civil air navigation services organisation Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 2012 - 2016 ANSP Performance Results The ANSP View
civil air navigation services organisation
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 20172012 - 2016 ANSP Performance Results
The ANSP View
2
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
The CANSO Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 is a collective and entirely voluntary benchmarking effort of CANSO Member air navigation service providers (ANSPs) which covers data from the ANSPs’ 2016 fiscal year and trend data between the 2012 and 2016 fiscal years.
Editorial TeamPaul Cripwell, NAV CANADA, current Chair of the Global Benchmarking Workgroup (GBWG)Siree Vatanavigkit, Aeronautical Radio of Thailand (AEROTHAI), incoming Chair of the GBWGHelios - CANSO Performance Benchmarking Project Team
ContributorsNigel Fitzhardinge, Airways NZKunthinee Karunratanakul, AEROTHAIKrishnan Udayabhanu Rao, Airports Authority of India (AAI)Kanhaya Lal, AAICarol Teo, Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS)Edmund Heng, CAASChristopher Gregg, Federal Aviation Administration - Air Traffic Organization (FAA-ATO)Dina Dolan, FAA-ATOAleksandra Damsz, FAA-ATOKristin Stadum, FAA-ATODiana Galgoczi, HungaroControlLivia Cseh, HungaroControlSigurleifur Kristjansson, ISAVIAAslaug Adalsteinsdottir, ISAVIAYoshiaki Dei, Japan Air Navigation Service (JANS)Liva Krigere, Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme (LGS)Bill Clark, NAV CANADAAna Pinto, NAV PortugalJolanta Wakulicz, Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA)Mindaugas Gustys, Oro NavigacijaTomas Tamašauskas, Oro NavigacijaAudrius Radzevičius, Oro NavigacijaTed Fudge, Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO)
DisclaimerThis report has been compiled using data provided by participating ANSPs. To facilitate comparability, data for each ANSP has been transformed to be consistent with standard definitions. The resulting data and comparisons have been produced solely for the use of ANSPs, and other interested parties, to assess and appraise performance in air navigation services (ANS) provision. It is not intended that the data from this report is used for any wider purpose, nor does the data provide a definitive assessment of any metric relating to ANSP processes.
December 2017
3
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
THE ANSP VIEW
Introduction: The ANSP View.......................................................................................................
Key Performance Indicators ........................................................................................................
Participants..................................................................................................................................
Methodology................................................................................................................................
Continental Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2016.....................................................................
Oceanic Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2016..........................................................................
Sources........................................................................................................................................
Acronyms and abbreviations.......................................................................................................
ANNEXES
Annex 1: Data definitions............................................................................................................
Annex 2: Contextual data...........................................................................................................
Annex 3: KPI Data.......................................................................................................................
page 4
page 5
page 6
page 8
page 10
page 19
page 26
page 68
page 27
page 29
page 56
page 6
page 7
page 9
page 10
page 11
page 12
page 13
page 14
page 15
page 16
page 17
page 18
page 19
page 20
page 21
page 22
page 23
page 24
page 25
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - List of participating ANSPs..........................................................................................
Figure 2 - Participating ANSPs Flight Hours................................................................................
Figure 3 - CANSO ANS performance framework........................................................................
Figure 4 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD).....................................................................................
Figrue 5 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)...............................
Figure 6 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, PPP adjusted (USD)........
Figure 7 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity.................................................................................
Figure 8 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)..............
Figure 9 - Annual ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD)............................................................
Figure 10 - Unit ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD) – PPP adjusted.....................................
Figure 11 - Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS.................................................................
Figure 12 - IFR hours per ATCO in OPS......................................................................................
Figure 13 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)...................................................................................
Figure 14 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD).............................
Figure 15 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) – PPP adjusted.....
Figure 16 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity...............................................................................
Figure 17 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)............
Figure 18 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)...................................................................................
Figure 19 - Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs.........................
4
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Background
This is the second part of CANSO’s Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017.
It contains performance indicators for identified air navigation service providers (ANSPs) for the year 2016, along with trend data between the 2012 and 2016 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 provided with the contextual data that also provides insights on the results of the participating ANSPs.
For the key messages and an overview of the industry as a whole, please see the Executive Summary.
Introduction: The ANSP View
5
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Key Performance Indicators
The following section presents 2016 and 2012-2016 trend data for both continental and oceanic activities in line with the CANSO ANS Performance Framework levels 1-3 (see page [12]), as well as an additional KPI on the employment cost of air traffic controllers (ATCOs) in operations (OPS) as a percentage of total cost.
Notes on this year’s KPIs
This year Airways New Zealand provided data for two financial years (July 2016 - June 2017 and July 2015 - June 2016). This allows better alignment with localised reporting and provides more relevant benchmarking opportunities for other ANSPs. As the report’s trend data is between those two submissions, it is however not possible to compare trend data in this year’s report with the same metrics included in last year’s report, which were for July 2014 - June 2015 only.
