Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
civil air navigation services organisation
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 20182013 - 2017 Performance Results of Air Navigation Service Providers
The ANSP View
2
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Contents
THE ANSP VIEW
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................page 3
Measuring Performance .................................................................................................................page 4
CANSO ANS Performance Framework ..........................................................................................page 5
2017 Participation...........................................................................................................................page 9
2017 Performance Data ................................................................................................................page 12
Continental Cost-Efficiency and Productivity: 2017 ................................................................page 13
Oceanic Cost-Efficiency and Productivity: 2017 ......................................................................page 26
Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost-Efficiency: 2017 .............................................................page 33
Sources .........................................................................................................................................page 35
ANNEXES
Annex 1: Data definitions .............................................................................................................page 36
Annex 2: Contextual Data ............................................................................................................page 38
Annex 3: KPI Data ........................................................................................................................page 70
Annex 4: Acronyms and abbreviations .........................................................................................page 84
3
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Introduction
Comparing ANSP Performance
Air navigation service providers (ANSP) are responsible for managing global air traffic safely, efficiently, and cost-effectively. This includes managing and enhancing airspace capacity through improvements to infrastructure and technology, and improving efficiency through a skilled and productive workforce and an innovative and technological approach to airspace management.
The performance of the air navigation system impacts stakeholders across the aviation value chain. From boosting connectivity and minimising delays to upholding the highest standard of safety in aviation, efficient, effective air navigation services are a critical component of a high-performance aviation industry. To that end, CANSO has developed benchmarking tools that aggregate and review global performance accordingly.
Comparing and benchmarking key financial and productivity indicators enables ANSPs to make informed decisions when pursuing increased cost-effectiveness and productivity, without impacting safety – the industry’s top priority. It helps ANSPs to work together to address both their own performance and that of the ATM industry worldwide. The CANSO Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report does not therefore seek to compare the results of various ANSPs to a ‘best-in-class’; rather it highlights global performance trends and identifies performance gaps, acting as a basis for collective improvement.
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
The CANSO Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018 contains performance indicators for identified ANSPs for the year 2017, along with trend data between the 2013 and 2017 fiscal years.
ANSPs also provided contextual comments, including any exceptional events during the year or items that may impact the comparability of their data. Additional comments on important events are included within the contextual data, providing insight into the results of the participating ANSPs.
An overview of the key findings can be found in the Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018: Executive Summary.
4
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Measuring Performance
Cost-efficiency and productivity are two key indicators used to determine the performance of air navigation service provision. They demonstrate how ANSPs are delivering value and serve as indicators of operational efficiency.
Cost-Efficiency
Cost-efficiency provides an indication of the balance between operational effectiveness (i.e. ATCO productivity) and the cost of providing the service.
The simplest indicator of Cost-Efficiency is the cost of providing ANS services per IFR flight hour. A lower cost per flight hour, however, is not necessarily indicative of improved overall performance.
Economic differences outside of the control of ANSPs can drive differences in costs. This includes labour contracts, salary scales and working conditions (such as hours), as well as government regulations on pension management and mandatory financial controls. Furthermore, ANSPs do not control the volume of traffic, which is a function of economic activity and other air passenger demands. Where a minimum level of service is required, there is a limit to how activities can be scaled down in response to lower demand.
Cost indicators do not reflect external factors, other performance areas or the quality of service. Moreover, there are costs associated with providing a safer and more punctual, predictable and efficient service.
Costs are broken down into ATCOs in OPS employment and other costs. Other costs include operating costs (excluding ATCO in OPS Employment costs), depreciation/amortization and costs of capital related to providing ATC/ATFM services. They do not include costs for meteorological services.
Productivity
The key indicator of ANS productivity is IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS hour, often described as ‘ATCO in OPS productivity’.
Although generally reflective of ANSPs’ performance, factors beyond the control of the ANSP can cause low levels of productivity – for example a geopolitical event that alters traffic.
ATCO in OPS productivity is driven by traffic levels and an ANSP’s ability to utilise its ATCOs in operations (OPS) resources. Although they cannot affect traffic level, ANSPs may improve productivity by utilising flexible rostering and the adapting airspace configuration to open and close sectors according to evolving traffic patterns.
Furthermore, advances in technology are now focusing more than ever on reducing the workload of ATCOs in OPS to enable them to manage higher levels of traffic in a given volume of airspace. Training associated with the introduction of technology, however, can lead to short-term reductions in productivity.
Airspace complexity also affects ATCO in OPS productivity. Lower airspace will typically have lower levels of ATCO in OPS productivity than upper airspace where aircraft are flying at more consistent altitudes and on non-crossing routes.
5
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Figure 1: CANSO ANS performance framework
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
1
2A
3A 3B 3C
2D 2C2B
Cost-efficiency KPI:
ATCOs in OPS costs Other costs
ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour
Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS
Annual working hours per ATCO in OPS
Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS
Proportion of total costs made up of ATCO in OPS employment costs
ATCOs in OPS employment cost
ATCOs in OPS employment cost
ATCOs in OPS hours IFR flight hours
ATCOs in OPS employment cost
Costs excl. ATCOs in OPS employment costs
• Frontline staff• ATCOs in non-OPS• Remaining
employment costs• Remaining
operational costs• Depreciation costs• Capital costs
IFR flight hours
ATCOs in OPS hours
No. ATCOs in OPS
No. ATCOs in OPS
No. ATCOs in OPS
Total Costs IFR flight hoursATCOs in OPS hours
ATCOs in OPS hour productivity
Total Costs
IFR flight hours
CANSO ANS Performance Framework
The determining metrics for cost-efficiency and productivity are outlined in the CANSO ANS Performance Framework. The framework was established to create common performance indicators for global air navigation services (ANS) data.
Over the years, the CANSO Global Benchmarking Workgroup has worked to identify alternative KPIs to investigate the drivers of the KPIs in the framework, in particular KPI 2C. This year, KPI 2D has been added to the framework to recognise the relative contribution of ‘ATCO in OPS Employment costs’ to total ANS provision costs. It measures the proportion of total costs comprised of ATCO employment costs.
It is important to note the dependence of the higher tier metrics on the lower tier ones. This can be established as follows:
KPI 2AKPI 2B
KPI 1= +KPI 2C
KPI 3AKPI 3B
KPI 2A =
KPI 3CKPI 3B
KPI 2B =
KPI 1-KPI 2CKPI 1KPI 3B
KPI 3CKPI 3BKPI 2D = =
( )
6
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
List of Key Performance Indicators
Indicator KPI Numerator Denominator Figure References
Cost-Efficiency and Productivity Performance IndicatorsContinental Oceanic
2017/ Trend 2017
1Cost per IFR flight hour
Total Cost IFR flight hours Figure 3 Figure 13
2A
ATCOs in OPS Employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour
Employment costs for ATCOs in OPS
ATCOs in OPS hours
Figure 4, 5Figure 14, 15
2BATCOs in OPS hour productivity
IFR flight hoursATCOs in OPS hours
Figure 6 Figure 16
2C
Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour
Costs excluding employment costs for ATCOs in OPS
IFR flight hours Figure 7 Figure 17
2D
Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs
Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS
Total Costs Figure 8 Figure 18
3AAnnual employment cost per ATCO in OPS
Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS
ATCOs in OPS Figure 9, 10
3BAnnual Working hours per ATCO in OPS
ATCOs in OPS hours
ATCOs in OPS Figure 11
3CAnnual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS
IFR flight hours ATCOs in OPS Figure 12
Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost-Efficiency Performance Indicators
Continental and Oceanic
2017/Trend
CO1Cost per IFR flight hour
Total Cost IFR flight hours Figure 19
CO2D
Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs
Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS
Total Cost Figure 20
Note that KPI CO1 is the combined continental and oceanic metric for KPI 1. Likewise, KPI CO2D is the combined continental and oceanic metric for KPI 2D.
7
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Data Processing
Data collection: CANSO ANSP Members provided data for this analysis. ANSPs either submit the minimum dataset required for participation in the report (basic data), or additional data to inform the analysis of trial KPIs (advanced data).
ANSPs are able to revise data submitted in previous years. The data submission workbook includes validation calculations that ANSPs are encouraged to consult in the data collection phase.
