAs): Safety, Capacity, Environment, Cost Efficiency.
– Incentives/cost efficiency linked with Charging Sch.
– Staff representation consultation .
Performance Review Body 4
The Performance Review Body (PRB)
• The PRB Reports to the EC in accordance with provisions of 390/2013 (the Performance Regulation).
• The purpose of the PRB is to assist the EC in PS implementation and NSAs on request.
• Competence, impartiality and independency.
• Main key tasks are:– Advise EC in setting EU-wide performance targets.
– Asses National/FAB Performance Plans (and the NM).
– Monitor the performance of the system in the 4 KPAs.
Performance Review Body 5
ANS in aviation context
Orders of magnitude of turnover
3 4 3 3 1 2 1 2 105
101520253035404550
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
(P)
Num
ber o
f acc
iden
ts
Source: EASA Accidents with ANS contribution
Total commercial air transport (CAT) accidents and accidents with ANS contribution (fixed wing, weight > 2250Kg MTOW)
3.5%6%
Share of aviation related CO2 emissions (Europe)Share of aviation emissions actionable by ANS
Total anthropogenic
CO2 emissions
in Europe
Estimated share of ANS-related CO2 emissions in Europe (2011)
6% 6-12%
6% 6%
Orders of magnitudefor illustrative purposes
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2010 2011 2012 2013
min
ute
s pe
r de
par
ture
ATFCM (en route)
ANS-related(airports)
ATFCM (Weather)
Weather (nonATFCM)
Local Turn around(airline, airport, etc.)
Reactionary
Change 2013 vs. 2012 (min./dep.)
-0.06
0.00
-0.01
0.07
-0.16
-0.10
Source. PRU analysis; CODA
Air Transport€200 B
Airports€40 B GA
ANS€ 8 B
MIL
Safety Punctuality
FinancialEnvironment
Performance Review Body 6
Basic Adams Model of RiskFor further reading the reference text is: Risk John Adams UCL London 1995 ISBN 1-85728-067-9 HB and 1-85728-068-7 PB
Management Process
Opportunity
Balancing Decisions
Reward
Unwanted Event’s
Risks
Performance Review Body 7
We make decisions on opportunities and risks based on perceptions from our culture. These perceptions
apply filters to our model.
Performance Review Body 8
The operating loops provide mechanisms which provide systemic management of our companies. The
two loops must balance within a risk tolerance boundary.
Performance Review Body 9
The two loops must balance within a risk tolerance envelope. Corporate reporting systems ensure we
remain within the risk tolerance boundaries.
Performance Review Body 10
Performance Review Body 11
At the same time others are making similar decisions all of which impact on others and you. Thus constant review is
necessary to ensure that the original decisions are still correct.
Performance Review Body 12
For further reading the reference text is: Reasons Accident Causation Model, Prof Jim Reason, University of Manchester email: [email protected].
Reasons causation (Swiss Cheese) model suggests when these events line up unwanted events occur. Along with the Adams model we can see how this would happen. His investigation into accidents holds true for other company internal or external
situations.