Indicator KPI Numerator Denominator Figure References
Cost Efficiency and Productivity Performance IndicatorsContinental Oceanic
2016 / Trend
2016
1 Cost per IFR flight hour
Total Cost IFR flight hours Figure 4 Figure 13
2A ATCOs in OPS Employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour
Employment costs for ATCOs in OPS
ATCOs in OPS hours
Figure 5, 6 Figure 14, 15
2B ATCOs in OPS hour productivity
IFR flight hours ATCOs in OPS hours
Figure 7 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 8 Figure 17
3A Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS
Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS
ATCOs in OPS Figure 9, 10
3B Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS
ATCOs in OPS hours
ATCOs in OPS Figure 11
3C Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS
IFR flight hours ATCOs in OPS Figure 12
Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost Efficiency Performance IndicatorsContinental and Oceanic
2016 / Trend
CO1 Cost per IFR flight hour
Total Cost IFR flight hours Figure 18
CO2 Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs
Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS
Total Cost Figure 19
6
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Participants
The following ANSPs opted into this report:
Note: ANSPs have the option to opt-in or opt-out of The ANSP View, which is why this list of participating ANSPs differs slightly from the participants list in the Executive Summary.
Region Member Label for Graphics
AfricaAir Traffic & Navigation Services ATNS
Civil Aviation Authority of Uganda CAUU
Kenya Civil Aviation Authority KCAA
AmericasCorporacion Centroamericana de Servicios de Navegacion COCESNA
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
Airways New Zealand Airways NZ
Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore CAAS
Japan Air Navigation Service JANS
Europe
Administration de la Navigation Aérienne ANA
Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic ANS CR
Devlet Hava Meydanları ččletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü DHMI
Estonian Air Navigation Services EANS
Finavia Finavia
HungaroControl Pte.Ltd. Co. HungaroControl
Isavia Ltd ISAVIA
Luftfartsverket LFV
Latvijas gaisa satiksme LGS
Letové Prevádzkové Služby LPS
Navegação Aérea de Portugal - NAV Portugal, E.P.E NAV Portugal
SE Oro Navigacija Oro Navigacija
PANSA Polish Air Navigation Services Agency PANSA
Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration ROMATSA
Sakaeronavigatsia Ltd Sakaeronavigatsia
Slovenia Control Slovenia Control
Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services SMATSA IIc SMATSA
Figure 1 - List of participating ANSPs
7
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP Total IFR Flight Hours 2016 (Continental)
Growth IFR Flight Hours (Continental)
Total IFR Flight Hours 2016 (Oceanic)
Growth IFR Flight Hours (Oceanic)
FAA-ATO 23,798,765 2% 1,985,454 5%
AAI 3,075,221 15%
NAV CANADA 2,901,807 1% 618,626 7%
JANS 2,261,685 4%
SENEAM 1,407,217
DHMI 1251491 -1%
AEROTHAI 748,521 11%
LFV 431,832 0%
CAAS 430,087 5%
PANSA 426,110 6%
NAV Portugal 398,024 11%
ROMATSA 338,782 -3%
ATNS 284,204 5% 8,879 -10%
Airways NZ 265,211 3% 117,212 9%
ANS CR 251,992 4%
HungaroControl 238,135 3%
SMATSA 237,951 5%
Finavia 105,306 -6%
LPS 97,738 4%
LGS 78,990 2%
KCAA 73,758 1%
EANS 67,869 1%
Oro Navigacija 54,469 -2%
Sakaeronavigatsia 50,914 0%
Slovenia Control 50,608 1%
Isavia 30,124 11% 260,088 11%
ANA 21,600
CAAU 18,448
COCESNA
Figure 2 - Participating ANSPs Flight Hours
8
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Methodology
Data collection: CANSO ANSP Members provided data for this analysis. Data submission has been greatly simplified this year. The submission of data has initially focussed on the data required for this report, while additional data to support the trial KPIs is being collected on a different schedule.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.
Data processing: Data has been processed by Helios. 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 vast oceans.
Exchange rate conversion: ANSPs submit data in their chosen currency. For KPI comparison, data is presented in USD. 2016 KPI data is converted using the Bank of England 2016 exchange rates (average rate during the year) – where available – and supplemented with the 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 2012 and 2016, 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 2016 and then for the one-year and four-year trends. The four-year trend1 is calculated as the compound annual growth rate (CAGR)2. The use of a CAGR shows clearly the overall trend between 2012 and 2016. 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 2012 was an outlier, this trend may not be representative of the trend over this timeframe.
The trend analysis is presented above the 2016 KPI data, and is based on the data submitted in the ANSP’s chosen currency. As a result, it is impossible to reverse engineer the USD metrics in 2016’s report, using this report.
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 and the third quartile (Q3) is the middle value between the median and the highest value of the data set. The median is defined as the value separating the upper half of the data from the lower half.
1The four-year trend uses five years of data and four years in growth terms.2The compound annual growth rate is calculated by taking the nth root of the total percentage growth rate, where n is the number of years in the period being considered.
9
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
CANSO ANS Performance Framework
The cost efficiency and productivity indicators for continental and oceanic services in line with the CANSO ANS Performance Framework.