The entire dataset is available to all participating ANSPs to enable closer analysis and evaluation of performance trends. The advanced KPI dataset is only available to ANSPs submitting advanced data.
Data processing: Data has been processed by Helios subject to a data processing agreement with CANSO and in accordance with European data privacy laws. It was subject to a one-step quality check for significant changes, potential errors or omissions and is subject to continued revision by participating Members.
Separation of continental and oceanic data: Information is provided both for continental and oceanic air navigation services, where applicable. Each of these environments has different challenges associated with providing ANS. For example, it is more straightforward to provide ground infrastructure for communications and surveillance services in continental airspace than it is over oceans.
Exchange rate conversion: ANSPs submit data in their chosen currency. For KPI comparison, data is presented in USD. 2017 KPI data is converted using data available at currency and foreign exchange rate website, XE.com.
For ANSPs that operate in a currency other than the USD, the assumption of lower cost may be caused in part by the strengthening USD. Between 2013 and 2017, the USD appreciated against most other world currencies, meaning each USD buys more foreign currency. This change in the relative value of the dollar effectively lowers the price that ANSPs incur in USD.
Growth rates: Data is presented from 2017 and then for the one-year and four-year trends. The trend over four years is calculated as the compound annual growth rate (4 yr CAGR). The use of a CAGR shows clearly the overall trend between 2013 and 2017. However, it masks the fluctuations that may have taken place over the intervening years, which are also important in understanding performance trends. In addition, if 2013 was an outlier, this trend may not be representative of the trend over this timeframe.
The trend analysis is presented above the 2017 KPI data and is based on the data submitted in the ANSP’s chosen currency.
Inflation: It should be noted that the growth rates are not adjusted for inflation, and local inflation rates should therefore be considered when interpreting AGR trends.
PPP correction: Salaries and the cost of living vary extensively around the world. One way to correct for this is by using purchasing power parity (PPP). Employment costs for ATCOs in OPS are corrected using the International Monetary Fund (IMF) PPP conversion rates. There are, of course, limitations to this approach, as the cost of living can vary widely within a country and may be higher or lower in the region where ANS offices are located.
Q1 and Q3: The first quartile (Q1) is defined as the middle number between the smallest number and the median of the data set. The third quartile (Q3) is the middle value between the median and the highest value of the data set. The average is the mean result.
8
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Reporting periods
In 2017, Airways New Zealand changed its reference period to align it with its most recent report (i.e. moved from July 2015 – June 2016 to July 2016 – June 2017). This was to improve consistency with localised reporting and to provide more relevant benchmarking opportunities with other ANSPs. Annual Growth Rates (AGRs) contained within last year’s report were measured between the 2016 and 2017 submissions; due to the change in reporting period, Airways New Zealand’s AGR in 2017 therefore crossed two years. This must be taken into account when comparing AGR data in this year’s report (which only cover a year) with the same metrics included in last year’s report.
It is intended that next year’s report will bring all ANSPs with fiscal years that do not run between January and December in line with the most recent, and therefore relevant reporting period. This year, readers are encouraged to check reporting periods when comparing individual ANSPs. These are outlined within the Executive Summary.
9
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
2017 Participation
Data submissions were received from 30 ANSPs, which included 2 new participants1.
The 2017 data submission covers2:
Total IFR flight hours: 43 million
Total costs: USD 226,712 million Total ATCOs in operations: 28,063
Region Member Label for Graphics
Africa Air Traffic & Navigation Services ATNS
Kenya Civil Aviation Authority KCAA
Americas Federal Aviation Administration – Air Traffic Organization FAA-ATO
NAV CANADA NAV CANADA
Servicios para la Navegación del Espacio Aereo Mexicano SENEAM
Asia Pacific Aeronautical Radio of Thailand AEROTHAI
Airports Authority of India AAI
Airservices Australia Airservices
Airways New Zealand Airways NZ
Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore CAAS
Japan Air Navigation Service JANS
Papua New Guinea Air Services Ltd PNGASL
Europe Air Navigation Services Finland Oy ANS Finland
Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic ANS CR
Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü DHMI
Direction des Services de la navigation aérienne DSNA
Estonian Air Navigation Services EANS
HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co. HungaroControl
ISAVIA Ltd ISAVIA
Luftfartsverket LFV
Latvijas gaisa satiksme LGS
Letové prevádzkové služby LPS
Macedonian Air Navigation Service Provider, GOJSC MNAV
Navegação Aérea de Portugal - NAV Portugal, E.P.E. NAV Portugal
SE Oro Navigacija Oro Navigacija
Polish Air Navigation Services Agency PANSA
Sakaeronavigatsia Ltd Sakaeronavigatsia
skyguide skyguide
Slovenia Control Slovenia Control
Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services SMATSA IIc SMATSA
Table 1: Participating ANSPs
1 Two new submissions from DSNA and skyguide were received for the final report. In addition, one ANSP opted out of the full report and another ANSP opted out of the ANSP View.
2 As some ANSPs did not submit data for every field, this is not the total for all participating ANSPs; rather it is the total of all data submitted.
10
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Region Member Fiscal Year Dates Legal Status
Africa ATNS Apr 2017 – Mar 2018* B
KCAA Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 B
Americas FAA-ATO Oct 2016 – Sep 2017 A
NAV CANADA Sep 2016 – Aug 2017 E
SENEAM Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 A
Asia Pacific AEROTHAI Oct 2016 - Sep 2017 D
AAI Apr 2017 – Mar 2018 B
Airways NZ Jul 2017 – Jun 2018 C
CAAS Apr 2017 – Mar 2018 B
JANS Apr 2017 – Mar 2018 A
Europe ANS Finland Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 C
ANS CR Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 C
DHMI B
DSNA Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 B
EANS C
HungaroControl Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 C
Isavia Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 C
LFV Jan 2017 – Dec 2017
LGS Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 C
LPS Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 B
MNAV B
NAV Portugal Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 C
PANSA Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 B
PNGASL Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 B
Oro navigacija Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 C
Sakaeronavigatsia C
skyguide C
Slovenia Control C
SMATSA Jan 2017 – Dec 2017 Other3
Table 2: ANSP Fiscal Years for 2017 and Legal Status. Note that data is collected within ANSP fiscal years and this differs between providers. *Indicates an ANSP providing data from previous fiscal year.
Identifier Legal Status Count
A A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions.
3
B A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.
10
C A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law, but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
12
D A company established as a public-private partnership to provide the services on behalf of the government, and part-owned by the government.
1
E A private sector company owned and/or operated by private interests to provide the service on behalf of the government, either by statute or contract.
1
Table 3: Legal Status Definition
3 Limited liability company, 100% state-owned (92% owned by Serbia and 8% owned by Montenegro).
11
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSPTotal IFR Flight Hours 2017 (Continental)
Growth IFR Flight Hours (Continental)
Total IFR Flight Hours 2017 (Oceanic)
Growth IFRFlight Hours (Oceanic)
FAA ATO 24,151,615 1.48% 2,077,611 4.64%
AAI 3,308,762 7.59%
NAV CANADA 3,032,766 4.51% 648,435 4.82%
DSNA 2,392,068 4.57% 157,871
JANS 2,350,845 3.94%
SENEAM 1,432,251 1.78%
DHMI 1,346,381 7.58%
AEROTHAI 808,946 8.07%
CAAS 456,426 6.12%
LFV 448,004 3.74%
PANSA 443,466 4.07%
NAV Portugal 418,277 5.09%
skyguide 342,212
ATNS 282,271 -0.68% 9,975 12.34%
Airways NZ 270,525 2.00% 122,609 4.60%
ANS CR 259,897 3.14%
HungaroControl 255,714 7.38%
SMATSA 246,294 3.51%
ANS Finland 112,468 6.80%
LPS SR 101,866 4.22%
PNGASL 84,420 24.48%
LGS 79,154 0.21%
KCAA 77,052 4.47%
EANS 72,492 6.81%
Oro navigacija 57,344 5.28%
Slovenia Control 54,191 7.08%
Sakaeronavigatsia 53,453 4.99%
Isavia 34,390 14.16% 274,588 5.58%
M-NAV 28,749
Figure 2 - Participating ANSPs Flight Hours
12
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
2017 Performance Data
The following section presents 2017 performance data and 2013-2017 trend data for both continental and oceanic activities in line with the CANSO ANS Performance Framework levels 1-3 (see page 5).