Performance Review Body 13
ANS in Aviation context
All KPAs but Safety expressed in economic terms SES targets address all 3 KPAs (en-route) and Safety Estimated TEC ≈ €10.5 B (SES area, 2012)
ANS-related Airborne equipment to be added TEC fully borne by users of European airspace
Performance improvements, more accurate data, different area (SES): lower TEC estimates
ATFM delay and flight-efficiency cost estimates must not be interpreted as ANS inefficiency Trade-offs between KPAs Optimum is not 0: Minimise TEC
within acceptable bounds of safety and security
2.2 B
0.8 B
2.0 B
3.5 B
0.8 B
TotalUser cost(ground)
€ 10.5 B
Flight-efficiency
En-route: 1.0 BTMA, taxi: 1.2 B
ATFM DelaysER: 0.5, Apt: 0.3
ATCO
Other costsECTL, MET, NSA
UserCharges
€7.5 B
Estimated TEC 2012 (SES)
Support costsOther staff
Other operating
CAPEXDepreciation Cost of capital
1.2 B
Airborne ANS
Performance Review Body 14
Performance Plans
1st Reference period (RP1)Targets set
European targetsRP1
(EC/PRB)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
RP2
National/FAB performance plans RP1 (States)
Consistency with European
targets(EC/PRB)
European targets
RP2(EC/PRB)
Nat./FAB performance plans RP2
(States)
Consistency with
European targets
(EC/PRB)
1st Reference period (RP1)Targets set
European targetsRP1
(EC/PRB)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
RP2
National/FAB performance plans RP1 (States)
Consistency with European
targets(EC/PRB)
European targets
RP2(EC/PRB)
Nat./FAB performance plans RP2
(States)
Consistency with
European targets
(EC/PRB)
Monitoring
SES targets for all 4 KPAs in RP2(En-route)
Performance also monitored in TMA
Performance Review Body 15
Performance Plans
Reactive policy in the 90’s: delays going up while costs going down, and vice-versa Balanced performance-oriented approach; both delays and unit costs down since 2000 Enforceable SES targets apply from 2012 onwards Fast traffic growth until 2008: challenge for capacity, but helps cost-efficiency
Traffic growth much lower now, even negative: Easier for capacity, harder for cost-efficiency
Flight-efficiency
Delays
Charges
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.119
90
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
€200
9 pe
r kilo
met
re
En-route unit costsTraffic in km (index: 1990=1)En-route delay (summer)
All States in Route Charges system
data source : EUROCONTROL/CRCO, CFMU (delay)
Min
utes
of e
n-ro
ute
AT
FM
del
ay p
er fl
ight
and
traf
fic in
dex
PerformanceReview
Commission
ECAC Institutional
Strategy
Single European Sky 1st package
Start of SESPerformance
Scheme
Start of SES PS RP1
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
20
14
20
16
20
18
% a
nn
ua
l g
row
th (
ba
rs)
IFR
fli
gh
ts (
mil
lio
n)
STATFOR7-year forecast
(SEP. 2013)
( before 1997, estimation based on Euro 88 traffic variation)
2013 TRAFFIC 9.45 M (-0.8%)
source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR (ESRA2008)
Max. (2008)
STATFOR7-year forecast
(Feb. 2008)
STATFOR7-year forecast
(Feb. 2011)
Performance Review Body 16
Performance plans
Challenging SES targets for 2012-2013 were met and even exceeded Best level ever achieved in ATFM delays! Challenging target for 2014 and beyond (0.5 min/flight), close to optimum
SES States
Flight-efficiency
Delays
Charges
Performance Review Body 17
Performance Plans
• Excellent routing efficiency of ANS, certainly best of all transport modes (~ 3%)
– Yet significant economic impact (fuel burn, flight time)
– Impossible to reach 0% with full civil-military traffic load
• Improvement in KEA compensates traffic growth (-21% from 2011 to 2019)
• Carbon-neutral growth of aviation (IATA goal due in 2020) already being met by ANS!
• Network Manager’s flight-efficiency initiative, aimed at reaching SES targets
– Role of airlines in closing gap between FPL and actual route (predictability)
• Further environmental indicators needed (Vertical, CO2 efficiency…)
– Would require inputs on optimum flight from AOC
Great Circle broken up using Achieved distance
Flight-efficiency
Delays
Charges
4.67
4.10
2.60
5.42 5.385.18 5.15 5.11
3.29 3.17 3.12
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
ineffi
cien
cy (%
)
Flight plan (KEP) - actual Flown trajectory (KEA) - actual
Source: PRU analysis
Indicative KEP profile
Indicative KEA profile
Target RP1 Target RP2
SES area
KEP (FPL) and KEA (actual) vs great circle
Performance Review Body 18
63.7
58.457.8
56.7
54.9
56.6
55.0
53.0
51.0
49.1
58.1
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
2009A 2010A 2011A 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
RP1 (2012-2014) RP2 (2015-2019)
€200
9 pe
r SU
Actual en-route unit costs €2009/SU DURs from RP1 NPPs €2009/SU
Adopted RP2 cost-efficiency targets (Feb. 2014) €2009/SU Starting point for RP2 cost-efficiency targets €2009/SU
Performance PlansHigher DUC starting point (€58.1) than DUR arising from aggregated RP1 plans (€54.9) in 2014, mainly due to traffic being significantly lower than planned.
