SES Performance Scheme: Driving Performance

Report
SES Performance Scheme: Driving
Performance Improvement in European
ATM /ANS
CIPFA Meeting
Peter Grififths
PRB Chairman
15/10/2014
Performance Review Body
designated by
the European Commission
Content of the presentation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Performance Scheme (PS)
The Performance Review Body (PRB)
The Theory
ANS in aviation context
Performance Plans
US- EU OPS Comparison
Future performance improvements
Human Factor
Conclusions
Performance Review Body
2
The Performance Scheme (PS)
•
One of the key pillars of the SES by setting EU-Wide
and Local targets, performance monitoring and
corrective actions .
•
The PS is organised around fixed Reference Periods
(RP). RP1 runs 2012-2014, RP2 runs 2015-2019.
•
•
Targets set are legally binding for EU Member States.
The Performance Regulation principles:
– 4 Key Performance Areas (KPAs): Safety,
Capacity, Environment, Cost Efficiency.
– Incentives/cost efficiency linked with Charging Sch.
– Staff representation consultation .
Performance Review Body
3
The Performance Review Body (PRB)
•
The PRB Reports to the EC in accordance
with provisions of 390/2013 (the Performance
Regulation).
•
The purpose of the PRB is to assist the EC in
PS implementation and NSAs on request.
•
•
Competence, impartiality and independency.
Main key tasks are:
– Advise EC in setting EU-wide performance targets.
– Asses National/FAB Performance Plans (and the NM).
– Monitor the performance of the system in the 4 KPAs.
Performance Review Body
4
ANS in aviation context
16
Change 2013 vs. 2012 (min./dep.)
14
> 2250Kg MTOW)
2
1
2
1
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
minutes per departure
1
2012
3
2011
3
2004
3
4
2003
12
Accidents with ANS contribution
2013 (P)
Source: EASA
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2002
Number of accidents
Total commercial air transport (CAT) accidents and accidents with ANS contribution (fixed wing, weight
10
ATFCM (en route)
-0.06 
ANS-related
(airports)
0.00
ATFCM (Weather)
-0.01 
Weather (non
ATFCM)
0.07

Local Turn around -0.16
(airline, airport, etc.)

Reactionary

8
6
4
2
0
2010 2011 2012 2013
Safety
6%
6-12%
Punctuality
Environment
6%
6%
Financial
Estimated share of ANS-related CO2
emissions in Europe (2011)
Total
anthropogenic
CO2 emissions
in Europe
-0.10
Source. PRU analysis; CODA
Orders of magnitude
for illustrative purposes
Air Transport
6%
€200 B
3.5%
Share of aviation related CO2 emissions (Europe)
Share of aviation emissions actionable by ANS
Performance Review Body
Airports
€40 B
ANS
€8B
MIL
GA
Orders of magnitude of turnover
5
Reward
Management
Balancing
Process
Decisions
Unwanted
Event’s
Basic Adams Model of Risk
For further reading the reference text is: Risk John Adams UCL London 1995
ISBN 1-85728-067-9 HB and 1-85728-068-7 PB
Performance Review Body
6
We make decisions on opportunities and risks based
on perceptions from our culture. These perceptions
apply filters to our model.
Performance Review Body
7
The operating loops provide mechanisms which
provide systemic management of our companies. The
two loops must balance within a risk tolerance
boundary.
Performance Review Body
8
The two loops must balance within a risk tolerance
envelope. Corporate reporting systems ensure we
remain within the risk tolerance boundaries.
Performance Review Body
9
Performance Review Body
10
At the same time others are making similar decisions all of
which impact on others and you. Thus constant review is
necessary to ensure that the original decisions are still
correct.
Performance Review Body
11
Reasons causation (Swiss Cheese) model suggests
when these events line up unwanted events occur.
Along with the Adams model we can see how this
would happen. His investigation into accidents
holds true for other company internal or external
situations.
For further reading the reference text is: Reasons Accident Causation Model,
Prof Jim Reason, University of Manchester email: [email protected]
Performance Review Body
12
ANS in Aviation context



