2010 US/Europe comparison of ATM-related operational ... Meetings Seminars and Workshops...an-06 ul-06 an-07 ul-07 an-08 ul-08 an-09 ul-09 an-10 ul-10 nutes Europe (Top 34) US (Top

2010 US/Europe comparison of

ATM-related operational performance

Joint FAA (ATO) and EUROCONTROL (PRC) benchmark reports

Hartmut Koelman

EUROCONTROL Performance Review Unit

21 May 2013

US/Europe comparison of ATM-related operational performance 2

In 2003, joint comparison of economic performance

(productivity and cost effectiveness) in selected US

and European en route centers with US Air Traffic

Organization (FAA-ATO) (detailed analysis +

underlying drivers).

In 2009, joint report on operational performance

using 2008 data at the top 34 airports in each

region (high level, focus on identification of

indicators & data sets);

In 2012, publication of an update of the 2009 report

with 2010 data. Joint publications influenced ICAO

and CANSO working groups for use in global

benchmarking;

Update foreseen with 2012 data in 2013;

History


Objective & Scope

OBJECTIVES

To provide a high-level comparison of operational performance between the US and Europe Air Navigation systems.

Initial focus on the development of a set of comparable performance indicators for high level comparisons between countries and world regions.

SCOPE

Predictability and Efficiency of operations

Link to “Environment” when evaluating additional fuel burn.

Continental US airspace (Oceanic and Alaska excluded)

EUROCONTROL States (excluding oceanic areas and the Canary Islands)

Commercial IFR flights

Focus on data subset (traffic from/to top 34 airports) due to better data quality (OEP airports) and comparability (general aviation).

NOT in SCOPE

Safety

Cost effectiveness (to be included in 2013 report)

Capacity

Trade-offs and other performance affecting factors (weather, etc.)


Airspace density comparison

Analysis limited to CONUS & European continental;

Actual sizes are comparable (USA 10.4 vs Europe 11.5 M km2)

Relative density (flight hours per km2) is 1.2 in Europe and 2.2 in US

< 1

< 2

< 3

< 4

< 5

>= 5

Density ( flight hours per square km)


Overview Comparing USA & Europe

[1] Eurocontrol States plus the Estonia and Latvia, but excluding oceanic areas and Canary Islands.

[2] Area, flight hours and center count refers to CONUS only. The term US CONUS refers to the 48 contiguous States located on the

North American continent south of the border with Canada, plus the District of Columbia, excluding Alaska, Hawaii and oceanic areas.

[3] FAA values are consistent with CANSO reporting and include FTE ATCOs in activities directly related controlling traffic or a

necessary requirement for controlling traffic. It also includes an additional 1289 controllers reported for contract towers.

[4] Total of 509 facilities of which 263 are FAA staffed and 246 are contract towers

Calendar Year 2010 Europe[1] USA[2] Difference

Geographic Area (million km2) 11.5 10.4 -10%

Number of en-route Air Navigation Service Providers 38 1

Controlled flights (IFR) (million) 9.5 15.9 +67%

Flight hours controlled (million) 13.8 23.4 +70%

Relative Density (flight hours per km2) 1.2 2.2 ~ 1.8x

Number of Air Traffic Controllers 16 700 14 600[3] -13%

Total staff 57 000 35 200 -38%

Share of General Aviation 4% 23% x5.5

Average length of flight (within respective airspace) 557nm 493nm ~-11%

Number of airports with ATC services 450 509[4] +13%

Of which are slot controlled > 90 3

Source Eurocontrol FAA/ATO


IFR traffic growth between 1999 and 2010

• Notable decoupling in 2004;

• Continued growth in Europe but no declining traffic in the US;

• Drop in traffic due to economic crisis as of 2008/09;


• Average seat size per scheduled flight differs in the two systems;

• Avg. seats per flight higher in Europe and further increasing;

• Smaller in the US with no substantial increase over time;

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

avg

. seats

per

flig

ht

Scheduled Services (Main 34)

Scheduled Services (All)

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

Scheduled Services (Main 34)

Scheduled Services (All)

Intra-European Domestic US (conus)

Source: FAA/ PRC analysis

Average seats per scheduled flight


• Traffic to/from the main 34 airports represents some 69% of all IFR flights in

Europe and 64% in the US.

