editable MS-Word version of the questionnaire

1 May 2012

SES RP2 Regulatory Approach ConsultationEditable version of the questionnaire

This file contains an editable version of the questionnaire, provided for the convenience of Stakeholders. It is offered as a tool to Stakeholders who wish to prepare, share and consolidate their contributions prior to submitting them on-line. This is an unofficial document. In case of discrepancy the version of the questionnaire on the EC website prevails.

Please not that this file should by no means be used to submit Stakeholder contributions to the PRB or the EC. Only contributions submitted via the on-line consultation website will be taken into account.

Consultation is included in the following list:European Commission > Transport > Public consultationshttp://ec.europa.eu/transport/consultations/index_en.htm

Text of the introductory web pagehttp://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/consultations/2012-06-08-sesrp2_en.htm

AirPublic consultations

Public consultation on the proposed regulatory approach for a revision of the SES performance scheme addressing the second reference period (RP2) and beyond.

Consultation period: 16/03/2012 – 08/06/2012

On-line questionnaire: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=sesrp2ra

Objectives of the consultationThe performance scheme is a key element of the Single European Sky (SES) initiative, which aims at ensuring “more sustainable and better performing aviation”.

The first set of questions relates to the regulatory approach document (RA document) (http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/consultations/doc/2012-06-08-regulatory-approach-document.pdf) prepared by the Performance Review Body (PRB) at the request of the Commission services. It contains the PRB’s advice on the development of the SES performance scheme in terms of substance, for application from the second reference period onwards (RP2, starting 1 January 2015).

There is a second set of questions in which the Commission's services seek stakeholder opinion on additional performance and charging scheme related subjects, beyond the PRB’s proposed regulatory approach.

This consultation is open from 16 March to 8 June 2012.

1

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/consultations/doc/2012-06-08-regulatory-approach-document.pdf


http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=sesrp2ra


http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/consultations/2012-06-08-sesrp2_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/consultations/index_en.htm

Main thrust of the proposed revisionsImplementation of the performance scheme started on 1 January 2012. Acknowledged as being an initial period of three years only (2012-2014), the first reference period (RP1) addresses mainly the en route part of air navigation service (ANS) provision and focuses target setting on en route capacity, environment and cost-efficiency. It aims to bring early benefits to the industry, focussing on en route air navigation services and facilitates lessons to be learnt on the operation of the scheme before full coverage is achieved in RP2.

The proposed revision of the performance scheme in RP2 is driven by two main needs:

First, to improve and reinforce the performance scheme.

Proposals to improve and reinforce the performance scheme are set out in Chapter 1 of the RA document. Many of them build on lessons learnt and/or result from stakeholders’ feedback collected through an informal consultation phase carried out between June and November 2011.

The proposals also seek to ensure greater consistency and convergence between the performance scheme and other SES tools, such as the charging scheme, the Functional Airspace Blocks and the deployment of SESAR technology, as well as with other EU policies, such as the “Better Airports” package.

The general principles applied by the PRB are to 1) build on existing provisions and keep stability of the performance scheme wherever possible; 2) complement target setting as necessary based on tested indicators; 3) identify new indicators as required to assist in consistency assessments and prepare the ground for future evolutions; and 4) define related reporting requirements.

Second, as foreseen in Commission Regulation (EU) 691/2010 (“the performance Regulation”), to extend the performance scheme to cover the full gate-to-gate scope, with target-setting in all four Key Performance Areas (KPA). This extension is addressed in a methodical way: For each KPA, various options are identified, their impact is assessed, and a preferred option is presented.

A system of target setting and performance monitoring for the safety KPA is proposed in Chapter 4 of the RA document. It was developed in close liaison with EASA.

Proposals for the environment and capacity KPAs are presented in Chapters 5 and 6 of the RA document respectively. They would reinforce the existing target setting system for en-route, complement it with incentives as appropriate, extend it to terminal areas and ground movements, build on new provisions from the Network Functions Regulation, and prepare the ground for future evolutions, such as vertical flight and/or fuel efficiency interventions planned during the period.

Finally, Chapter 7 of the RA document recommends to retain the existing target setting and incentive system for the cost-efficiency KPA as far as route charges are concerned, and to complement it with a system of local target setting for terminal air navigation services charges.

2

Next StepsThe feedback received to this consultation on the options and recommendations contained in the RA document and further work of the PRB will support the work of the Commission services on amendments to the performance and the charging Regulations.