13
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Continental Cost-Efficiency and Productivity: 2017
2017 Continental – Cost-Efficiency Indicator 1: Cost per IFR hour (USD)
Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours
Figure 3 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)
The 2017 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 428 compared to USD 416 in 2016. The group of ANSPs that increased this metric generally saw increases in both the ATCO employment costs and other costs categories, as demonstrated by KPI 2A
and KPI 2C results. There wasn’t a consistent cause of the increases, although increased employment, training and/or salaries were common themes. Specific ANSP comments are outlined below.
14
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ATNS
ATNS’ increase in total costs is mostly due to an increase in ATS personnel numbers which is closer to the target. The number of ATS personnel has never been this high before.
DHMI
Costs increased across the board for DHMI, in part due to the significant rise in inflation rate. The actual rate in 2017 was 11.92%, which exceeds the latest forecast by 5.92%.
Isavia
The 22.7% increase in total unit costs for Isavia is connected to a 15.5% increase in traffic at Keflavík International Airport (BIKF) between 2016 and 2017, which in turn has led to an increase in workforce size and overtime.
PANSA
The rise in PANSA’s total costs is due to compliance with local cost-efficiency targets that are set out in Poland’s revised EU Performance Plan for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019.
15
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
2017 Continental – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator 2A: ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD)
Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS hours
Figure 4 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)
The 2017 average ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour is USD 83, a minor increase from the average of USD 80 in 2016. ANSPs increasing the metric attributed the reasoning to pay revisions (either driven by law or management decisions) or overtime.
16
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
AAI
AAI’s costs were driven up by a revision in pay; additional performance-related pay-outs in arrears for the previous year (and paid in 2017); and a recruitment drive that resulted in the addition of 200 members of staff.
AEROTHAI
In 2017, AEROTHAI commenced the transition phase toward a new ATM system. As a result there was an increase in employee overtime and, as a result, increased employment cost.
ATNS
The number of ATCOs has increased at ATNS, while the average age and experience has decreased, thereby meaning the average ATCO salary is declining.
DHMI
A decision was taken by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security during the Collective Labor Agreement Debates regarding all public entities, and which is also binding for DHMI. This decision has led to an additional increase of staff costs.
Isavia
Isavia saw an increase in employment costs due to increased training to address the expanded workforce.
LPS SR
LPS SR saw a significant increase in staff costs due to a legislative change that took effect from 1 January 2017. This overhauled pension contributions which saw minimum pension contributions rise and removed limits on maximum contributions.
Nav Portugal
With no variation in the number of ATCOs available, the increase of ATCOs employment costs was mainly due to the mitigation measures implemented throughout the year to deal with the increase in traffic and keep ATFM delays under control. The replacement in 2017 of the hour value for the overtime work and the productivity compensation also contributed to this variation.
PANSA
The rise in PANSA’s staff costs is due to compliance with local cost- efficiency targets that are set out in Poland’s revised EU Performance Plan for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019.
Sakaeronavigatsia
Sakaeronavigatsia saw a large decrease in identified staff costs due to a change in the method of calculation. In 2016, staff costs accounted for all ATC Department, because they did not have information on the remuneration of ATCO in Ops. However, from 2017 they have separated these into categories and only included the renumeration for ATCO in OPS for this year going forward. The growth rates are therefore excluded from the percentage change graph for indicators 1, 2A, 2D and 3A.
17
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Figure 5 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, PPP adjusted (USD)
The 2017 average ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, after PPP adjustment is USD 125 compared with USD 127 in 2016.
18
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
2017 Continental – ProductivityIndicator 2B: ATCOs in OPS hour productivity
Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hoursFigure 6 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity
The 2017 average ATCOs in OPS hour productivity is 0.72, up slightly from 0.71 in 2016. This figure is influenced by the effect of traffic increasing quicker than ATCO hours for some ANSPs.
AEROTHAI
Comparing to 2016, AEROTHAI productivity has increased by 11% due to increased traffic while the number of ATCO hours has stayed almost constant from the previous year.
19
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Figure 7 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)
The 2017 average cost excluding ATCOs in operations employment cost per IFR flight hour is USD 332, up from USD 296 in 2016. The majority of ANSPs increased this metric, linked to higher investments. These may be driven by preparations to meet rising traffic in the future.
2017 Continental – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator 2C: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD)
Formula: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs / IFR flight hours
20
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ATNS
During the period, ATNS was in the process of implementing the Topsky ATM system and as such, contractual costs related to the project were incurred. This increased other costs.
Isavia
The increase in KPI 2C is connected to a reappraisal of necessary expenditures related to the 2015 move and restructuring of the approach department from the tower in Keflavik to the Reykjavik ACC.
PANSA
PANSA saw increases in operating costs for 2017-19 as a result of local cost- efficiency targets revision - costs rose mainly due to increased investment infrastructure projects.
PNGASL
PNGASL decreased this metric due to improvement in the management of PNGASL human resources in the ATC environment.
21
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
2017 Continental – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator 2D: Proportion of total costs made up of ATCO in OPS employment costs (USD)
Formula: ATCO in OPS employment costs/Total Costs
Figure 8 - Proportion of total costs made up of ATCO employment costs (USD)
The 2017 average for the proportion of total costs made up of ATCO in OPS employment costs is 0.31. This indicates that on average 31% of total continental ANS costs are spent on employing ATCOs in OPS.
22
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
2017 Continental – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator 3A: Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS (USD)
Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / No. ATCOs in OPS
Figure 9 - Annual ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD)
The 2017 average unit ATCO in OPS employment cost is USD 126,687, which increased from USD 121,021 in 2016.
AAI, Aerothai, LPS SR, Isavia, and Nav Portugal all saw rises in ATCO in OPS employment costs which drove the increases in this KPI. The reasons are outlined alongside the results for KPI 2A.
23
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
igure 10 - Unit ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD) – PPP adjusted
The 2017 average unit ATCO in OPS employment cost, after PPP adjustment, is USD 191,373. Last year’s figure was USD 192,241.
24
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
2017 Continental – ProductivityIndicator 3B: Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS
Formula: ATCOs in OPS hours / No. ATCOs in OPS
Figure 11 - Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS
The 2017 average annual working hours per ATCO in OPS is 1,618 hours, up from 1,593 hours in 2016.
Sakaeronavigatsia
The Georgian ANSP saw a large increase in working hours, again in part due to the revision of ATCO hours recognised.
25
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
2017 Continental – ProductivityIndicator 3C: Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS
Formula: IFR flight hours / No. ATCOs in OPS
Figure 12 - IFR hours per ATCO in OPS
The 2017 average annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS is 1,159 IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS. This compares to the 2016 average of 1,101 hours. The causes of rises in this metric are similar to those for the increases in KPI 2B (ATCO in OPS productivity); some ANSPs noted rises in IFR flight hours outweighed the increase in number of ATCOs in OPS.
ATNS
The increase in new ATS personnel lead to slight decrease in the average IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS across the year.
26
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Figure 13 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)
The 2017 average cost per IFR flight hour (excluding DSNA) is USD 97, compared to USD 90 in 2016. For comparison, this figure for continental flights is USD 428.
DSNA
DSNA represents an outlier in the dataset, because their oceanic data is comprised of overseas territories only (for instance, French Polynesia in the South Pacific). The low number of oceanic IFR hours in these regions leads to a total of oceanic costs per IFR hour that is quite high when compared to other ANSPs.
Oceanic Cost-Efficiency and Productivity: 2017
2017 Oceanic – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator 1: Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)
Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours
27
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Figure 14 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)
The 2017 oceanic average employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is USD 111, down from USD 122 in 2016. For comparison, the figure for continental airspace is USD 83.
2017 Oceanic – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator 2A: ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs hour (USD)
Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS Hours
28
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Figure 15 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) – PPP adjusted
The 2017 oceanic average employment cost per ATCO (PPP Adjusted) in OPS hour is USD 110. Last year’s figure, meanwhile, was USD 118. For comparison, the average figure for continental airspace is USD 125.
29
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Figure 16 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity
The 2017 average ATCOs in OPS hour productivity is 3.6 IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS hours, significantly higher than the continental figure of 0.72. This figure is down from 4.1 in 2016.