• Avg. number of runways (+64%) and the number of movements (+64%) are

significantly higher in the US;

• Number of passengers per IFR movement are much lower in the US (-22%) .

Comparison of main 34 airports analysed


Predictability (Ch.5) and Efficiency (Ch.6) of gate to gate ops.

TMA

Departure

delays En route Taxi inTaxi out

Scheduled block time (Chapter 4)

Departure

Punctuality

Arrival

Punctuality

Sched. Actual.Sched. Actual.

OUT

OFF ON

IN

Buffer

Actual

Block-time

Air-time

• High level: Punctuality; airline scheduling; delays reported by airlines;

• More detailed: Predictability and efficiency organised by phase of flight;

Comparison of Ops. performance: Conceptual

framework


70%

72%

74%

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Departures (


-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4J

an

-00

Ja

n-0

2

Ja

n-0

4

Ja

n-0

6

Ja

n-0

8

Ja

n-1

0

min

ute

s

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Ja

n-0

0

Ja

n-0

2

Ja

n-0

4

Ja

n-0

6

Ja

n-0

8

Ja

n-1

0

Europe US (conus)

Source: FAA/PRU

Evolution of Scheduled Block Times

(flights to/from 34 main airports)

• Punctuality improvements need to be seen in context of traffic growth and

scheduled block times (i.e. time buffer included?)

• Europe: Block times remain relatively stable (left side)

• US: In addition to decreasing on time performance (previous slide), there is a clear increase in scheduled block times (right side)

• Seasonal effects are visible in the US and in Europe

Scheduled block

times compared to

the long term

average at city pair

level (O&D, aircraft

type).

Airline scheduling: Evolution of block times


-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6Ja

n-0

3

Ja

n-0

4

Ja

n-0

5

Ja

n-0

6

Ja

n-0

7

Ja

n-0

8

Ja

n-0

9

Ja

n-1

0

Ja

n-1

1

min

ute

s

DEPARTURE TIMES

TX-OUT TIMES

AIRBORNE TIMES

TX-IN TIMES

TOTAL

Data Source: CODA/ FAA

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Ja

n-0

3

Ja

n-0

4

Ja

n-0

5

Ja

n-0

6

Ja

n-0

7

Ja

n-0

8

Ja

n-0

9

Ja

n-1

0

Ja

n-1

1

EUROPE US

Trends in the duration of flight phases(flights to/from main 34 airports)

• Europe: performance is driven by departure delays with only very small changes in

the gate-to-gate phase.

• US: in addition to a deterioration of departure times, there is a clear increase in average taxi times and airborne times.

Trends in the duration of flight phases


More detailed analysis by phase of flight

• Consistent measures being established in the US and Europe

100 n

m

40 n

m

Feb 15th 2008

0h01-23h59

GATE-to-GATEDEPARTURE

ANS-relatedHolding at the

Gate (ATFM/

EDCT)

Taxi-outefficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

IFR flights

To/from

Main 34

airports

Efficiency

In last

100NM

Taxi-inefficiency

IFR flights

To/from

Main 34

airports

Continuous Descent

Arrival

Standard Arrival

EDCT:

Estimated Departure Clearance Time

(Ground Delay Programme)


Departure: ANS related departure delays (1/2)

ATFM/EDCT delays are delays taken on the ground at the

departure airports (mostly at the gate);

Both systems use ground delays programs to manage traffic but

to a various extent:

Mainly used in US in case of severe capacity constraints at

the arrival airports;

Extensively used in Europe to manage both En-route and

airport capacity limitation;


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM


Only delays > 15 min.

are included.

En route related delays >15min.

(EDCT/ATFM)

Airport related delays

>15min.

(EDCT/ATFM)

IFR

fligh

ts

(M)

% o

f fligh

ts

dela

yed

>1

5

min

.

dela

y per

fligh

t (min

.)

dela

y per

dela

yed

fligh

t

(min

.)