% change in DUC
Annual % change in DUC
2009-2019 -22.9% -2.6%2012-2019 -16.0% -2.5%2014-2019 -15.5% -3.3%
Flight-efficiency
Delays
Charges
Significant improvement under binding SES cost-efficiency targets Spain played a large role in improvements from 2009 to 2012
Performance Review Body 19
Performance plans
Major savings from RP1-2 targets:
Some € 7.6B vs. 2012 baseline over RP2
€600
€650
€700
€750
€800
€850
€900
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
TEC
per
flig
ht (
€20
09)
TEC/flight (Base Traffic) TEC/flight (Low traffic)
Flight-efficiency
Delays
Charges
~ 7.6B
Performance Review Body 20
US-EU OPS comparison
Performance Review Body 21
US-EU OPS comparison
Performance Review Body 22
US-EU OPS comparison
• European unit costs decreased -13% over 2002-2011• But still some 50% above US in absolute terms (US 34% below Europe)
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
US 265 271 260 267 279 285 310 346 358 354
SES 595 596 583 564 548 547 542 592 556 534
Europe 591 591 572 550 533 529 522 567 529 511
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
€20
11
Total ATM/CNS provision Costs per Flight-Hour (€ 2011)(% difference corresponds to US vs SES)
55% lower42% lower
34% lower
Source: PRC analysis
Performance Review Body 23
Flight-hours controlled
ATM/CNS provision costs
Unit ATM/CNS provision costs- 34% in US
EUROCONTROL/PRU
ATCOs in OPS working hours
ATCO-hour productivity
+55% in US
ATCOs in OPSEmployment
costs
ATCOs employment
Cost / flight-hour
- 48% in USATCO in OPS cost / ATCO-hour
-25% in US €85 €163 €354 €511
Support costs per flight-hour
- 25% in US
Support costs
€269 €348
+
US-EU OPS comparison
Flexibility is key to ATCO productivitySupport costs: high share, mostly fixed, opportunity for rationalisation, must be addressed!
Performance Review Body 24
Future performance improvements
Efficiency gains in individual ANSPs Airspace improvements (e.g. free routes) More flexible management of capacity to match
demand (ATCO contracts) New Technology
PCP investment mostly on ground, can fit within current CAPEXMain impact expected in TMA, airport traffic
Future deployment must have clear positive CBA, including Airborne ANS part of TEC
Efficient SESAR deployment, e.g. joint procurement, maintenance
Rationalisation of service provision and oversight, including restructuring
Very significant further performance improvements achievable in true Single Sky
2.2 B
0.8 B
2.0 B
3.5 B
0.8 B
TotalUser cost(ground)
€ 10.5 B
Flight-efficiencyEn-route: 1.0 BTMA, taxi: 1.2 B
ATFM DelaysER: 0.5, Apt: 0.3
ATCO
Other costsECTL, MET, NSA
UserCharges
€7.5 B
Estimated TEC 2012 (SES)
Support costsOther staff
Other operating
CAPEXDepreciation
Cost of capital1.2 B
Airborne ANS
Performance Review Body 25
Human Factor (Cultural Filters)
• One of SES 5 pillars
• Staff consultation principle in PR
• Key to any system drive to change
• ATCO active involvement key to PS success:
– Consultation process
– Participation in safety improvement
– Introduction of new technology
– Process optimisation
Performance Review Body 26
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.520
08
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
(JAN
-SE
P)
En ro
ute
ATFM
del
ay p
er fl
ight
(min
.)