2017 Oceanic – ProductivityIndicator 2B: ATCOs in OPS hour productivity
Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours
30
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Figure 17 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)
The 2017 average cost excluding ATCOs in operations employment cost per IFR flight hour is USD 188. Excluding DSNA, however, the average is 69. This compares to 2016’s average of USD 65. ATNS is not included on this graph, as it does not separately calculate costs for oceanic flights, and thus it is impossible to obtain an accurate picture of what the costs are – excluding ATCO costs – for oceanic service provision.
2017 Oceanic – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator 2C: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD)
31
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
DSNA
A significant number of small controlled airports from overseas (especially in French Polynesia, South Pacific) increases the ratio for costs excluding ATCO in OPS Employment costs per IFR time, due to the high support operating costs and low IFR traffic on these airports. The reason for the presence of DSNA in these areas is not only for operational purposes, but mostly motivated by French State requirements.
32
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Figure 18 - Proportion of total costs made up of ATCO employment costs (USD)
The 2017 average for the proportion of total costs made up of ATCO employment costs is 0.30.
2017 Oceanic – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator 2D: Proportion of total costs made up of ATCO employment costs (USD)
Formula: ATCO employment costs/Total Costs
33
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Figure 19 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)
The 2017 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 421 which is higher than the 2016 figure of USD 409. Compare this average value to that from Figure 4 – Cost per IFR flight hour (continental) – where the average value is USD 433; this reflects the influence of a small number of ANSPs that have oceanic services with significantly lower unit costs.
Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost-Efficiency: 2017
2017 Continental and Oceanic – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator CO1: Cost per IFR hour (USD)
Formula: Total costs /IFR flight hours
34
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
igure 20 - Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs
The 2017 average employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs is 31%, slightly higher than 2016’s value of 29%.
2017 Continental and Oceanic – Cost-EfficiencyIndicator CO2D: Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs
Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / Total costs
35
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Sources
Definitions: • EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V2.6
• EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V3.0
Exchange rate data: • bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/index.
asp?Travel=NIxIRx&levels=2&XNotes=Y&A3790XNode3790.x=7&A3790XNode3790.
y=5&Nodes=&SectionRequired=I&HideNums=-1&ExtraInfo=true#BM
• xe.com/currencytables/
IMF World Economic Outlook database: • imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/index.aspx
36
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Annex 1: Data definitions
Contextual Data Element Definitions
Data Element Definitions
IFR hours per sq. kmThis is the result of dividing the number of IFR hours for the current year of data by surface area (in square kilometres).
Sq. km – oceanic and continental
The size (the surface area) of the airspace for which an ANSP is responsible. This should include the area where ANS have been delegated to the ANSP by another provider, and exclude the area in which ANS have been delegated to another ANSP. The sq. km here should be consistent with ACC coverage with respect to total area. Differentiation for facilities controlling only upper or lower airspace will be addressed by item 3 below. (Source: PRU D1).
% surveillance coverage @ 30,000ft radar and ADS-B only
Surveillance coverage from radar and ADS-B.
% surveillance coverage @ 30,000ft radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
Surveillance coverage from radar, ADS-B and ADS-C.
Number of FIRsA Flight Information Region is airspace of defined dimensions within which flight information service and alerting service are provided.
Number of ACC facilitiesACC facilities are the ATC units providing ATC services to en-route traffic in control areas under its jurisdiction. Part of an ACC may also provide approach services.
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
An ACC unit is described above. An approach control unit is an ATC unit providing ATC services to arriving, departing and over-flying flights within the airspace in the vicinity of an airport.
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
Definition of an approach control unit is above.
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
Definition of an approach control unit is above. Tower facilities, or a tower control unit, is an ATC unit at an airport responsible for the provision of ATC services in respect of flights that are landing and taking off and other traffic that is on the active runway(s).
Number of co-located approach, tower and ACC facilities
For definitions see above.
Number of stand-alone towers Definition of a tower control unit is above.
37
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Input Data Definitions
Data Element Definitions
Total Costs
The sum of operating costs, depreciation/amortization and cost of capital related to providing continental and oceanic ATC/ATFM services. Meteorological costs and EUROCONTROL costs (if applicable) are not included.
IFR flight hoursTotal number of controlled IFR flight hours in continental and oceanic airspace.
ATCO hoursTotal annual working hours for ATCOs in operations – including breaks and overtime. Holiday is not included.
ATCO employment cost
Total employment costs including gross wages and salaries, payments for overtime and other bonuses, employer contribution to social security scheme and taxes, pension contributions and other benefits for ‘ATCOs in operations’. This excludes: mission related expenditures, including travel expenditures and training fees, as these are considered operating costs.
Other costs Total operating costs minus ATCO in OPS employment costs.
Number of ATCOs
The number of FTE ATCOs – whose employment costs were included in "ATCO employment cost" – participating in an activity that is either directly related to the control of traffic or is a necessary requirement for ATCOs to be able to control traffic.
38
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Annex 2: Contextual Data
ANSP: Airports Authority of India
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Traffic growth, availability of technology, government initiatives for structural reform in civil aviation by converting it into mass transportation
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Technological upgradation, human capital improvements, optimization of resources
Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.
Contextual data element Continental Oceanic Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km.
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 3,570,000 6,400,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100% 0%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100% 100% ADS-C
Number of FIRs 1 3 Oceanic FIRs are also partially continental.
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 0
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
51
Number of stand-alone towers 7
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
13
39
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: AEROTHAI
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Traffic growth, availability of technology, government initiatives for structural reform in civil aviation by converting it into mass transportation
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Technological upgradation, human capital improvements, optimization of resources.
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
The demand is over airspace capacity.
Legal status: A company established as a public-private partnership to provide the services on behalf of the government, and part-owned by the government.
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 1.0401
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 777,760
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
Number of FIRs 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
1
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
6
Number of stand-alone towers 14 The number of co-located approach/tower and stand-alone towers and their respective numbers of ATCOs do not reflect actual facilities. These numbers are split by the currently available data, of which some physical stand-alone towers may be represented
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
40
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Airways New Zealand
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Upgrading of aircraft sizes and a recent increase in total traffic.
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Continuing increase in capital spend. Ongoing development of operations strategy programme to provide resilience and service using a 1 centre, 2 locations concept.
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
No exceptional events
Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
Contextual data element Continental Oceanic Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 0.3073 0.0041
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 863,100 28,790,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100% 100% Oceanic: FANS1A equipped aircraft
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100% 100% Oceanic: FANS1A equipped aircraft
Number of FIRs 1 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 0 1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1 0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
7 0
Number of stand-alone towers 10 0
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0 0
41
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Yes, objectives are stated in the corporate Business Plan developed currently for years 2016 to 2019. Objectives cover 4 KPAs: safety, environment, capacity and cost-efficiency.
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
EU regulations on Performance and Charging Scheme
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Internal performance monitoring system with predefined objectives to be met
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
No factors or exceptional events were noticed in 2017
Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 3.3973
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 76,500
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
Number of FIRs 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1 To avoid confusion in above and current lines, there is only one ACC (Praha), which is co-located with APP
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
3
Number of stand-alone towers 1
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
42
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Air Navigation Services Finland Oy (Previously Finavia)
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
SES-regulation/performance requirements
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
1. FAB co-operation projects2. For ANS Finland rostering principles review3. Investment / procurement programs4. Staff reductions
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Corporatization took place 2017 (separation of ANS and airports businesses in individual companies).
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
New revenue and cost structure due to separation of ANS Finland from airport operator Finavia.
Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government). General Companies act is applied.
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 0.2736
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 411,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
Number of FIRs 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 1 Note. ACC facilities at two sites (Tampere and Helsinki) operated dynamically by common management.
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
5
Number of stand-alone towers 15
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
1
43
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Air Traffic & Navigation Services (South Africa)
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
To provide safe, expeditious and efficient air traffic management solutions and associated services.
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Aircraft equipage that is behind by African operators, economic and political issues.
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Implementation of ASBU Blocks, Topsky ATM Tool and ADS-B coverage
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
None.
Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.