It is important to note the dependence of the higher tier metrics on the lower tier ones. This can be established as follows:
Figure 3 – CANSO ANS performance framework
1= 2A2B
+ 2C
2A= 3A3B
2B= 3C3B
10
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Figure 4 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)
Continental Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2016
2016 Continental – Cost efficiency
Indicator 1: Cost per IFR hour (USD)
Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours
The 2016 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 416.
The main driver behind CAAS’ increase in this metric was an influx of ATCOs employed in preparation for Singapore’s new three-runway system and anticipated increase in traffic at Changi Airport. This led to increased employment and training costs.
It should be noted that, regarding depreciation, JANS accounts for the cost of facilities, systems and equipment related to air navigation services, and this affects this indicator as well as indicators 2C, CO1 and CO2.
Isavia’s costs were driven up by a new salary agreement with the ATCOs, which resulted in an increase in total salary cost of approximately 25% for 2016 compared with 2015.
11
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2016 Continental - Cost efficiency
Indicator 2A: ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD)
Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS hours
Figure 5 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)
The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour is USD 80.
AAI’s reduction in this metric is due to a policy decision to increase the working hours of ATCOs in OPS, which drove a 16% increase in ATCO hours.
The increase in ANS CR’s metric is a result of bonuses that were paid to ATCOs due to their higher workload and additional effort resulting from the increase in air traffic recorded in 2016 in the airspace of the Czech Republic. All the bonuses were paid in accordance with a collective agreement. Moreover, the increase in air traffic led to more overtime work by ATCOs in 2016.
12
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
The reason for the significant change in Sakaeronavigatsia’s metric from last year is a decrease in ATCO hours, driven by a new order issued by the Georgian Civil Aviation Agency decreasing annual working hours from 1728 to 1452, coupled with an increase in ATCO employment costs. This was a result of inflation in 2016 and, an increase in the number of employees; 12 ATCOs were recruited in FY2016.
Isavia’s increase is driven by the new salary agreement that was mentioned after Figure 4.
The increase in DHMI’s ATCO costs last year was due to the decision taken by the Ministry of Labor and Social Security during the Collective Labor Agreement Debates regarding an additional payment to staff of all public entities. This decision was also binding on DHMI due to which payment was made to all staff including ATCOs
Figure 6 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, PPP adjusted (USD)
The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, after PPP adjustment is USD 127.
13
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2016 Continental - Productivity
Indicator 2B: ATCOs in OPS hour productivity
Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours
Figure 7 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity
The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS hour productivity is 0.71.
Within Europe, traffic growth continued in 2016 with a shift towards the South-West axis. Consequently, one of the highest increases in overall traffic was observed in Portugal and NAV Portugal faced an increase in en-route traffic and high arrival/departures at airports of both FIRs. This has driven the increase in this metric.
For Isavia, the increase is a result of traffic increasing, while ATCO hours went down due to industrial action.
14
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Figure 8 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)
2016 Continental - Cost efficiency
Indicator 2C: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD)
Formula: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs / IFR flight hours
The 2016 average cost excluding ATCOs in operations employment cost per IFR flight hour is USD 296.
ATNS’ decrease in this metric is due to a deliberate cost containment decision, made in anticipation of zero increase in tariffs.
15
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Figure 9 - Annual ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD)
2016 Continental - Cost efficiency
Indicator 3A: Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS (USD)
Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / No. ATCOs in OPS
The 2016 average unit ATCO in OPS employment cost is USD 121,021.
The increase in employment cost for NAV CANADA is related to the increase in traffic that resulted in an increase in the number of shifts required to meet this demand and the use of overtime to fill these shifts.
16
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Figure 10 - Unit ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD) – PPP adjusted
The 2016 average unit ATCO in OPS employment cost, after PPP adjustment, is USD 192,241.
17
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Figure 11 - Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS
The 2016 average annual working hours per ATCO in OPS is 1,593 hours.
The reduction in Sakaeronavigatsia’s metric is due to a new order issued by the Georgian Civil Aviation Agency decreasing annual working hours from 1728 to 1452.
AAI’s change in this metric is due to the policy decision to increase the working hours of ATCOs in OPS.
The change in Isavia’s metric is due to industrial action.
The 3% growth in AEROTHAI’s metric corresponds to the 11% growth in IFR flight hours.
2016 Continental - Productivity
Indicator 3B: Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS
Formula: ATCOs in OPS hours / No. ATCOs in OPS
18
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2016 Continental - Productivity
Indicator 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 2016 average annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS is 1,101 IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS.NAV Portugal’s increase in this metric was, as before, driven by a significant increase in traffic.
19
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Oceanic Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2016
2016 Oceanic - Cost efficiency
Indicator 1: Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)
Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours
Figure 13 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)
The 2016 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 90. For comparison, this figure for continental flights is USD 416.
20
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2016 Cost efficiency - Oceanic
Indicator 2A: ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs hour (USD)
Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS Hours
Figure 14 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)
The 2016 oceanic average employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is USD 122. For comparison, the figure for continental airspace is USD 79. This figure is, however, skewed by the smaller number of ANSPs participating in this report that service oceanic airspace. For comparison, the average figure for continental airspace for the ANSPs above is USD 113.
The explanation for Isavia’s increase is the same as for the continental indicator: the new salary agreement with the controllers.