The aim is to finalise the amendment of the performance and the charging scheme by end 2012 to allow EU-wide performance targets for RP2 to be set for all KPAs and adopted before end 2013. The year 2014 will then be devoted to the establishment, assessment and adoption of performance plans for RP2.

How to submit your contributionThe consultation is being launched only in electronic form via the interactive policy-making tool.

We welcome contributions from citizens, organisations and public authorities.

Received contributions will be published on the Internet.

You are strongly advised to prepare your contribution in advance before filling-in the questionnaire online. We recommend you download the PDF file of the questionnaire (http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/consultations/doc/2012-06-08-sesrp2.pdf), to allow you to draft your answers to the open text questions carefully.

After preparing all your answers, please open the online questionnaire and fill it out.

Questions are either compulsory or optional. If any of the compulsory fields have not been filled in, the system will not allow you to submit the questionnaire but will redirect you to the incomplete answer and give you an opportunity to correct it. An error message will appear in a purple/red colour under the question in which a problem occurred.

If you leave the questionnaire for 90 minutes without activity, your contribution will not be saved due to a time-out.

Please note that you should not use the ‘Back’ button in the upper left-hand corner of the screen to navigate the online questionnaire, because this will lead to a loss of all the data that you have already inserted. For navigation, you should use the buttons ‘Next’ and ‘Previous’ at the bottom of the questionnaire page instead.

When you successfully submit the questionnaire, a confirmation message will appear on your screen and you can print your answers.

Contributions may be submitted in any official EU language.

Please note that it is not useful to submit the same answers many times because what will be taken into account are the arguments, facts and figures that are submitted, not the number of times they are submitted.

Contributions received in reply to the consultation will be handled by a consultant and used by the Commission services; the summary of the consultation's results will be published on the Commission's website. If you do not wish your contribution to be made public, please indicate this in your reply. In that case, your reply will also not be mentioned in future documents that may refer to this consultation.

3

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/consultations/doc/2012-06-08-sesrp2.pdf

If you are replying on behalf of an organisation, please state your name, address and official title in your reply. Any reply on behalf of an organisation which does not state the interests which it represents or the extent to which it is representative of the sector (number of members, size of organisation in relation to the sector to which its members belong) will be regarded as an individual reply and not a collective reply.

As part of the European Transparency Initiative, organisations are invited to use the Register of interest representatives to provide the European Commission and the public at large with information about their objectives, funding and structures. If you are not registered yet in this register, please visit: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin/welcome.do?locale=en

Please note that this document has been drafted for information and consultation purposes only. It has not been adopted or in any way approved by the European Commission and should not be regarded as representative of the views of Commission staff. It does not in any way prejudge, or constitute the announcement of, any position on the part of the Commission on the issues covered.

The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the information provided, nor does it accept responsibility for any use made thereof.

Related documents

Legislation Regulation (EU) No 691/2010: "Performance Regulation" http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32010R0691:EN:NOT Regulation (EU) No 1216/2011: "Safety Indicators"

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32011R1216:EN:NOT

Regulation (EU) No 1191/2010: "Charging Regulation" http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32010R1191:EN:NOT

Regulation (EU) No 677/2011: "Network Functions" http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32011R0677:EN:NOT

Background documents The Regulatory Approach document


Online questionnaire http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=sesrp2ra

Hard copy http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/consultations/doc/2012-06-08-sesrp2.pdf

Links Register of interest representative

(https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin/welcome.do?locale=en)

4

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin/welcome.do?locale=en















https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin/welcome.do?locale=en

Questionnaire

Public consultation on the proposed regulatory approach for a revision of the SES performance scheme addressing the second reference period (RP2) and

beyond

The performance scheme is a key element of the Single European Sky (SES) initiative, which aims at ensuring “more sustainable and better performing aviation”.

The first set of questions relates to the regulatory approach document (RA document) prepared by the Performance Review Body (PRB) at the request of the Commission services. It contains the PRB’s advice on the development of the SES performance scheme in terms of substance, for application from the second reference period onwards (RP2, starting 1 January 2015).

There is a second set of questions in which the Commission's services seek stakeholder opinion on additional performance and charging scheme related subjects, beyond the PRB’s proposed regulatory approach.

This consultation is open from 16 March to 8 June 2012.

I. Respondent information

1. Identification

If you are speaking on behalf of an organisation, note that as part of the European Transparency Initiative, organisations are invited to use the register of interest representatives to provide the European Commission and the public at large with information about their objectives, funding and structures (http://europa.eu/transparency-register/index_en.htm).