% o

f fligh

ts

dela

yed

>1

5

min

.

dela

y per

fligh

t (min

.)

dela

y per

dela

yed

fligh

t

(min

.)

US 2008 9.2 0.1% 0.1 57 2.6% 1.8 70

2010 8.6 0.1% 0.05 44 1.6% 1.0 66

Europe 2008 5.6 5.0% 1.4 28 3.0% 0.9 32

2010 5.0 5.7% 1.8 32 3.3% 1.2 36


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM

• US: En-route delays are much lower per flight, but the delay per delayed flight is

significantly higher;

• Europe: Higher share of flights affected (than US) but with a lower average delay.

• In the US, ground delays (EDCT) are used when other options are not sufficient,

whereas, in Europe ground delays (ATFM) are the main ATM tool for balancing

demand with en route capacity;

Departure: ANS related departure delays (2/2)


Gate-to-gate: Additional taxi out time (1/2)

Measured as the time from off-block to take-off in excess of an

unimpeded time.

Unimpeded time is representative of the time needed to

complete

an operation in period of low traffic;

Unimpeded time may not be a realistic reference in period of

high traffic;

Additional time in the taxi-out phase may be due to runway capacity

constraints or results from local en-route departure and miles in

trails restriction


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM


• 2008 report showed that taxi out inefficiency was much higher in the US;

• For the US, additional times also include delays due to local en-route

departure and miles in trail restrictions;

• Increased focus in the US delivered a notable improvement after 2008 (to be

seen in context of traffic decline);


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

Ja

n-0

3

Ju

l-03

Ja

n-0

4

Ju

l-04

Ja

n-0

5

Ju

l-05

Ja

n-0

6

Ju

l-06

Ja

n-0

7

Ju

l-07

Ja

n-0

8

Ju

l-08

Ja

n-0

9

Ju

l-09

Ja

n-1

0

Ju

l-10

min

ute

s

Europe (Top 34) US (Top 34)

Annual average EUR Annual average US

Additional time in the taxi out phase compared to 20th percentile of each

service (service = same operator, same airport, monthly)

Source: FAA/PRC analysis

Gate-to-gate: Additional taxi out time (2/2)


Gate-to-gate: En route flight efficiency (1/5)

Indicator is the difference between the length of the actual trajectory (L) and

a reference trajectory (achieved distance H) based on the Great Circle

Distance (G) between the departure and arrival terminal areas (40NM

circles around airports).

• This difference is an ideal (and unachievable) situation where each aircraft

would be alone in the sky and not subject to any constraints (i.e. safety,

capacity).

• Inefficiencies due to a number of reasons:

• Availability of routes when needed (route network design, fragmentation of

airspace, use of shared airspace);

Flight planning and route utilisation;


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM


Example „Inefficient“ route in Europe

Gate-to-gate: En route flight efficiency (2/5) GATE-to-GATEDEPARTURE

ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM


# Flts Avg.

Direct

A-D Avg. A-G Avg. (A-D)/D (A-G)/G

11,868 497.5 5.3 7.8 1.1% 1.6%

2010 ORD-LGA


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM


# Flts Avg.

Direct

A-D Avg. A-G Avg. (A-D)/D (A-G)/G

2620 1108.4 59.5 79.1 5.4% 7.3%

2010 IAH-LGA

Flight Plan

Direct Route


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM

US/Europe comparison of ATM-related operational performance

• Horizontal en route flight efficiency indicator used for comparison;

• Flight efficiency appears to be higher in the US;

• Work in progress to improve European analysis through improved

surveillance data;

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

EUR US EUR US EUR US EUR US EUR US EUR US

0-199 NM 200-399 NM 400-599 NM 600-799 NM 800-999 NM >1000 NM

En

ro

ute

ex

ten

sio

n (

%) TMA interface (D-G)/G

Direct route extension (A-D)/G

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

% o

f fl

igh

ts

2010 Horizontal en route flight efficiencyflights to/from the main 34 airports within the respective region

Great circle distance between 40 NM at departure and 100NM at arrival airport (D40-A100)

EUR US

TOTAL


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM


Gate-to-gate: Additional time in terminal area (1/3)

Capture tactical arrival control measures (sequencing, flow

integration, speed control, spacing, stretching, etc.), irrespective of

local strategies.