Note, the fact that FAA-ATO ATCO in OPS employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is higher for oceanic than continental stems from the higher cost of living in the areas that cover oceanic traffic.
21
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Figure 15 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) – PPP adjusted
The 2016 oceanic average employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is USD 118. For comparison, the average figure for continental airspace is USD 127.
22
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2016 Oceanic - Productivity
Indicator 2B: ATCOs in OPS hour productivity
Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours
Figure 16 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity
The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS hour productivity is 4.1 IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS hours, significantly higher than the continental figure of 0.71.
As would be expected, traffic volumes in oceanic airspaces vary considerably between flight information regions (FIR). NAV CANADA and FAA-ATO exhibit the higher volumes, while ATNS has very little oceanic traffic but must still provide basic coverage at all times.
23
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Figure 17 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)
The 2016 average cost excluding ATCOs in operations employment cost per IFR flight hour is 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 costs – excluding ATCO costs – for oceanic flights.
2016 Oceanic - Cost efficiency
Indicator 2C: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD)
Formula: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs / IFR flight hours
24
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost efficiency: 2016
Figure 18 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)
2016 Continental and Oceanic - Cost efficiency
Indicator CO1: Cost per IFR hour (USD)
Formula: Total costs /IFR flight hours
The 2016 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 409. Compare this average value to that from Figure 4 – Cost per IFR flight hour (continental) – where the average value is USD 416, which, as last year, reflects the influence of a small number of ANSPs that have oceanic services with significantly lower unit costs.
25
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2016 Continental and Oceanic - Cost efficiency
Indicator CO2: Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs
Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / Total costs
Figure 19 - Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs
The 2016 average employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs is 29%.
26
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Sources
Definitions: EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V2.6 EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V3.0
Exchange rate data:
IMF World Economic Outlook database:
www.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
www.xe.com/currencytables/
www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/index.aspx
27
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Annex 1: Data Definitions
Contextual Data Element Definitions
Data Element DefinitionsIFR hours per sq. km This 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 FIRs A Flight Information Region is airspace of defined dimensions within which flight information service and alerting service are provided.
Number of ACC facilities ACC 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. 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.
28
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Input Data Definitions
Data Element DefinitionsTotal Costs The sum of operating costs, depreciation/amortisation 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 hours Total number of controlled IFR flight hours in continental and oceanic airspace.
ATCO hours Total 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 Costs - 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.
29
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Annex 2: Contextual Data
ANSP: AEROTHAI
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
The traffic growth along with limitations in airspace infrastructure are the main drivers for operational/airspace organisation improvements, air traffic flow management and increased safety measures.
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Thailand Modernization CNS/ATM System (TMCS) project which is a nation-wide ANS infrastructure enhancement, and deployment of service improvement projects in accordance with applicable Aviation System Block Upgrades (ASBU) strategies and APAC Seamless ATM Plan.
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.
Slower traffic growth rate compare to 2015 was due to the limited capacity of the airspace and infrastructure. AEROTHAI is working on enhancing capacity while maintaining and improving safety standard.
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. 0.9624
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
30
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
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, and 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, optimisation 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 Partially continental, partially oceanic
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
49
Number of stand-alone towers 7
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
12
31
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
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 ops 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 2015, 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 dataIFR 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
32
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Administration de la navigation aérienne
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Single European Sky (SES) performance targets and regulation; functional airspace block (FAB) performance targets and projects; and European SES Implementation Plan (ESSIP).
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Annual setting / reviewing of KPI´s and PI´s as per service areas in KPAs: safety, capacity, environment, and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF); specific targets and actions are monitored.
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.
2015 = first year of applying SES performance plan and establishing a full set of KPIs helped to improve performance.
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. 5.4
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 4,000
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
0%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
0%
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
1
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
1
Number of stand-alone towers 0
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
33
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
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 2015 to 2019. Objectives cover 4 KPAs: safety, environment, capacity and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF).
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 2015, 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 2016.
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. 3.3353
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 76,300
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
3
Number of stand-alone towers 1
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
34
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Air Traffic & Navigation Services
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
To provide safe, expeditious and efficient air traffic management solutions and associated services, whilst ensuring long-term economic, social and environmental sustainability.
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. 0.0304 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 the centres
35
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore
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. 0.512
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
36
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Civil Aviation Authority of Uganda
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Yes. It aims at delivering a range of services to ensure the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic within the Ugandan airspace.
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Business, tourism and UN operations.
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Airspace redesign, installation/modification of ANS facilities, training of staff and airport expansion to comply with ICAO ASBU and implementation of performance based navigation (PBN).
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. 0.07
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 249,690
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100% radar coverage within 180 nautical miles (NM) radius from NN and 90% coverage outside 180NM
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100% radar coverage within 180 NM NN and 90% radar coverage beyond 180 NM NN
Number of FIRs 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 1 Located at Entebbe
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
None
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
1 Entebbe airport
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
1
Number of stand-alone towers 2 Entebbe and Gulu airports
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
37
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.