Other [all other codes]
Weather [codes W,D]
ATC other [codes IRTV]
Capacity/staffing [codes CSG]
Reference value (2012,2013), Target (2014)
Capacity (1/6) – Jan.-Sep.
• JAN-SEP – not
on track to meet
the annual
target!
• JAN-SEP – not
on track to meet
the annual
target!
Performance Review Body 27
4.5%
4.6%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
JAN
FEB
MAR APR
MAY JU
NJU
LA
UG
SEP
OCT
NO
VD
EC JAN
FEB
MAR APR
MAY JU
NJU
LA
UG
SEP
OCT
NO
VD
EC JAN
FEB
MAR APR
MAY JU
NJU
LA
UG
SEP
2012 2013 2014
SES Area
RP1
AREA_NAME
YEAR MONTH
Sum of KPI_CALC
MODEL_TYPE
Environment – Jan.-Sep.
KPI shows notable
improvement in 2014KPI shows notable
improvement in 2014
5.42% 5.38%
5.17% 5.13% 5.11%
4.91%
4.0%
4.2%
4.4%
4.6%
4.8%
5.0%
5.2%
5.4%
5.6%20
09
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
(Ja
n.-S
ep.)
Indicative profile Baseline Target Actual
Performance Review Body 28
Cost-Efficiency – SU’s Jan-AUG
• +4.2% actual 2014 vs. 2013
• -4,7% actual 2014 vs. PP
• 5 States below -10%
• 3 States above +10%
• +4.2% actual 2014 vs. 2013
• -4,7% actual 2014 vs. PP
• 5 States below -10%
• 3 States above +10%
JAN-AUG ACT (2014) 2014 vs. 2013 (ACT) ACT vs. PP (2014)Finland 518,775 1.8% -16.6%Spain Canarias 991,363 -0.8% -16.2%Greece 3,040,725 3.7% -13.3%Austria 1,746,657 5.2% -12.3%Spain Continental 5,927,507 4.4% -10.6%Germany 8,561,267 2.2% -9.5%Switzerland 957,830 2.8% -9.0%United Kingdom 6,749,403 3.3% -8.6%Italy 5,726,059 3.6% -7.3%Slovenia 304,734 7.6% -6.7%Estonia 518,541 4.0% -6.6%Poland 2,712,752 -0.3% -4.5%Denmark 1,030,752 2.0% -3.2%Belgium/Lux 1,575,998 3.1% -3.1%Czech Republic 1,628,958 2.4% -2.8%Ireland 2,640,357 2.2% -2.6%Sweden 2,179,647 3.0% -2.6%France 12,549,102 3.6% -2.6%Netherlands 1,854,724 3.1% -0.3%Romania 2,726,359 8.4% 1.5%Latvia 513,440 6.5% 2.2%Portugal 2,032,428 7.3% 2.3%Cyprus 947,795 4.5% 3.5%Lithuania 322,549 7.4% 3.6%Slovak Republic 709,424 7.5% 4.1%Hungary 1,560,582 11.5% 7.1%Norway 1,464,654 9.3% 21.7%Bulgaria 1,758,499 27.7% 24.1%Malta 502,700 2.7% 24.4%SES AREA (RP1) 73,753,578 4.2% -4.7%
Performance Review Body 29
Conclusions
• Significant progress in European ANS performance• Best ever ATFM delays achieved in 2013• Flight-efficiency target leads to carbon-neutrality of aviation for ANS• Unit costs going down significantly
• But margins exist for significant further improvements• European unit costs still nearly 50% above US’s• SES targets for RP1-RP2 bring very significant further improvements• Balance between KPAs is essential
• Human factor • Staff is the main asset to drive the change• Win-win opportunity• Change management is key to PS success