Airborne ANS
Flight-efficiency
En-route: 1.0 B
TMA, taxi: 1.2 B
ATFM Delays
ER: 0.5, Apt: 0.3
Total
User cost
(ground)
ATCO
2.2 B
0.8 B

2.0 B

€ 10.5 B
User
Charges
Support costs
Other staff
Other operating
3.5 B
€7.5 B
All KPAs but Safety expressed in economic terms
SES targets address all 3 KPAs (en-route) and Safety
Estimated TEC ≈ €10.5 B (SES area, 2012)
 ANS-related Airborne equipment to be added
 TEC fully borne by users of European airspace
Performance improvements, more accurate data,
different area (SES): lower TEC estimates
ATFM delay and flight-efficiency cost estimates must
not be interpreted as ANS inefficiency
 Trade-offs between KPAs
 Optimum is not 0: Minimise TEC
within acceptable bounds of safety and security
CAPEX
Depreciation
Cost of capital
Other costs
ECTL, MET, NSA
1.2 B
0.8 B
Estimated TEC 2012 (SES)
Performance Review Body
13
Performance Plans
1st Reference period (RP1)
Targets set
2010
European
targets
RP1
(EC/PRB)
2011
2012
2013
Nat./FAB
performance
plans RP2
(States)
National/FAB
performance
plans RP1
(States)
Consistency
with European
targets
(EC/PRB)
2014
European
targets
RP2
(EC/PRB)
Consistency
with
European
targets
RP2
2015
SES targets for
all 4 KPAs in RP2
(En-route)
Performance
also monitored
in TMA
(EC/PRB)
Monitoring
Performance Review Body
14
Performance Plans
0.9
4.0
0.8
3.0
0.7
2.0
0.6
1.0
Flightefficiency
Delays
Charges
14
2013 TRAFFIC 9.45 M (-0.8%)
12
0.0
2012
2011
6%
4%
2%
6
0%
STATFOR
7-year forecast
(SEP. 2013)
4
-4%
-6%
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
-8%
2000
2
1998
data source : EUROCONTROL/CRCO, CFMU (delay)
-2%
( before 1997, estimation based on Euro 88 traffic variation)
1996
Start of SES
PS RP1
12%
8%
8
1994
2010
2009
2008
2007
Start of SES
Performance
Scheme
Max. (2008)
10
1992
Performance
Review
Commission
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
Single
European Sky
1st package
14%
STATFOR
7-year forecast
(Feb. 2011)
10%
IFR flights (million)
ECAC
Institutional
Strategy
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
0.5
16%

STATFOR
7-year forecast
(Feb. 2008)
% annual growth (bars)
5.0
1990
1.0
€2009 per kilometre
6.0
En-route unit costs
Traffic in km (index: 1990=1)
En-route delay (summer)
All States in Route Charges
system
Minutes of en-route ATFM delay per flight and traffic index
1.1
source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR (ESRA2008)




Reactive policy in the 90’s: delays going up while costs going down, and vice-versa
Balanced performance-oriented approach; both delays and unit costs down since 2000
Enforceable SES targets apply from 2012 onwards
Fast traffic growth until 2008: challenge for capacity, but helps cost-efficiency
 Traffic growth much lower now, even negative: Easier for capacity, harder for cost-efficiency
Performance Review Body
15
Performance plans
Flightefficiency
Delays
SES States