Overflights continued to rise in a context of important changes in traffic patterns due to airspace closures in Iraq and Syria. New procedures for approach, arrival and departure were implemented at 8 airports.
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. 1.2744
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
2
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
44
Number of stand-alone towers
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
38
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Federal Aviation Administration – Air Traffic Organization
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. 1.6045 0.0327
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
39
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: 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 projects, 2. For Finavia rostering principles review, 3. Investment / procurement programmes, 4. Staff reductions.
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Preparation of corporatisation (separate ANS and airports businesses in individual companies in 2017).
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.
Less traffic than expected resulting in less income.
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. 0.2562
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
0%
Number of FIRs 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 1 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 18
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
1
40
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
The main driver of 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 sectorisation in order to minimise delay and overtime of ATCOs.
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.
Increased traffic due to the Ukrainian 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.
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
41
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Isavia Ltd
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Safety.
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Upgrading of our flight data processing system (FDPS) and associated systems.
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. 0.0632 Combined oceanic
and continental
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 5,400,000 Combined oceanic and continental
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100% 30%
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
100% 80%
Number of FIRs 1 2 BIRD/BGGL
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
1 1 Combined continental/oceanic/ approach
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
1
Number of stand-alone towers 2
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
42
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Japan Air Navigation Service
In your opinion what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Drivers: Accommodating increasing air traffic demand particularly in Tokyo metropolitan region Issues: Restrictions on airspace/flight routes due to noise abatement.
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Implementation of integrated ATC data processing system and airspace reformation.
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.
The (actual) flight hours in Fukuoka FIR have increased 4% compared to the previous year. In particular, the international flights and over flights have grown 7% and 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. 0.2692
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
Facilities
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
14
Number of stand-alone towers 19
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
43
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Kenya Civil Aviation Authority
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
To plan, develop, manage, regulate and operate a safe, economically sustainable and efficient civil aviation system in Kenya, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act, 2013.
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
To provide a safe, efficient and effective civil aviation.
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Implementation of SMS, upgrade of communication, navigation and surveillance (CNS) equipment.
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.
N/A
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 796,844
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only
100% radar
Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only
12.5% ADS-C
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
3
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
44
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Luftfartsverket (LFV)
Contextual data element Continental Comments
Operational data IFR hours per sq. km. 0.6887
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 1
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
21
Number of stand-alone towers
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
45
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
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.
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.
No.
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.
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 95,200
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
0
Number of stand-alone towers 1
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
46
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
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 a long-term demand for air transport and maintain a safe, fast and orderly flow of air traffic at the same time
3. To minimise 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?
The projects related to improvement of voice communication capabilities have been launched.
Procurement of the radio system for 8,33 kHz air - ground voice channel spacing and VoIP implementation started in 2015 and the pilot project for optimisation of voice communicationsystems and IP networks was initiated in 2016.
Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.
The Government elections followed by the change of Head of the Ministry of Transport.
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. 2.0069
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
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
47
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: NAV CANADA
Legal status:
A private sector company that is owned and/or operated by private interests to provide the service on behalf of the government, either by statute or contract.
Contextual data element Continental Oceanic Comments
Operational data IFR hours per sq. km. 0.1860 0.2015
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
48
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
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 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.
Portuguese FIRs suffered significant and unexpected traffic increases again in 2016.
Legal status:
A company established as a public-private partnership to provide the service on behalf of the government, and part-owned by the government.
Contextual data element Continental Oceanic Comments
Operational data IFR hours per sq. km. 0.5840
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
49
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Oro navigacija
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Performance scheme, political situation (for example sanctions for Russia).
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.
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 74,700
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%
Number of FIRs 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
3
Number of stand-alone towers 1
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
50
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: PANSA Polish Air Navigation Services Agency
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. 2016 traffic growth (movements) 7.5% compared to 2.8% base forecast and 4.5% high forecast (statistics and forecast data for 2016).
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
As a part of improving the comprehensive airspace management, the first stage of the vertical split in FIR Warsaw was implemented. It is based on current GAT ACC sectors in two layers. The expected outcome of implementing a vertical split: 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 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic
Revision of the Baltic Functional Airspace Block Performance Plan for Air Navigation Services for second reference period (2015-2019) concerns only the cost-efficiency KPA. Following partial closure of the Ukrainian airspace, Poland lost a lot of overflying heavy traffic (A380, B747, B777) going from North/West to the South/East, crossing southern half of Warsaw FIR. Poland is still experiencing an increase in lighter traffic; however, there is a significant discrepancy between the dynamics of service units and movements due to the above-mentioned change in aircraft structure and routes used.
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. 1.2760
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
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
51
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
ANSP: Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration
Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?
Yes.
In your opinion, what are the main drivers or issues for performance within your region?
Main issues: variability of traffic, EU/national regulatory constraints, significant deviation of inflation (actual vs. forecast).
What are the main initiatives you are undertaking to improve your performance?
Performance Scheme Regulation and associated KPAs/KPIs.
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. 1.3338
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 254,000
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 1
Facilities
Number of ACC facilities 1
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
0
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
2
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
0
Number of stand-alone towers 16
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
52
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
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. 0.5701
Sq. km. – oceanic and continental 89,300
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 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
0
Number of stand-alone towers 0
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
0
53
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Contextual data element Continental Oceanic Comments
Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.