If you are a registered organisation, your contribution will be considered as representing the views of your organisation. If your organisation is not registered, your contribution will be considered as an individual contribution. You have the opportunity to register now by clicking on the above link.

I speak on behalf of* (compulsory) {radio buttons}1. Myself2. An individual organisation3. An association representing other organisations

{if answer > 1 then ‘organisation or association}Can you please identify which organisation or association you represent?* (compulsory)[ ] {max 100 characters}

Please indicate if your organisation is registered in the Transparency Register of the Commission:* (compulsory) {radio buttons}

1. Yes2. No

5

http://europa.eu/transparency-register/index_en.htm

{if answer = 1 then ‘in transparency register}

Please enter your registration number in the Transparency Register and check the validity of your entry via the search function in the Transparency Register. Please note that invalid entries will by default be regarded as unregistered. (optional)

[ ] {max 30 characters}

{end if ‘in transparency register }

Your job title* (optional)[ ] {max 100 characters}

{end if ‘organisation or association }

Your name and first name* (compulsory)[ ] {max 100 characters}

Please indicate a contact email address?* (compulsory)[ ] {max 100 characters}

Please select the stakeholder type?* (compulsory) {drop down}1. Airport operator2. Airport coordinator3. Airline4. Other civil airspace user5. Military6. Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP)7. National Supervisory Authority (NSA)8. Ministry9. Functional Airspace Block (FAB) – ANSP side10. Functional Airspace Block (FAB) – NSA side11. Trade union12. Other

{if answer = (4 or 11) then}Which other? (optional)[ ] {max 250 characters}

{end if}

2. Confidentiality

Contributions received to this consultation, together with the identity of the contributor, may be published by the Commission, unless the contributor objects to the publication of the personal data on the grounds that such publication would harm his or her legitimate interests. In this case, the publication may be published in an anonymous form.

6

The contributor may also object to the publication of his contribution, but should be aware that he may later be requested to provide justification in accordance with the exceptions provided under Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/access_documents/index_en.htm).* (compulsory) {radio buttons}

1. The contribution may be published.2. I object to the publication of my personal data (publication in anonymous

form).3. I object to the publication of my contribution.

7

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/access_documents/index_en.htm

No Question AnswerII. Consultation on the regulatory approach for RP2 proposed by the Performance Review Body

This part of the questionnaire seeks stakeholder feedback on the regulatory approach for RP2 proposed by the Performance Review Body. The questions are closely related to the RA document which can be downloaded from this site.

The questions are grouped in five sections:

II-A. Lessons learned from RP1, review of the process and horizontal issuesII-B. Safety Key Performance AreaII-C. Environment Key Performance AreaII-D. Capacity Key Performance AreaII-E. Cost-Efficiency Key Performance Area

II-A. Lessons learned from RP1, review of the process and horizontal issues1 Timing, synchronisation and

coordination of processes

The PRB proposes (see RA document section 3.1.1 and Figure 4) to adapt a number of milestones to achieve two objectives: (1) create as much room as possible in the timetable for the performance plan development, consultation and assessment; and (2) avoid as much as possible heavy workload for Member States, ANSPs and the PRB.

To which extent do you agree with these proposals?

1. No opinion2. Fully 3. Mostly4. To some extent5. Not at all

Comments

Free text max 4000 characters2 Duration of the reference periods

To which extent do you agree that the duration of future reference periods (starting with RP2) should be five years, as currently foreseen in the performance Regulation, for the reasons explained in the RA document section 3.1.2?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters

8

No Question Answer3 Clarity and stability of assessment

criteria

In the light of the lessons learned during the first performance plan assessment cycle, the assessment criteria that will be used by the PRB must be clearly known and precisely communicated before the start of the preparation of performance plans. Revisiting Annex III of the performance Regulation seems to be desirable in order to incorporate some missing details and maybe removing possible ambiguities. The main areas of improvement identified so far are listed in the RA document section 3.1.3.

To which extent do you agree with the proposed areas of improvement?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters4 Thresholds for airports / scope for the

application of the scheme

The PRB draws the attention to the large variety of criteria and thresholds for inclusion of airports in the performance scheme (see RA document section 3.1.4).

To which extent do you agree with the general principle that this set of criteria and thresholds should be reviewed and streamlined?