Contextual data element Continental Oceanic Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 0.0304 0.0008
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 9,279,080 12,720,920
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
0% 0%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
95% 0%
Number of FIRs 2 1 Oceanic services are provided by ATSO and not ATCO
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 0 0
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0 0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
9 0
Number of stand-alone towers 10 0
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
2 0 Oceanic is provided in one of the centres
44
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Civil Aviation Authority of SingaporeLegal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 0.5434
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 840,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
69%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
Number of FIRs 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 1
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
0
Number of stand-alone towers 2
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
45
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 1.3710
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 982,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
Number of FIRs 2
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 2
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
44
Number of stand-alone towers 0
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
46
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Direction des Services de la navigation Aérienne
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Yes, European ones
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Traffic increase and duration of ATCO initial training
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Rostering optimization
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
Traffic increase
Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.
Contextual data element Continental Oceanic Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 2.37 0.0084
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 1,010,000 15,437,214 For overseas, this covers New Caledonia, Tahiti, La Réunion, Saint Pierre, Cayenne and Antilles facilities.
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100% 1.88%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100% 95.02%
Number of FIRs 5 2 Overseas TMA within foreign FIRs (French Antilles) are not taken into consideration
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 5 0
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0 0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
12 6
Number of stand-alone towers 74 4
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0 2
47
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Estonian Air Navigation ServicesLegal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 0.8300
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 77,400
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
Number of FIRs 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
1
Number of stand-alone towers
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
1
48
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Federal Aviation Administration – Air Traffic OrganizationLegal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions.
Contextual data element Continental Oceanic Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 1.6283 0.0343
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 14,832,411 60,628,411
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
Number of FIRs 21 5
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 21
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
3
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 27
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
132
Number of stand-alone towers 131 Excludes federal contract towers
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
1
49
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Performance scheme KPI targets
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
The main driver of the European performance is the performance scheme. The ANSPs have to bear cost and traffic risk however they do not have influence on traffic. Continuously changing legal framework.
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Effective resource allocation due to extra traffic and flexible sectorization in order to minimize delay and overtime of ATCOs.
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
Continuously significant growth in traffic.
Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 2.4588
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 104,000 Hungarian airspace and the upper airspace over Kosovo
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
0% 0% ADS-B and ADS-C coverage but 100% radar coverage at 30,000ft
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
0% 0% ADS-B and ADS-C coverage but 100% radar coverage at 30,000ft
Number of FIRs 2
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 0
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
0
Number of stand-alone towers 1
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
50
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Japan Air Navigation Service
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
We have stated objectives such as “Enhance aviation safety”, “Expand air navigation capacity to meet ever increasing air traffic volume”, “Improve convenience through upgrading efficiency of aviation services”, “Increase efficiency of operation including cost reductions”, “Enhance efficiency of air navigation services”, and “Focus on environmental consciousness such as CO2 emissions reduction and noise abatement”.
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Functional enhancement of the Tokyo metropolitan airports toward the Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games to be held in 2020.
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
1. Introduction of Integrated Air Traffic Control Data Processing System
2. Enhancement of capacity and efficiency of the Tokyo metropolitan airports
3. Optimization of the Tokyo metropolitan airspace and establishment of new routes
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
The IFR flight hours in the Fukuoka FIR have increased by 3.9% compared to the previous year. In particular, the hours of international flights and over flights have grown by 4.8% and 11.9% respectively.
Legal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions.
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 0.2799
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 8,400,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100% Radar except oceanic sectors.ADS-B: Installation ongoingADS-C: Applicable within oceanic sectors.
Number of FIRs 1
51
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ADS-C: Applicable within oceanic sectors.
Number of ACC facilities 4
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
13
Number of stand-alone towers 20
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
52
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Kenya Civil Aviation Authority
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Ensure safe and efficient air navigation services
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Modernization of ANS system, capacity building
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
Slight decrease in air traffic due to political atmosphere associated with the election period.
Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 77,052
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 796,844
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
12.5% ADS-C only
Number of FIRs 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 2
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
3
Number of stand-alone towers 5
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
1
53
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Luftfartsverket (LFV)
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 0.7145
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 627,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
Number of FIRs
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 2
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
2
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 1
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
14
Number of stand-alone towers
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
54
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Latvijas gaisa satiksme
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Volatility of traffic, uncertainty with traffic to/from Russian Federation. Territory, cost-effectiveness pressures.
Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 0.8200
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 95,900
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
0% 100% - radar; 100% - ADS-B ready (not used operationally)
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
0% 100% - radar; 100% - ADS-B ready (not used operationally) 0% - ADS-C
Number of FIRs 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 0
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
0
Number of stand-alone towers 1
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
55
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Letové Prevádzkové Služby (LPS SR)
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
LPS pursues the following objectives:1. To maintain the level of safety
unchanged with the growing volume of traffic in the Slovak airspace.
2. To create an operational environment mature enough to meet long-term demand for air transport and maintain a safe, fast and orderly flow of air traffic at the same time
3. To minimize LPS SR’s negative impact on flight efficiency in Europe by minimizing ATFM delays in Slovak airspace.
4. To ensure economic efficiency of air traffic management in Slovakia
5. To minimise the negative impact of air traffic on the quality of environment
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Severe impact of highly seasonal nature of air traffic volume in Slovak airspace peaking in the summer period
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Procurement of the radio communication system was successfully finished and the contract was signed at the end of 2017. The new radio system will be introduced into full operation by March 2019. VoIP pilot continued with regard to acceptance of recording systems.
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
No.
Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 2.0917
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 48,700
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
56
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Number of FIRs 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
2
Number of stand-alone towers 3
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
57
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Macedonian Air Navigation Service Provider
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Yes. They are stated in the M-NAV Strategic Business Plan 2018-2022. They are: Achieve international and national standards in safety, quality and security; optimize airspace capacity; optimize cost of services; comply with the associated SES Regulations, Guidelines and SES II; support national and international environmental standards; enhance human resources management; adapt managerial structures to future SES Requirements.
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
SES regulation; rapid evolution of traffic (16,7% increase in summer 2017)
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
New ATM system project; optimization of human resources; flexible sectorisation
Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 1.1546
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 24,900
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100% Radar only
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100% Radar only
Number of FIRs 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 0
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
1
Number of stand-alone towers 0
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
1
58
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: NAV CANADALegal status: A private, not-for-profit company providing services in accordance with Canada’s Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act.
Contextual data element Continental Oceanic Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 0.1944 0.2112
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 15,601,538 3,070,462
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100% 20%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100% 100%
Number of FIRs 7 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 7
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
0
Number of stand-alone towers 41
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
59
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: NAV Portugal
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Yes. We have a 5-year Business Plan with objectives and targets.
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
SES Regulations time frame and associated requirements and targets.
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Developments in continental KPIs reflect the positive effects of cost containment efforts, coupled with increased productivity.
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
Portuguese FIRs have suffered again in 2017 a significant and unexpected traffic increase.
Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
Contextual data element Continental Oceanic Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 0.6234
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 671,000 5,180,000 Lisboa & Santa Maria FIRs
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
90.8% 26.3% Continental: RadarOceanic: Radar + ADS-B
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
Number of FIRs 1 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 1 1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1 0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
7 0
Number of stand-alone towers 3 0
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0 0
60
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Oro navigacija
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Objectives coming from performance plan, as well as coming from strategic and business plans (more as specific tasks and achievables) rather than KPIs.
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Performance scheme, macroeconomic development, political situation.
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Various optimization-modernization initiatives, technological investment projects
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
Staff costs well controlled and in line with Performance Plan budgeted numbers despite the fact that traffic growth is outpacing initial forecasts and country's labor market is overheating and average salaries growing by almost 10% each year. Other operating costs decreased significantly compared to the ones determined in PP (78%) as well as actual of 2016 (78.5%). To name a few most important factors: no more costs (2015-2016) related to the construction of the road to new ACC and administration building construction, stricter control of spending; heightened focus on increasing transparency of our procurement procedures resulted in postponements (into 2018) of acquiring some goods and services; whereas in tenders successfully closed substantial savings were generated; lesser usage and lower prices for utilities. Depreciation costs were lower than those projected in PP by -6.5% (93,5%) as several investment projects are being delayed as a consequence of itself delayed (due to legal issues) new ACC and administration building.
Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 0.7666
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 74,800
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
Number of FIRs 1
61
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
3
Number of stand-alone towers 1
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
62
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA)
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Objectives related to the Performance Plan/SES Regulations and 4 key performance areas: safety, capacity, cost-effectiveness and environment.