Charges
Challenging SES targets for 2012-2013 were met and even exceeded
Best level ever achieved in ATFM delays!
Challenging target for 2014 and beyond (0.5 min/flight), close to optimum
Performance Review Body
16
Performance Plans
Target RP1
6.0
5.42
inefficiency (%)
5.0
5.38
5.18
5.15
Target RP2
5.11
4.67
Indicative KEP profile
4.10
4.0
3.0
3.29
3.17
3.12
2.60
Indicative KEA profile
2.0
1.0
SES area
0.0
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Flight plan (KEP) - actual
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Flown trajectory (KEA) - actual
Source: PRU analysis
Great Circle broken up using Achieved distance
•
•
Excellent routing efficiency of ANS, certainly best of all transport modes (~ 3%)
–
Yet significant economic impact (fuel burn, flight time)
–
Impossible to reach 0% with full civil-military traffic load
Delays
Carbon-neutral growth of aviation (IATA goal due in 2020) already being met by ANS!
Network Manager’s flight-efficiency initiative, aimed at reaching SES targets
–
•
Flightefficiency
Improvement in KEA compensates traffic growth (-21% from 2011 to 2019)
•
•
KEP (FPL) and KEA (actual) vs great circle
Charges
Role of airlines in closing gap between FPL and actual route (predictability)
Further environmental indicators needed (Vertical, CO2 efficiency…)
–
Would require inputs on optimum flight from AOC
Performance Review Body
17
Performance Plans
Higher DUC starting point (€58.1) than
DUR arising from aggregated RP1 plans
(€54.9) in 2014, mainly due to traffic
being significantly lower than planned.
65.0 63.7
60.0
58.4
Flightefficiency
58.1
57.8
56.7
€2009 per SU
2009-2019
2012-2019
2014-2019
% change in
Annual %
DUC
change in DUC
-22.9%
-2.6%
-16.0%
-2.5%
-15.5%
-3.3%
56.6
55.0
54.9
55.0
Delays
53.0
Charges
51.0
49.1
50.0
45.0
40.0
2009A
2010A
2011A
2012
2013
RP1 (2012-2014)