Comments


9

No Question Answer5 Case of market opening for the

provision of ANS at and around airports (RA document section 3.1.5)

The PRB draws the attention to the fact that the use of “market conditions” regime may be claimed by a growing number of States within the wake of market opening of terminal air navigation services (see RA document section 3.1.5). Annex 1 of the charging Regulation sets out the conditions to be fulfilled to implement such regime.

In such context, to which extent do you agree with the PRB proposal that this Annex should be reviewed with a view to allowing the European Commission to carry out a genuine right of scrutiny?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters6 Encouraging the elaboration of

performance plans at FAB level

To which extent do you agree with the PRB proposal to review Article 5 of the performance Regulation, aiming at reinforcing a FAB approach to performance, as outlined in the RA document section 3.2.1?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters7 To which extent do you agree that the

PRB should put greater emphasis on in-depth assessment of the performance contribution of FABs?


Comments


10

No Question Answer8 Introducing the concept of economic

value and addressing interdependencies between targets

The PRB recommends (RA document section 3.2.2) appropriate amendment of Annex III of the performance Regulation (and Annex II if necessary) to integrate the concept of economic value as a criterion allowing to check the interdependencies between the targets and ensure that overall an adequate level of performance is attained.

To which extent do you agree?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters9 Ensuring convergence with the ATM

Master Plan and SESAR deployment

The PRB highlights the links to be acknowledged and strengthened between the performance scheme and SESAR Deployment (see RA document section 3.2.2).

To which extent do you agree with the PRB’s assessment of the situation?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters10 To which extent do you agree with the

PRB’s recommendation to strengthen the link between investment plans and performance targets through e.g. alignment of terminology and insertion in Annex III, as an assessment criterion, of the relationship between investments and the Master Plan and their contribution to reaching the performance targets?


Comments

Free text max 4000 charactersII-B. Safety Key Performance Area11 The PRB has outlined and assessed two

options for the development of safety performance indicators (SPIs) and target

1. No opinion2. Fully 3. Mostly

11

No Question Answersetting in RP2 (RA document chapter 4).

The PRB proposes to retain Option 2 for RP2 (K)PIs as the only one that can allow continuous improvement of safety by introducing:• European Union-wide safety targets set for RP1 SPIs,• Possible update to elements of RP1 SPIs, and• Development and introduction of new RP2 safety indicators, for monitoring purposes only.

To which extent do you agree with this PRB proposal?

4. To some extent5. Not at all

Comments

Free text max 4000 characters12 In developing performance plans, the

interdependencies between KPAs need to be considered especially in relation to the safety KPA. Evaluation of interdependencies is an important issue and a specific effort was made when reviewing (revised) performance plans. Therefore, the amended implementing rule should require a safety assessment of the plan (e.g. a performance plan safety case). The safety assessment should identify risks, based on which, risk mitigation measures should be defined. Implementation of these measures should be monitored by the State.Therefore, the PRB proposes a modification to the IR to address issues of interdependencies; however no performance indicator would be defined for RP2. Based on the experience gained from RP2, an indicator could be set up for RP3.



Comments


12

No Question AnswerII-C. Environment Key Performance Area13 Reducing en-route CO2 emissions

The PRB has outlined and assessed four options for the development of en-route CO2 indicators and target setting in RP2 (RA document section 5.4).

Option 3 is considered the preferred option:• An EU wide and FAB target on horizontal flight efficiency based on the actual trajectory;• A European Union-wide target on horizontal flight efficiency based on the flight plan (where the Network Manager is accountable), and• Civil / military performance indicators (no target) based on detailed on-line data for monitoring performance.



Comments


13

No Question Answer14 Reducing airport and terminal CO2

emissions

The PRB has outlined and assessed three options for the development of Airport and Terminal CO2 indicators and target setting in RP2 (RA document section 5.5).

The PRB proposes to retain Option 2 and to improve data quality to support a horizontal and vertical performance indicator during RP2:• A European Union-wide target set on Taxi out additional time and additional time in terminal airspace (ASMA) for coordinated airports and monitoring only for the remaining non-coordinated Performance Scheme airports.• To develop and monitor a horizontal and vertical performance indicator based on 30 second interval position report data for all Performance Scheme airports.



Comments

Free text max 4000 characters15 Aircraft related airport noise

Although it is acknowledged that noise at airports is an important issue, the PRB proposes in the RA document section 5.6 not to address noise in RP2 as the SES performance scheme is not a suitable tool to drive improvements in a subject which is primarily a local issue and which is currently addressed by part of the proposed airport package through the update of the noise abatement directive.