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 0
Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities
4 2 APP facilities radar2 APP facilities non-radar
Number of stand-alone approach facilities
32 4 located within the ACC are not included
Number of co-located approach and tower facilities
23
Number of stand-alone towers 0
Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities
4
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 2015, 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.
54
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
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 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.
No.
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. 2.5304 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
55
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
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 2015, 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
56
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
Annex 3: KPI Data
1: Continental Cost per IFR hour (USD)
Formula: Total costs (USD) / IFR flight hours
ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 453.28 0.00% -1.20%
AAI 62.65 1.34%
NAV CANADA 315.54 -2.48% 1.09%
JANS 551.46 -4.26%
SENEAM 100.71
DHMI 402.25 15.69%
AEROTHAI 333.63 -5.53%
LFV 507.53 -4.71% -0.12%
CAAS 355.59 13.20% 10.52%
PANSA 410.43 -1.93% 1.47%
NAV Portugal 339.68 -10.23% -8.66%
ROMATSA 528.07 9.60% 1.29%
ATNS 267.71 -1.68% 5.47%
Airways NZ 374.07 -1.21% 0.57%
ANS CR 533.85 -0.36% 1.44%
HungaroControl 451.49 2.56% -1.79%
SMATSA 338.45 -7.74% -1.21%
Finavia 658.47 2.61% 5.57%
LPS 674.80 -1.35% -1.51%
LGS 312.62 -2.84% 5.00%
KCAA 200.12 -9.75%
EANS 298.88 3.72% 6.96%
Oro navigacija 566.32 10.81% 2.56%
Sakaeronavigatsia 504.00 7.35% 6.14%
Slovenia Control 717.00 1.75% 2.63%
Isavia 159.76 22.91%
ANA 800.17
57
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2A: Continental ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS hours
ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 119.31 1.51% 2.73%
AAI 16.25 -6.27%
NAV CANADA 113.76 7.39% 3.79%
JANS 40.39 -0.10%
SENEAM 36.08
DHMI 68.95 25.61%
AEROTHAI 28.18 6.49%
LFV 123.68 6.63%
PANSA 106.68 3.45% 0.54%
NAV Portugal 121.68 -4.87% -7.25%
ROMATSA 109.13 9.27% 12.35%
ATNS 34.24 13.44% 7.27%
Airways NZ 91.32 -1.79% 3.84%
ANS CR 110.82 13.20% 7.54%
HungaroControl 110.82 6.80% 5.01%
SMATSA 60.70 8.20% 4.01%
Finavia 104.86 -0.94% 6.70%
LPS 113.15 -0.40% 6.67%
LGS 42.61 0.16% 6.19%
KCAA 22.39 -0.73%
EANS 66.77 1.36% 11.17%
Oro navigacija 50.87 2.26% 4.29%
Sakaeronavigatsia 20.04 22.33% 19.13%
Slovenia Control 96.08 3.18% 3.47%
Isavia 126.44 46.15%
ANA 132.51
58
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2A: Continental ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD), PPP adjusted
ANSP KPI KPI PPPFAA-ATO 119.31 119.31
AAI 16.25 59.72
NAV CANADA 113.76 121.20
JANS 40.39 43.06
SENEAM 36.08 81.55
DHMI 68.95 162.07
AEROTHAI 28.18 79.93
LFV 123.68 121.85
PANSA 106.68 235.38
NAV Portugal 121.68 178.76
ROMATSA 109.13 253.57
ATNS 34.24 84.96
Airways NZ 91.32 86.28
ANS CR 110.82 200.18
HungaroControl 110.82 234.65
SMATSA 60.70 159.64
Finavia 104.86 102.98
LPS 113.15 211.47
LGS 42.61 76.63
KCAA 22.39 50.96
EANS 66.77 108.46
Oro navigacija 50.87 100.25
Sakaeronavigatsia 20.04 52.86
Slovenia Control 96.07 145.63
Isavia 126.45 105.78
ANA 132.51 130.70
59
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2B: Continental ATCOs in OPS hour productivity Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours
ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 1.08 3.38% 3.03%
AAI 0.85 -1.09%
NAV CANADA 1.19 1.98% 2.37%
JANS 0.90 6.79%
SENEAM 0.79
DHMI 0.81 0.07%
AEROTHAI 0.32 5.31%
LFV 0.52 -0.27% 0.60%
CAAS 0.65 -4.14% -4.60%
PANSA 0.77 4.88% -1.05%
NAV Portugal 0.90 13.25% 5.54%
ROMATSA 0.64 1.70% 4.13%
ATNS 0.50 7.47% -0.44%
Airways NZ 0.68 8.08% 7.08%