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
SES Regulations, FABs Performance Plans requirements, Performance and Charging Scheme regulations; changes in traffic paths due to the Ukrainian situation.
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Vertical split implementation: separation of air traffic flows, reducing delays, shortening the flight paths, reducing CO2 emissions and improving the competitiveness offered by the Polish Air Navigation Services Agency services for users of Polish airspace.
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
Due to lower execution of en-route Service Units (SU) in 2015 (by more than 10%), alert mechanism was activated. In 2016 the situation was still far from assumed in the original Performance Plan. These circumstances significantly impact the financial situation of the Polish Air Navigation Services Agency.
Poland requested, in accordance with Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013, permission of the European Commission to revise local cost- efficiency targets for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019, next PANSA presented updated costs for 2017-2019.
Legal status: State body, acting as a legal entity with an autonomous budget.
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 1.3277
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 334,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100% Radar only
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
0%
Number of FIRs 1
63
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 3
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
0
Number of stand-alone towers 15
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
64
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Papua New Guinea Air Services Ltd
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Stated objectives are: Enhance ANS/ATC reliability and accessibility, enhance safety, achieve efficient integrated business systems and processes, improve business applications and connectivity and modernize infrastructure and other corporative objectives.
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Safety and efficiency
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Upgrading and modernization of CNS/ATM equipment and ANS systems
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
Planning of 2018 APAC meeting, which will be hosted by PNG
Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km.
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 3.6 million
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100% Radar only
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
N/A
Number of FIRs 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 1
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
6
Number of stand-alone towers 0
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
65
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Sakaeronavigatsia
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Geopolitical situation.
Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government)
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 0.61
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 87,600
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100% Radar only
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100% Radar only
Number of FIRs 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 2
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
5
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
4
Number of stand-alone towers 2
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
6
66
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Servicios a la Navegación en el Espacio Aéreo Mexicano
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Safety and efficiency in operations
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Politics - SENEAM is subject to the government budget. The budget is based on previous years and does not take into consideration the cost of living increase.
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Implementing new technologies and standards
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
No
Legal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions.
Contextual data element Continental Oceanic Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 0.3545
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 4,039,820 2,915,843
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
90% 0% Approximate
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
0% 0% Approximate
Number of FIRs 1 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 4
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
4
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 15
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
22
Number of stand-alone towers 37
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
67
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: skyguide
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
skyguide is bound to the Single European Sky performance scheme. Objectives (Key Performance Indicators and targets) are set in Safety, Capacity, Environment and Cost-Efficiency Key Performance Areas either at national or Functional Airspace Blocks levels.
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Traffic density and complexity
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Direct routes (DCT) deployment before Free Route Airspace deployment.
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
Traffic growth, variability of traffic, strength of the Swiss franc
Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government)
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 4.910
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 69,700
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100% ANS provided in delegated airspace (France, Germany, Italy, Austria) as well
Number of FIRs 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 2
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
2
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
9
Number of stand-alone towers 13
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
68
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Slovenia Control
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Changes in traffic flows.
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Providing capacity and cost control.
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
No.
Legal status: A corporatized entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 2.7096 Total IFR flight-hours controlled by the ANSP used
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 20,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
Number of FIRs 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 0
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities 0
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
2
Number of stand-alone towers 2
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
69
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ANSP: Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services SMATSA LLC
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
SES requirements.
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2017, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
No
Legal status: Limited liability company, 100% state-owned (92% owned by Serbia and 8% owned by Montenegro). Integrated civil/military ANSP.
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data
IFR hours per sq. km. 1.8446