2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
RP2 (2015-2019)
Actual en-route unit costs €2009/SU
DURs from RP1 NPPs €2009/SU
Adopted RP2 cost-efficiency targets (Feb. 2014) €2009/SU
Starting point for RP2 cost-efficiency targets €2009/SU
Significant improvement under binding SES cost-efficiency targets
Spain played a large role in improvements from 2009 to 2012
Performance Review Body
18
Performance plans
TEC/flight (Base Traffic)
TEC/flight (Low traffic)
€900
TEC per flight (€ 2009)
€850
€800
Flightefficiency
~ 7.6B
Delays
€750
€700
Charges
€650
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
€600
Major savings from RP1-2 targets:
Some € 7.6B vs. 2012 baseline over RP2
Performance Review Body
19
US-EU OPS comparison
Performance Review Body
20
US-EU OPS comparison
Performance Review Body
21
US-EU OPS comparison
• European unit costs decreased -13% over 2002-2011
• But still some 50% above US in absolute terms (US 34% below Europe)
Total ATM/CNS provision Costs per Flight-Hour (€ 2011)
(% difference corresponds to US vs SES)
700
€ 2011
600
500
55% lower
42% lower
34% lower
400
300
200
100
Source: PRC analysis
-
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
US
265
271
260
267
279
285
310
346
358
354
SES
595
596
583
564
548
547
542
592
556
534
Europe
591
591
572
550
533
529
522
567
529
511
Performance Review Body
22
US-EU OPS comparison
Flight-hours
controlled
ATCO-hour
productivity
+55% in US
ATCOs
employment
Cost / flight-hour
ATCO in OPS
cost / ATCO-hour
-25% in US
ATCOs in OPS
working hours
Flexibility is key to ATCO
productivity
Support costs: high share,
mostly fixed,
opportunity for
rationalisation, must be
addressed!
Performance Review Body
Support costs
per flight-hour
Unit ATM/CNS
provision costs
- 48% in US
- 25% in US
- 34% in US
€85 €163
€269 €348
€354 €511
ATCOs in OPS
Employment
costs
+
Support
costs
ATM/CNS
provision costs
EUROCONTROL/PRU
23
Future performance improvements
Airborne ANS
Flight-efficiency
En-route: 1.0 B
TMA, taxi: 1.2 B
ATFM Delays
ER: 0.5, Apt: 0.3
Total
User cost
(ground)
ATCO
2.2 B
0.8 B
2.0 B
 Efficiency gains in individual ANSPs
 Airspace improvements (e.g. free routes)
 More flexible management of capacity to match
demand (ATCO contracts)
 New Technology
 PCP investment mostly on ground, can fit within current CAPEX
Main impact expected in TMA, airport traffic
 Future deployment must have clear positive CBA,
including Airborne ANS part of TEC
 Efficient SESAR deployment, e.g. joint procurement,
maintenance
€ 10.5 B
User
Charges
Support costs
Other staff
Other operating
3.5 B
€7.5 B
CAPEX
Depreciation
Cost of capital
Other costs
ECTL, MET, NSA
1.2 B
0.8 B
Estimated TEC 2012 (SES) 
Rationalisation of service provision and oversight,
including restructuring
 Very significant further performance
improvements achievable in true Single Sky
Performance Review Body
24
Human Factor (Cultural Filters)
•
•
•
•
One of SES 5 pillars
Staff consultation principle in PR
Key to any system drive to change
ATCO active involvement key to PS success:
– Consultation process
– Participation in safety improvement
– Introduction of new technology
– Process optimisation
Performance Review Body
25
Capacity (1/6) – Jan.-Sep.
2.5
Other [all other codes]
2.0
ATC other [codes IRTV]
Capacity/staffing [codes CSG]
Reference value (2012,2013), Target (2014)
1.5
1.0
0.5
Performance Review Body
2014
(JANSEP)
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
0.0
2008
En route ATFM delay per flight (min.)
Weather [codes W,D]
26
Environment – Jan.-Sep.
5.6%
5.42%
5.38%
5.4%
5.17%
5.2%
5.13%
5.11%
4.91%
5.0%
4.8%
4.6%
4.4%
4.2%
Baseline
2013
2012
Target
Actual
2014 (Jan.-Sep.)
Indicative profile
2011
2010
2009
4.0%
MODEL_TYPE
SES Area
Sum of KPI_CALC
5.4%
5.3%
5.2%
5.1%
5.0%
4.9%
AREA_NAME
4.8%
RP1
4.7%
4.5%
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
4.6%
2012
Performance Review Body
YEAR
MONTH
2013
2014
27
Cost-Efficiency – SU’s Jan-AUG
JAN-AUG
ACT (2014)
2014 vs. 2013 (ACT)
ACT vs. PP (2014)
Finland
Spain Canarias
Greece
Austria
Spain Continental
Germany
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Italy
Slovenia
Estonia
Poland
Denmark
Belgium/Lux
Czech Republic
Ireland
Sweden
France
Netherlands
Romania
Latvia
Portugal
Cyprus
Lithuania
Slovak Republic
Hungary
Norway
Bulgaria
Malta
518,775
991,363
3,040,725
1,746,657
5,927,507
8,561,267
957,830
6,749,403
5,726,059
304,734
518,541
2,712,752
1,030,752
1,575,998
1,628,958
2,640,357
2,179,647
12,549,102
1,854,724
2,726,359
513,440
2,032,428
947,795
322,549
709,424
1,560,582
1,464,654
1,758,499
502,700
1.8%
-0.8%
3.7%
5.2%
4.4%
2.2%
2.8%
3.3%
3.6%
7.6%
4.0%
-0.3%
2.0%
3.1%
2.4%
2.2%
3.0%
3.6%
3.1%
8.4%
6.5%
7.3%
4.5%
7.4%
7.5%
11.5%
9.3%
27.7%
2.7%
-16.6%
-16.2%
-13.3%
-12.3%
-10.6%
-9.5%
-9.0%
-8.6%
-7.3%
-6.7%
-6.6%
-4.5%
-3.2%
-3.1%
-2.8%
-2.6%
-2.6%
-2.6%
-0.3%
1.5%
2.2%
2.3%
3.5%
3.6%
4.1%
7.1%
21.7%
24.1%
24.4%
SES AREA (RP1)
73,753,578
4.2%
-4.7%
Performance Review Body
28
Conclusions
• Significant progress in European ANS performance
• Best ever ATFM delays achieved in 2013
• Flight-efficiency target leads to carbon-neutrality of aviation for ANS
• Unit costs going down significantly
• But margins exist for significant further improvements
• European unit costs still nearly 50% above US’s
• SES targets for RP1-RP2 bring very significant further improvements
• Balance between KPAs is essential
• Human factor
• Staff is the main asset to drive the change
• Win-win opportunity
• Change management is key to PS success
Performance Review Body
29

similar documents