Comments


14

No Question Answer16 Airport Local Air Quality (LAQ)

The PRB argues (RA document section 5.7) that it is difficult to see how the performance scheme can contribute directly to driving improvements in LAQ, and although it is acknowledged to be an important issue, it is proposed not to specifically address LAQ in RP2 as it is already covered implicitly through flight efficiency improvements discussed above.



Comments

Free text max 4000 charactersII-D. Capacity Key Performance Area17 Improving en-route capacity

The PRB has outlined and assessed four options for the development of en-route capacity indicators and target setting in RP2 (RA document section 6.4).

The PRB proposes to retain Option 4:

EU-Wide target on ATFM delay per flight with a weather delay allowance managed at network level plus with incentives set on the Network Manager and FABs for:• The collective achievement by FABs and the Network Manager of the European Union-wide target set on ATFM delay per flight and including a weather delay allowance managed at network level• The achievement of the FAB target on capacity related delay



Comments


15

No Question Answer18 Improving airport capacity

The PRB has outlined and assessed two options for the development of airport ANS related capacity indicators and target setting in RP2 (RA document section 6.5).

The PRB proposes to retain Option 2:• European Union-wide and State / FAB targets set on all Performance Scheme airports for total ATFM delay attributable to airport / terminal air navigation services that incorporates severe weather and exceptional events.• European Union-wide and State targets set on ATFM slot adherence at all Performance Scheme airports.• Monitor ANS-related delay at the gate using A-CDM data at all Performance Scheme airports.• Monitor Airport resilience (e.g. number of days with more than 10% cancellations)



Comments

Free text max 4000 charactersII-E. Cost Efficiency Key Performance Area19 Regulatory stability – maintain en-

route ANS KPI

To which extent do you agree that the RP1 en-route ANS cost-efficiency KPI (en-route ANS determined unit rate) should be maintained for RP2? (proposed in all options, see RA document Table 14)


Comments


16

No Question Answer20 Terminal ANS as a local issue (RA

document section 7.4.4)

To which extent do you agree that terminal ANS is more a local issue and therefore terminal ANS cost-efficiency targets should principally be set by national regulators (“subsidiarity principle”)?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters21 To which extent do you support a change

in the traffic risk sharing for terminal ANS in order to somehow balance the potential risk of increase in the cost of capital related to Option 2?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters22 Regulatory approach for terminal

ANS cost-efficiency

The PRB has outlined and assessed three options for the development of Cost-Efficiency performance indicators and target setting in RP2 (RA document section 7.4).

The PRB proposes to retain Option 2:• Mixed “Top-down” and “bottom-up” target setting for en-route ANS with genuine financial incentives through the charging scheme regulation• “Bottom-up” target setting for Terminal ANS with genuine financial incentives through the charging scheme regulation



Comments


17

No Question AnswerIII. Questions on additional performance scheme related subjects

During the informal consultation phase, several stakeholders have expressed views that a more substantial change of the performance scheme should be envisaged. Part three of this questionnaire addresses additional changes to the performance and charging schemes that could be considered in this revision. The changes are grouped in the following sections:

III-A. SESAR: This section describes the level of integration of SESAR deployment into the performance scheme, including elements relevant to the charging regime, the possible introduction of a concept of investments eligible for recovery from ANS charges (Eligible Investments), and the role of the PRB in their assessment.

III-B. Market opening for ancillary (non-core) services and introducing competition for the market: The informal consultation clearly indicated that, in RP2, there should be moves towards market opening in several areas (for example, MET, Training, shared services such as HR and Finance, Engineering, R&D) and competition for the market of terminal air navigation services.

III-C. Congestion charging can be considered to address peak flow and would be used to complement the operational regulation mechanisms using pricing signals. This may require the introduction of another element in Article 12 of the charging regime. Technological advances within the charging process suggest that this is now possible.

III-D. Incentives: This section is about providing a common mechanism for the application of incentives to the Key Performance Areas and introduces a concept of penalty for under performance.

III-E. Network Management: This section will look at providing greater emphasis on the role of the Network Manager and the link of incentive mechanisms for the function to generate performance improvements at network, strategic, and tactical levels.

III-A. SESAR23 In assessing SESAR’s contribution to

performance, to which extent do you believe that the PRB should have a role in evaluating the benefits claimed by SESAR initiatives?


Comments


18

No Question Answer24 In which way do you believe that the

PRB should be involved?

The PRB should be checking and assessing whether technology identified as a high priority and “essential” (in the ATM Master Plan or the Network Strategy Plan) is appropriately reflected in the ANSPs’ investment plans.