ANS CR 0.88 3.80% 2.47%
HungaroControl 0.89 6.49% 5.27%
SMATSA 0.76 11.13% 1.66%
Finavia 0.39 -5.77% -3.87%
LPS 0.73 2.03% 4.42%
LGS 0.68 1.51% -2.70%
KCAA 0.33 -7.13%
EANS 0.76 -3.00% 4.78%
Oro navigacija 0.41 1.72% -0.35%
Sakaeronavigatsia 0.36 10.44% 2.88%
Slovenia Control 0.40 3.16% 1.02%
Isavia 1.51 25.04%
ANA 0.44
60
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
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 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 342.61 0.60% -1.49%
AAI 43.46 4.54%
NAV CANADA 220.27 -5.50% 0.96%
JANS 506.77 -4.06%
SENEAM 55.08
DHMI 316.89 13.30%
AEROTHAI 245.52 -7.71%
LFV 268.36 -4.34%
PANSA 271.73 -2.22% 1.40%
NAV Portugal 204.43 -5.96% -5.95%
ROMATSA 356.30 10.68% -1.26%
ATNS 199.32 -3.94% 4.74%
Airways NZ 240.68 3.80% 2.89%
ANS CR 407.43 -2.96% 0.46%
HungaroControl 327.51 3.45% -2.35%
SMATSA 258.60 -9.21% -2.19%
Finavia 390.76 0.95% 2.53%
LPS 519.10 -1.04% -2.50%
LGS 250.04 -3.21% 4.08%
KCAA 131.47 -16.53%
EANS 211.40 3.40% 7.32%
Oro navigacija 441.40 14.12% 2.01%
Sakaeronavigatsia 448.17 6.59% 5.19%
Slovenia Control 474.66 2.66% 2.74%
Isavia 75.92 30.34%
ANA 500.30
ANA 0.44
61
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
3A: Continental Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / No. ATCOs in OPS
ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 216432 2.82% 3.20%
AAI 31728 -1.18%
NAV CANADA 187174 8.63% 5.01%
JANS 81382 -0.10%
SENEAM 72065
DHMI 82748 16.95%
AEROTHAI 86093 9.34%
LFV 219277 8.93%
PANSA 115662 0.20% 0.27%
NAV Portugal 218826 -5.29% -7.40%
ROMATSA 131960 6.30% 11.32%
ATNS 56177 12.14% 7.13%
Airways NZ 124560 -1.79% 3.84%
ANS CR 167668 13.35% 7.86%
HungaroControl 172659 5.81% 4.41%
SMATSA 70892 4.62% 2.80%
Finavia 154899 1.27% 6.40%
LPS 170992 -1.04% 7.01%
LGS 53731 0.24% 8.36%
KCAA 32248 -0.73%
EANS 104159 1.36% 9.30%
Oro navigacija 82812 2.40% 5.27%
Sakaeronavigatsia 27870 10.35% 11.88%
Slovenia Control 136271 2.62% 3.45%
Isavia 210458 30.36%
ANA 137814
62
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
3A: Continental Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS (USD), PPP adjusted
ANSP KPI KPI PPPFAA-ATO 216432 216432
AAI 31728 116593
NAV CANADA 187174 199410
JANS 81382 86759
SENEAM 72065 162907
DHMI 82748 194493
AEROTHAI 86093 244193
LFV 219277 216037
PANSA 115662 255199
NAV Portugal 218826 321480
ROMATSA 131960 306610
ATNS 56177 139382
Airways NZ 124560 117691
ANS CR 167668 302868
HungaroControl 172659 365573
SMATSA 70892 186464
Finavia 154899 152120
LPS 170992 319576
LGS 53731 96636
KCAA 32248 73379
EANS 104159 169201
Oro navigacija 82812 163182
Sakaeronavigatsia 27870 73535
Slovenia Control 136271 206558
Isavia 210458 176068
ANA 137814 135930
63
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
3B: Continental Annual working hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: ATCOs in OPS hours / No. ATCOs in OPS
ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 1814 1.28% 0.46%
AAI 1952 5.43%
NAV CANADA 1645 1.15% 1.18%
JANS 2015 0.00%
SENEAM 1998
DHMI 1200 -6.90%
AEROTHAI 3055 2.68%
LFV 1773 0.23% 2.15%
CAAS 1819 0.00% 0.00%
PANSA 1084 -3.14% -0.26%
NAV Portugal 1798 -0.44% -0.16%
ROMATSA 1209 -2.72% -0.91%
ATNS 1641 -1.15% -0.13%
Airways NZ 1364 0.00% 0.00%
ANS CR 1513 0.13% 0.30%
HungaroControl 1558 -0.93% -0.57%
SMATSA 1168 -3.31% -1.16%
Finavia 1477 2.23% -0.28%
LPS 1511 -0.64% 0.32%
LGS 1261 0.08% 2.04%
KCAA 1440 0.00%
EANS 1560 0.00% -1.69%
Oro navigacija 1628 0.14% 0.94%
Sakaeronavigatsia 1391 -9.79% -6.08%
Slovenia Control 1418 -0.54% -0.01%
Isavia 1664 -10.80%
ANA 1040
64
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
3C: Continental Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: IFR flight hours / No. ATCOs in OPS
ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 1955.54 4.70% 3.51%
AAI 1653.35 4.27%
NAV CANADA 1964.66 3.15% 3.58%
JANS 1821.00 6.79%
SENEAM 1579.37