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 129,000 The size (the surface area) of the airspace for which SMATSA is responsible includes the airspace of Bosnia & Hercegovina within which SMATSA provides ATC services.
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100%
Number of FIRs 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
7
Number of stand-alone towers 1
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
70
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Annex 3: KPI Data
1: Continental Cost per IFR hour (USD)Formula: Total costs (USD) / IFR flight hours
ANSP KPI 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
AAI 80.92 6.68% -1.99%
AEROTHAI 347.90 2.23%
Airways NZ 395.10 3.49% 2.93%
ANS CR 580.02 3.16% 1.35%
ANS Finland 625.83 -7.18% 1.62%
ATNS 330.28 19.00% 6.79%
CAAS 363.88 2.17% 6.33%
DHMI 371.86 11.09% 10.49%
DSNA 662.37 -1.77% -0.75%
EANS 309.42 1.11% 3.56%
FAA ATO 452.38 -0.20% -1.08%
HungaroControl 464.48 -0.44% -2.02%
Isavia 221.61 22.72% 36.65%
KCAA 138.60 -29.52%
JANS 519.09 -4.52% -3.38%
LFV 445.97 -6.95% -0.62%
LGS 279.80 12.30% 10.61%
LPS SR 692.56 0.23% -1.33%
M-NAV 495.01
NAV CANADA 328.77 2.08% 1.00%
NAV Portugal 369.60 6.27% -3.25%
Oro navigacija 529.75 -0.64% 0.89%
PANSA 491.42 14.04% 5.57%
PNGASL 59.15 -13.88%
Sakaeronavigatsia 530.87 10.79% 12.44%
SENEAM 100.11 -1.75%
skyguide 1195.15
Slovenia Control 679.67 -7.42%
SMATSA 362.86 3.05% 0.43%
71
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
2A: Continental ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS hours
ANSP KPI 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
AAI 21.32 25.70% 7.81%
AEROTHAI 34.25 19.17%
Airways NZ 94.45 0.93% 2.57%
ANS CR 122.34 4.82% 7.78%
ANS Finland 88.18 -17.87% 2.58%
ATNS 33.33 -6.10% 2.47%
DHMI 66.43 15.77% 12.97%
DSNA 117.87 3.26% 1.67%
EANS 70.61 3.28% 3.55%
FAA ATO 120.04 0.61% 2.29%
HungaroControl 103.67 3.62% 1.51%
Isavia 133.36 -6.70% 58.60%
JANS 39.93 0.29% 0.01%
KCAA 28.17 27.98%
LFV 103.20 -11.67% 3.51%
LGS 55.34 26.84% 12.85%
LPS SR 139.12 20.09% 7.02%
M-NAV 44.95
NAV CANADA 119.21 2.66% 4.16%
NAV Portugal 146.75 17.79% 0.49%
Oro navigacija 53.72 3.13% 3.77%
PANSA 131.59 17.49% 4.88%
PNGASL 31.58 41.19%
Sakaeronavigatsia 19.92 4.57% 24.77%
SENEAM 28.45 -22.07%
skyguide 210.53
Slovenia Control 99.64 1.29%
SMATSA 61.12 -3.20% 5.60%
72
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
2A: Continental ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD), PPP adjusted
ANSP KPI KPI PPP 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
AAI 21.32 73.15 22.41% 4.72%
AEROTHAI 34.25 95.20 19.12%
Airways NZ 94.45 87.03 0.87% 2.01%
ANS CR 122.34 210.12 4.97% 7.56%
ANS Finland 88.18 84.94 -17.51% 2.78%
ATNS 33.33 77.10 -9.25% -1.55%
DHMI 66.43 180.61 11.44% 7.14%
DSNA 117.87 128.19 4.27% 2.29%
EANS 70.61 111.62 2.91% 2.85%
FAA ATO 120.04 120.04 0.61% 2.29%
HungaroControl 103.67 211.10 2.97% 0.20%
Isavia 133.36 98.29 -7.08% 56.24%
JANS 39.93 43.78 1.67% 0.36%
KCAA 28.17 62.57 22.78%
LFV 103.20 107.84 -11.52% 3.57%
LGS 55.34 97.01 26.59% 12.63%
LPS SR 139.12 255.53 20.83% 8.06%
M-NAV 44.95 127.30
NAV CANADA 119.21 123.92 2.25% 3.97%
NAV Portugal 146.75 212.28 18.75% 0.78%
Oro navigacija 53.72 102.93 2.68% 3.54%
PANSA 131.59 277.31 17.82% 5.41%
PNGASL 31.58 38.52 38.90%
Sakaeronavigatsia 19.92 53.96 2.08% 21.64%
SENEAM 28.45 63.11 -22.64%
skyguide 210.53 160.60
Slovenia Control 99.64 148.50 1.97%
SMATSA 61.12 151.50 -5.10% 3.82%
73
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
2B: Continental ATCOs in OPS hour productivityFormula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours
ANSP KPI 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
AAI 0.809 -4.59% 3.59%
AEROTHAI 0.354 10.61%
Airways NZ 0.659 -3.76% 1.02%
ANS CR 0.886 1.12% 3.20%
ANS Finland 0.408 4.29% -1.01%
ATNS 0.454 -9.40% -1.68%
CAAS 0.645 -0.15% -4.80%
DHMI 0.810 0.29% 1.67%
DSNA 0.643 3.23% 1.55%
EANS 0.831 8.87% 1.57%
FAA ATO 1.108 2.74% 3.20%
HungaroControl 0.926 3.58% 5.76%
Isavia 1.435 -4.89% 19.26%
JANS 0.949 5.04% 5.30%
KCAA 0.306 -6.28%
LFV 0.580 11.54% 3.78%
LGS 0.843 23.81% 4.61%
LPS SR 0.738 1.53% 2.22%
M-NAV 0.284
NAV CANADA 1.257 5.24% 3.52%
NAV Portugal 0.943 4.79% 5.60%
Oro navigacija 0.427 4.83% 1.15%
PANSA 0.771 0.28% 0.45%
PNGASL 0.670 45.71%
Sakaeronavigatsia 0.386 7.50% 7.63%
SENEAM 0.800 1.27%
skyguide 0.755
Slovenia Control 0.450 13.45%
SMATSA 0.739 -2.76% 3.07%
74
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
2C: Continental Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs / IFR flight hours
ANSP KPI 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
AAI 54.55 -2.31% -4.37%
AEROTHAI 251.08 0.26%
Airways NZ 251.75 2.72% 3.77%
ANS CR 442.00 3.01% 0.48%
ANS Finland 409.97 2.47% 0.64%
ATNS 256.80 24.28% 7.59%
DHMI 289.86 9.92% 10.32%
DSNA 479.11 -2.44% -1.06%
EANS 224.45 3.69% 4.20%
FAA ATO 344.00 0.41% -1.15%
HungaroControl 352.51 -0.59% -1.34%
Isavia 128.65 49.91% 39.65%
JANS 477.02 -4.52% -3.23%
KCAA 46.49 -64.02%
LFV 267.17 5.42% -0.98%
LGS 214.15 -16.36% 2.81%
LPS SR 503.99 -5.18% -3.18%
M-NAV 336.72
NAV CANADA 233.91 4.04% 1.16%
NAV Portugal 213.93 2.20% -2.01%
Oro navigacija 403.92 -0.33% 0.39%
PANSA 320.80 12.44% 6.22%
PNGASL 12.04 -39.99%
Sakaeronavigatsia 479.22 12.48% 12.09%
SENEAM 64.79 16.31%
skyguide 1509.85
Slovenia Control 458.14 -5.74%
SMATSA 280.16 4.13% -0.13%
75
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
2D: Proportion of total costs made up of ATCO employment costs (USD) Formula: ATCO employment Costs / Total Costs
ANSP KPI 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
AAI 0.326 23.50% 6.19%
AEROTHAI 0.278 5.39%
Airways NZ 0.363 1.34% -1.36%
ANS CR 0.238 0.49% 3.04%
ANS Finland 0.345 -15.16% 1.98%
ATNS 0.222 -12.92% -2.40%
DHMI 0.221 3.91% 0.56%
DSNA 0.277 1.82% 0.86%
EANS 0.275 -6.17% -1.55%
FAA ATO 0.240 -1.88% 0.21%
HungaroControl 0.241 0.48% -2.04%
Isavia 0.419 -20.07% -2.68%
JANS 0.081 0.00% -1.71%
KCAA 0.665 93.75%
LFV 0.399 -14.89% 0.36%
LGS 0.235 -8.77% -2.48%
LPS SR 0.272 18.00% 6.10%
M-NAV 0.320
NAV CANADA 0.289 -4.44% -0.38%
NAV Portugal 0.421 5.78% -1.64%
Oro navigacija 0.238 -0.99% 1.68%
PANSA 0.347 2.74% -1.10%
PNGASL 0.796 12.51%
Sakaeronavigatsia 0.097 -12.20% 3.10%
SENEAM 0.355 -21.68%
skyguide 0.233
Slovenia Control 0.326 -3.57%
SMATSA 0.228 -3.40% 2.02%
76
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
3A: Continental Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / No. ATCOs in OPS
ANSP KPI 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
AAI 41,981 26.88% 8.32%
AEROTHAI 99,395 13.18% N/A
Airways NZ 128,832 0.93% 2.57%
ANS CR 188,798 6.91% 7.97%
ANS Finland 137,940 -13.03% 3.25%
ATNS 54,297 -6.77% 3.27%
DHMI 79,713 15.76% 10.74%
DSNA 151,369 3.26% 1.67%
EANS 76,046 -28.70% -6.29%
FAA ATO 218,948 1.16% 3.13%
HungaroControl 161,763 3.78% -26.43%
Isavia 228,356 -4.01% 2.62%
JANS 80,468 0.29% 0.01%
KCAA 40,559 27.98%
LFV 171,557 -17.15% 3.77%
LGS 59,047 7.33% 10.35%
LPS SR 215,830 23.27% 7.31%
M-NAV 67,923
NAV CANADA 180,823 -5.35% 3.01%
NAV Portugal 264,677 18.13% 0.33%
Oro navigacija 86,646 2.19% 4.93%
PANSA 140,903 16.03% 3.89%
PNGASL 81,163 99.39%
Sakaeronavigatsia 26,292 -0.77% 15.46%
SENEAM 56,792 -22.09%
skyguide 263,625
Slovenia Control 141,235 1.22%
SMATSA 72,738 -1.38% 6.16%
77
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
3A: Continental Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS (USD), PPP adjusted
ANSP KPI KPI PPP 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
AAI 41,981 144,056 23.56% 5.22%
AEROTHAI 99,395 276,272 13.14%
Airways NZ 128,716 118,710 0.87% 2.01%
ANS CR 188,798 324,263 7.06% 7.76%
ANS Finland 137,940 132,877 -12.65% 3.45%
ATNS 54,297 125,593 -9.89% -0.79%
DHMI 79,713 216,738 11.44% 5.01%