• Standard “Arrival Sequencing and Metering Area” (ASMA) is

defined as two consecutive rings with a radius of 40NM and 100NM

around each airport.

• In Europe delay absorption at departure airport or around the arrival

airport while in the US sequencing can span back to the departure

airports (MIT)


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM

100 n

m

40 n

m

Feb 15th 2008

0h01-23h59


Gate-to-gate: Additional time in terminal area (2/3)

Different strategies of managing arrival flows

London Heathrow (LHR) Paris Charles de Gaulle (CDG)


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM


Average only slightly higher in Europe;

Mainly driven by London Heathrow (LHR) which is clearly an outlier (agreed

scheduling criteria);

0

2

4

6

8

10

London

(LH

R)

Fra

nkfu

rt

(FR

A)

Madrid

(MA

D)

Vie

nna

(VIE

)

Munic

h

(MU

C)

Zurich

(ZR

H)

London

(LG

W)

Geneva

(GV

A)

Rom

e

(FC

O)

Nic

e

(NC

E)

Ath

ens

(AT

H)

Paris

(OR

Y)

Ham

burg

(HA

M)

Dusseld

orf

(DU

S)

Barc

elo

na

(BC

N)

Pra

gue

(PR

G)

Paris

(CD

G)

Mila

n

(MX

P)

Lis

bon

(LIS

)

Bru

ssels

(BR

U)

min

ute

s p

er

arr

ival

2010

Avg. [2008]

2008

Avg. [2010]

Average additional time within the last 100NM miles(only the first 20 airports in 2010 are shown)

Europe - 34 average (2.5 min.)

0

2

4

6

8

10

New

York

(JF

K)

Phila

delp

hia

(PH

L)

New

ark

(EW

R)

Charlott

e

(CLT

)

Detr

oit

(DT

W)

Chic

ago

(OR

D)

New

York

(LG

A)

Washin

gto

n

(IA

D)

Atlanta

(AT

L)

San

Fra

ncis

co

Housto

n

(IA

H)

Bosto

n

(BO

S)

Baltim

ore

(BW

I)

Washin

gto

n

(DC

A)

Ft.

Lauderd

ale

Mia

mi (M

IA)

Min

neapolis

(MS

P)

Phoenix

(PH

X)

Mem

phis

(ME

M)

Denver

(DE

N)

min

ute

s p

er

arr

ival

2010

Avg. [2008]

2008

Avg. [2010]

US - 34 average (2.45 min.)

Source: FAA/ PRC analysis

Gate-to-gate: Additional time in terminal area (3/3) GATE-to-GATEDEPARTURE

ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM


Estimated “benefit pool” provides an overview of the inefficiencies

actionable by ANS in the individual flight phases;

Comparison done with sample aircraft and same distance;

Europe appears to be higher mainly due to en route flight efficiency

Total estimated benefit pool actionable by ANS GATE-to-GATEDEPARTURE

ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM


Conclusions

High value in global comparisons and benchmarking

in order to optimise performance

and identify best practice;

Understand and learn from differences

in scheduling policies,

ATM operating strategies

i.e. distribution of delay along trajectory

and subsequent impact on fuel burn and capacity;

The estimated inefficiency pool actionable by ANS and associated fuel burn

appear to be similar in the US and Europe (estimated to be between 6-8% of the

total fuel burn)

but with notable differences in the distribution by phase of flight.

Inefficiencies have a different impact (fuel burn, time) on airspace users,

depending on the phase of flight (airborne vs. ground)

and the level of predictability (strategic vs. tactical).

Further work is needed

Update of the study is in progress (publication after the summer)

Documents

2010 US/Europe comparison of ATM-related operational ... Meetings Seminars and Workshops...an-06 ul-06 an-07 ul-07 an-08 ul-08 an-09 ul-09 an-10 ul-10 nutes Europe (Top 34) US (Top