DHMI 969.40 -6.84%
AEROTHAI 977.18 8.13%
LFV 916.84 -0.04% 2.77%
CAAS 1175.10 -4.14% -4.60%
PANSA 833.87 1.59% -1.31%
NAV Portugal 1617.98 12.75% 5.37%
ROMATSA 768.21 -1.07% 3.17%
ATNS 821.40 6.23% -0.57%
Airways NZ 933.84 8.08% 7.08%
ANS CR 1326.27 3.94% 2.78%
HungaroControl 1392.60 5.50% 4.67%
SMATSA 887.88 7.45% 0.48%
Finavia 578.61 -3.67% -4.14%
LPS 1098.18 1.37% 4.75%
LGS 858.59 1.59% -0.71%
KCAA 469.80 -7.13%
EANS 1190.68 -3.00% 3.01%
Oro navigacija 662.88 1.86% 0.58%
Sakaeronavigatsia 499.15 -0.37% -3.38%
Slovenia Control 562.31 2.61% 1.00%
Isavia 2510.33 11.54%
ANA 459.57
CAAU 200.52
65
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
1: Oceanic Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours
ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 96.15 -2.71% -2.18%
NAV CANADA 54.08 -10.99% -1.29%
Airways NZ 49.53 -3.81% -4.88%
Isavia 160.96 4.95%
2A: Oceanic ATCO in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD)
Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS Hours
2B: Oceanic ATCO in OPS hour productivity
Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours
ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 157.57 -0.69% 2.67%
NAV CANADA 115.38 3.51% 1.32%
Airways NZ 100.17 -1.69% 3.04%
Isavia 114.22 27.93%
ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 6.18 3.81% 4.56%
NAV CANADA 6.79 3.94% 4.39%
ATNS 0.16 14.09% -14.09%
Airways NZ 3.85 13.93% 1.51%
Isavia 3.36 -1.71%
2A: Oceanic ATCO in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD), PPP adjusted
ANSP KPI KPI PPPFAA-ATO 157.57 157.5672
NAV CANADA 115.38 122.9196
Airways NZ 100.17 94.64606
Isavia 114.22 95.55947
66
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
2C: Oceanic Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD) Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours
ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 70.67 -2.10% -2.31%
NAV CANADA 37.08 -15.12% -0.49%
Airways NZ 23.51 10.19% -10.10%
Isavia 126.97 -0.22%
CO1: Combined Cost per IFR hour (USD)
Formula: Total costs /IFR flight hours
ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 425.78 -0.26% -1.40%
AAI 62.65 1.34%
NAV CANADA 269.60 -3.58% 0.75%
JANS 551.46 -4.26%
SENEAM 100.71
DHMI 402.25 15.69%
AEROTHAI 333.63 -5.53%
LFV 507.53 -4.71% -0.12%
CAAS 355.59 13.20% 10.52%
PANSA 410.43 -1.93% 1.47%
NAV Portugal 339.68 -10.23% -8.66%
ROMATSA 528.07 9.60% 1.29%
ATNS 259.60 -1.20% 5.55%
Airways NZ 274.60 -2.64% 1.59%
ANS CR 533.85 -0.36% 1.44%
HungaroControl 451.49 2.56% -1.79%
SMATSA 338.45 -7.74% -1.21%
Finavia 658.47 2.61% 5.57%
LPS 674.80 -1.35% -1.51%
LGS 312.62 -2.84% 5.00%
KCAA 200.12 -9.75%
EANS 298.88 3.72% 6.96%
Oro navigacija 566.32 10.81% 2.56%
Sakaeronavigatsia 504.00 7.35% 6.14%
Slovenia Control 717.00 1.75% 2.63%
Isavia 160.83 6.54%
ANA 800.17
67
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
CO2: Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs (USD)
Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / Total costs
ANSP KPI 2015-2016 4 yr CAGRFAA-ATO 24% -1.81% 0.91%
AAI 31% -6.49%
NAV CANADA 30% 8.12% 0.22%
JANS 8% -2.29%
SENEAM 45%
DHMI 21% 8.50%
AEROTHAI 26% 7.05%
LFV 47% 6.12%
PANSA 34% 0.58% 0.13%
NAV Portugal 40% -6.42% -3.79%
ROMATSA 33% -1.97% 6.52%
ATNS 26% 3.39% 1.76%
Airways NZ 37% -8.14% -2.92%
ANS CR 24% 9.45% 3.46%
HungaroControl 27% -2.21% 1.57%
SMATSA 24% 5.53% 3.57%
Finavia 41% 2.46% 5.13%
LPS 23% -1.04% 3.73%
LGS 20% 1.56% 3.94%
KCAA 34% 18.44%
EANS 29% 0.75% -0.80%
Oro navigacija 22% -9.28% 2.04%
Sakaeronavigatsia 11% 3.18% 9.09%
Slovenia Control 34% -1.70% -0.20%
Isavia 24% 19.27%
ANA 37%
COCESNA 29%
68
Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View
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
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 Statistics and Forecasts
Annex 2: Contextual Data
TRANSFORMINGGLOBAL ATM PERFORMANCE
civil air navigation services organisation