To which extent do you agree with this proposition?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters25 The PRB should be assessing whether

the ANSPs’ decisions on the large investments to be described in the performance plans are supported by a transparent and convincing decision making process (CBA, taking into account of FAB dimension, etc…). To which extent do you agree with this proposition?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters26 Do you have any additional comments

on these possibilities for PRB involvement, which you believe need to be considered?


eligibility of well identified investments under the SESAR programme should define, which parts of investments can be recovered through ANS charges (costs of investments that are not eligible would not any longer be recoverable through ANS charges).


Comments


19

No Question AnswerIII-B. Market opening and competition for the market

There is a perception raised by stakeholders that there is considerable opportunity in the ATM industry by opening up markets for ancillary (non-core) services, or generation of competition for the market of terminal air navigation service provision. This section will examine your views on this.

28 To which extent do you agree that the application of the concept of competition for the market of terminal air navigation services should become mandatory at EU level?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters29 To which extent do you agree that further

market opening is possible in the provision of ancillary (non-core) air navigation services?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters30 Can you tell us for which services the

market could be opened?

Check boxes MET CNS AIS Data processing Training Other services

If Other services then answer next question

30b Which other services?

Free text max 4000 characters31 Do you have a proposal about how

market opening could be achieved?

Free text max 4000 characters32 In your opinion, are ancillary (non-core)

services being cross-subsidised?

If other than no opinion, answer next question


20

No Question Answer32 Please explain your answer.

Free text max 4000 characters33 To which extent do you agree that

greater transparency of ancillary services should be achieved by additional reporting requirements on the finance arrangements and through separation of accounts within an ANSP?


Comments

Free text max 4000 charactersIII-C. Congestion Charging

There has been stakeholder feedback which suggests that congestion charging could be applied to some parts of the network to reduce delays by using price signals leading to changes of behaviour required for an efficient route usage.

Recent discussions with experts involved in the application of the charging system suggest that this may now be technically possible and the Commission services are seeking your views on whether this should be further investigated to propose a mechanism that could be applied to the entire network.34 To which extent do you agree that price

signalling (e.g. peak charging or modulation of charges to encourage the use of a preferred route) should be used to improve performance of the network?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters35 To which extent do you agree that some

of the revenue of congestion charging should be dedicated to actions improving global ANS network performance and offsetting the environmental impact of congestion?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters36 An alternative would be to transfer

revenue from congestion charging into a fund that finances retrofitting of airborne equipment linked to SESAR deployment.

To which extent would you agree with such an option?


Comments


21

No Question AnswerIII-D. Incentives

There has been considerable feedback to the Commission services that whilst the performance regulation gives the ability to the use of incentives de facto very few States have made use of the provision in the first reference period. In this section the Commission services would like to seek your opinion on the obligatory use of incentive mechanisms.37 To which extent do you agree that

incentive mechanisms should also be addressed to the capacity and environment KPAs through a mandatory European, top-down approach, to ensure consistency and coherence?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters38 Do you think there are any exceptions to

this? If so please explain where you think an exception applies?

Free text max 4000 characters39 Do you have a proposal which could be

considered for the application of incentives in the above mentioned KPAs?

Free Text max 4000 characters40 To which extent would you agree to an

incentive mechanism applied to airspace users based on the principle of “best equipped – best served”?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters41 To which extent do you agree that

ANSPs should bear the cost of passenger compensation incurred by airlines, in cases where ATM is shown to be the cause of ATFM delay?


Comments


environmental costs of airborne delays should be addressed by ANSPs?


22

No Question AnswerComments

Free text max 4000 charactersIII-E. Network Management

In the Performance Scheme, the Network Manager currently has accountability for the environmental target. The following questions will look at extension of some accountability for other aspects of Network Performance.43 To which extent do you agree that the

Network Manager should be given accountability for performance in other Key Performance Areas?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters44 In which KPA(s) do you see a role for

the Network Manager?

Check boxes: Cost Efficiency Safety Capacity

45 To which extent do you agree that the Network Manger should be incentivised to deliver performance?


Comments

Free text max 4000 characters46 Do you have a proposal that could be

considered for applying incentives to the Network Manager?

Free Text max 4000 characters47 Do you have any additional information

you would like to be considered with respect to the performance of the Network Manager?

Free Text max 4000 characters

23

Documents

editable MS-Word version of the questionnaire