DSNA 151,369 164,622 4.27% 2.29%
EANS 76,046 120,216 -28.95% -6.92%
FAA ATO 218,948 218,948 1.16% 3.13%
HungaroControl 161,763 329,407 3.13% -27.38%
Isavia 267,006 168,315 -4.40% 1.09%
JANS 80,468 88,208 1.67% 0.36%
KCAA 40,559 90,098 22.78%
LFV 171,557 179,284 -17.01% 3.83%
LGS 59,047 103,510 7.11% 10.13%
LPS SR 215,830 396,405 24.04% 8.36%
M-NAV 67,923 192,343
NAV CANADA 180,823 187,978 -5.73% 2.83%
NAV Portugal 264,677 382,859 19.09% 0.61%
Oro navigacija 86,646 166,028 1.74% 42.73%
PANSA 140,903 296,928 16.35% 4.42%
PNGASL 99,006 96.16%
Sakaeronavigatsia 26,292 71,231 -3.13% 12.57%
SENEAM 56,792 126,000 -22.66%
skyguide 259,425 201,105
Slovenia Control 141,235 210,490 1.90%
SMATSA 72,738 180,284 -3.31% 4.37%
78
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
3B: Continental Annual working hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: ATCOs in OPS hours / No. ATCOs in OPS
ANSP KPI 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
AAI 1,969 0.94% 0.48%
AEROTHAI 2,902 -5.03%
Airways NZ 1,364 0.00% 0.00%
ANS CR 1,543 2.00% 0.18%
ANS Finland 1,564 5.90% 0.66%
ATNS 1,629 -0.71% 0.78%
CAAS 1,819 0.00% 0.00%
DHMI 1,200 -0.01% -1.98%
DSNA 1,284 0.00% 0.00%
EANS 1,077 -30.96% -9.51%
FAA ATO 1,824 0.55% 0.82%
HungaroControl 1,560 0.16% 0.25%
Isavia 1,712 2.88% -35.30%
JANS 2,015 0.00% 0.00%
KCAA 1,440 0.00%
LFV 1,663 -6.20% 0.26%
LGS 1,067 -15.39% -2.22%
LPS SR 1,551 2.65% 0.28%
M-NAV 1,511
NAV CANADA 1,517 -7.81% -1.10%
NAV Portugal 1,803 0.29% -0.17%
Oro navigacija 1,613 -0.91% 1.12%
PANSA 1,071 -1.24% -0.94%
PNGASL 2,570 41.22%
Sakaeronavigatsia 1,320 -5.10% -7.46%
SENEAM 1,998 0.00%
skyguide 1,252
Slovenia Control 1,417 -0.06%
SMATSA 1,190 1.88% 0.53%
79
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
3C: Continental Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: IFR flight hours / No. ATCOs in OPS
ANSP KPI 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
AAI 1,592.28 -3.69% 4.08%
AEROTHAI 1,026.58 5.06%
Airways NZ 898.75 -3.76% 1.02%
ANS CR 1,367.88 3.14% 3.39%
ANS Finland 639.02 10.44% -0.36%
ATNS 738.93 -10.04% -0.92%
CAAS 1,173.33 -0.15% -4.80%
DHMI 972.12 0.28% -0.34%
DSNA 825.99 3.23% 1.56%
EANS 894.96 -24.84% -8.09%
FAA ATO 2,020.16 3.30% 4.04%
HungaroControl 1,444.71 3.74% 6.02%
Isavia 2,456.43 -2.15% -22.83%
JANS 1,912.81 5.04% 5.30%
KCAA 440.30 -6.28%
LFV 959.00 4.58% 3.80%
LGS 899.48 4.76% 2.30%
LPS SR 1,144.56 4.22% 2.50%
M-NAV 429.09
NAV CANADA 1,906.20 -2.98% 2.38%
NAV Portugal 1,700.31 5.09% 5.43%
Oro navigacija 688.57 3.87% 2.28%
PANSA 825.82 -0.97% -0.50%
PNGASL 1,722.85 105.77%
Sakaeronavigatsia 509.07 1.99% -0.40%
SENEAM 1,607.00 1.77%
skyguide 945.34
Slovenia Control 637.54 13.38%
SMATSA 879.62 -0.93% 3.61%
80
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
1: Oceanic Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours
ANSP KPI 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
Airways NZ 52.68 -0.96% -5.21%
DSNA 875.30
FAA ATO 81.86 -17.15% -6.03%
Isavia 196.39 7.94% 5.17%
NAV CANADA 57.79 4.70% -1.33%
2A: Oceanic ATCO in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS Hours
ANSP KPI 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
Airways NZ 101.89 -0.74% 2.80%
ATNS 11.97 5.33% 8.33%
DSNA 154.62
FAA ATO 158.21 0.41% 2.64%
Isavia 123.59 -4.28% -7.36%
NAV CANADA 117.01 -0.64% 4.74%
2A: Oceanic ATCO in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD), PPP adjusted
ANSP KPI KPI PPP 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
Airways NZ 101.89 93.89 -0.80% 2.24%
ATNS 11.97 27.69 1.81% 4.07%
DSNA 154.62 168.16
FAA ATO 158.21 158.21 0.41% 2.64%
Isavia 123.59 91.09 -4.68% -8.74%
NAV CANADA 117.01 121.65 -1.04% 4.55%
81
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
2B: Oceanic ATCO in OPS hour productivity Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours
ANSP KPI 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
Airways NZ 3.91 1.51% 7.76%
ATNS 0.16 14.96% -13.93%
DSNA 0.73
FAA ATO 6.52 9.36% 5.93%
Isavia 3.23 -3.88% 2.38%
NAV CANADA 6.93 2.16% 4.73%
2C: Oceanic Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD) Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours
ANSP KPI 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
Airways NZ 26.61 10.47% -5.32%
DSNA 662.77
FAA ATO 57.58 -18.53% -8.07%
Isavia 158.14 10.18% 11.20%
NAV CANADA 40.91 8.11% -1.86%
2D: Proportion of total costs made up of ATCO employment costs (USD) Formula: ATCO employment Costs / Total Costs
ANSP KPI 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
Airways NZ 0.495 -1.27% 0.63%
DSNA 0.243
FAA ATO 0.297 10.81% 3.11%
Isavia 0.195 -7.75% -13.97%
NAV CANADA 0.292 -7.10% 1.36%
82
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
CO1: Combined Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs /IFR flight hours
ANSP KPI 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
AAI 80.92 6.68% -1.99%
AEROTHAI 347.90 2.23%
Airways NZ 288.31 2.57% 1.49%
ANS CR 580.02 4.18% 1.35%
ANS Finland 625.83 -7.18% 1.62%
ATNS 319.01 18.53% 6.86%
CAAS 363.88 2.17% 6.33%
DHMI 371.86
DSNA 675.55 -8.28% -2.56%
EANS 309.42
FAA ATO 423.03 -0.65% -1.36%
HungaroControl 464.48 -0.44% -2.02%
Isavia 199.20 9.57% 7.19%
JANS 519.09 -4.52% -3.38%
KCAA 138.60 -29.52%
LFV 445.97 -6.95% -0.62%
LGS 279.80 12.30% 10.61%
LPS SR 692.56 0.23% -1.33%
M-NAV 495.01
NAV CANADA 281.04 2.13% 0.68%
NAV Portugal 369.60 6.27% -3.25%
Oro navigacija 529.75 -0.64% 0.89%
PANSA 491.42 14.04% 5.57%
PNGASL 59.15 -13.88%
Sakaeronavigatsia 530.86 10.79% 12.44%
SENEAM 100.11 -1.75%
skyguide 1195.15
Slovenia Control 679.67 -7.42%
SMATSA 362.86 3.05% 0.43%
83
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
CO2D: Proportion of total costs made up of ATCO employment costs (USD) Formula: ATCO employment Costs / Total Costs
ANSP KPI 2016-2017 4 yr CAGR
AAI 0.326 23.50% 6.19%
AEROTHAI 0.278 5.39%
Airways NZ 0.370 1.10% -1.28%
ANS CR 0.238 0.49% 3.04%
ANS Finland 0.345 -15.16% 1.98%
ATNS 0.230 -12.55% -2.13%
DHMI 0.221
DSNA 0.304 8.27% 2.55%
EANS 0.275
FAA ATO 0.240 -1.67% 0.29%
HungaroControl 0.241 0.48% -2.04%
Isavia 0.223 -8.57% -11.34%
JANS 0.081 0.00% -1.71%
KCAA 0.665 93.75%
LFV 0.399 -14.89% 0.36%
LGS 0.235 -8.77% -2.48%
LPS SR 0.272 18.00% 6.10%
M-NAV 0.320
NAV CANADA 0.289 -4.53% -0.31%
NAV Portugal 0.421 5.78% -1.64%
Oro navigacija 0.238 -0.99% 1.68%
PANSA 0.347 2.74% -1.10%
PNGASL 0.796 35.46%
Sakaeronavigatsia 0.097 -12.20% 3.10%
SENEAM 0.355 -21.68%
skyguide 0.233
Slovenia Control 0.326 -3.57%
SMATSA 0.228 -3.40% 2.02%
84
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
ACC Area control centre
ADS-B Automatic dependent surveillance - broadcast
ADS-C Automatic dependent surveillance - contract
AG Annual growth
ANS Air navigation services
ANSP Air navigation service provider
ASBU Aviation System Block Upgrades
ATC Air traffic control
ATCO Air traffic controller
ATFM Air traffic flow management
ATM Air traffic management
APP Approach
ATSO Air traffic services officer
CAGR Compound annual growth rate
CAP Capacity
CEF Connecting Europe facility
CNS Communication, navigation and surveillance
ENV Environment
FAB Functional airspace block
FDPS Flight data processing system
FIR Flight information region
GAT General air traffic
IFR Instrument flight rules
IMF International Monetary Fund
Annex 4: Acronyms and abbreviations
85
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
KPI Key performance indicator
OPS Operations
PBN Performance based navigation
PPP Purchasing power parity
Q1 First quartile
Q3 Third quartile
SAF Safety
SES Single European sky
STATFOR EUROCONTROL’s Statistics and Forecast Service
86
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2018
Visit us: canso.org