The Netherlands Performance Plan RP1 2012 -2014 · The Netherlands Performance Plan – RP1 2012 -2014 ... Air Navigation Services Performance Plan The ... This document contains

[1], Netherlands Performance Plan (annex to FABEC PP) version 1.0.

The Netherlands Performance Plan – RP1

2012-2014


DOCUMENT SUMMARY

Objective : This document contains the Netherlands Performance Plan for the first reference period (2012-2014) on cost-efficiency and Military Mission Effectiveness as well as the additional national KPIs on capacity, environment and safety

Origin: NSA The Netherlands Audience : FABEC, European Commission

Title: Air Navigation Services Performance Plan The Netherlands, Reference period 1: 2012-2014

Reference: EU Regulation 691/2010, annex 2

Version: 1.0 Date: June 2011 Status : oDraft Released þ

Classification : þPublic o FABEC limited o Addressees limited

Electronic source

Host system Software Size

Microsoft Windows XP Microsoft Word 97-2003 Mb

DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD

Version Date Reason for changes Author of changes

0.1 04052011 First draft Saskia Brouwer

0.1.1 16052011 Second draft Saskia Brouwer/ Ad van der Westen

0.1.2 15/06/2011 Third draft Saskia Brouwer/ Ad van der Westen


Document sign off sheet Member States submitting this Performance Plan:

The Netherlands

Organisation Empowered by the MS

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

Names and signatures of Members States representatives

The Netherlands On behalf of

THE STATE SECRETARY OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND

THE ENVIRONMENT,

JOOP ATSMA

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL FOR CIVIL AVIATION AND

MARITIME AFFAIRS,

MARK DIERIKX


Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 8

1.1. The situation ................................................................................................................................. 8

1.1.a General Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8

1.1.b. Geographical Scope of the Plan ................................................................................................ 8

1.2. Overall assumptions for Reference Period 1 .............................................................................. 10

1.2.a General ..................................................................................................................................... 10

1.2.b Air Traffic Movements ............................................................................................................... 11

1.3. Overall Status of Aviation Safety and State Safety Programme................................................. 11

1.4. Institutional context ..................................................................................................................... 12

1.5. Description of the outcome of the Stakeholder Consultation Meetings ...................................... 13

2.National Performance Targets and Alert Thresholds ......................................................................... 15

2.1. National performance targets and alert thresholds in each performance area .......................... 15

2.1. (a) Safety targets and thresholds ................................................................................................ 15

2.1. (b) Capacity targets and thresholds ............................................................................................ 15

2.1. (c) Environment targets and thresholds ...................................................................................... 16

2.2. Cost efficiency in the FIR AMSTERDAM .................................................................................... 18

2.2.2a Determined nominal costs for en route ANS for the reference period 2012-2014 ................. 19

2.2.2b Determined en-route ANS costs in real terms ........................................................................ 21

2.2.3. Determined nominal costs for terminal ANS for the reference period 2012-2014 ................... 23

2.2.4 En route service units ............................................................................................................... 24

2.2.4 (a) En route service units forecast for each year of the reference period ............................... 24

2.2.4(b) Terminal service units forecast for each year of the reference period ................................. 25

2.2.5. Determined en route unit rate .................................................................................................. 25

2.2.6. Method of calculation of the determined en route unit rate in the FIR Amsterdam ................. 26

2.2.7. Local context and specificities of the determined unit rate in the FIR Amsterdam, achievements in the cost efficiency field in the past and shortcomings ............................................ 26

2.2.8. Description and justification of the return on equity of the air navigation service providers in relation to the actual risk incurred. ..................................................................................................... 27

2.2.9. National alert thresholds .......................................................................................................... 27

2.2.10. Description of investments necessary to achieve the performance targets with a description of their relevance in relation to the European ATM Masterplan and their coherence with the main areas and directions of progress and change set out therein. ........................................................... 27

2.2.11. Description and justification of the measures planned to achieve a lower proportion of debt financing and their timing. .................................................................................................................. 27

2.2.12. Description of the uncontrollable costs in line with Article 11a. 2 of Regulation (EC) 1794/2006. ......................................................................................................................................... 29

2.2.13. EU wide PIs on cost efficiency ............................................................................................... 30

2.2.14. KPIs on cost efficiency to be used in the second reference period The determined ............ 30

2.2.15. Reporting tables: .................................................................................................................... 30


2.3. Summary of the (additional) national KPIs. ................................................................................ 31

2.4.Consistency of the performance targets with the European Union-wide performance targets ... 31

2.5. Carry-overs from the years before RP1 ...................................................................................... 34

2.6. Parameters for risk sharing and incentives ................................................................................. 34

3.Contribution of each accountable entity ............................................................................................. 37

3.1. Entity ((x)) share in the national targets and individually binding performance targets. ............. 37

3.2. Incentive mechanism to be applied to entity x to encourage targets to be met over the reference period. ................................................................................................................................................ 37

4.Civil-military dimension of the plan ..................................................................................................... 39

4.1. Performance of the FUA concept ............................................................................................... 39

4.2. Additional KPI’s ........................................................................................................................... 40

5. Analysis of sensitivity and comparison with the previous Performance Plan .................................... 41

5.1.Sensitivity to external assumptions .............................................................................................. 41

5.2.Comparison with previous Performance Plan.............................................................................. 42

6. Implementation of the Performance Plan .......................................................................................... 43

6.1 Monitoring and reporting .............................................................................................................. 43

6.2.Appropriate measures .................................................................................................................. 43

6.3 Adaptation of the Performance Plan ............................................................................................ 44

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 45


Acronyms

AAS: Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

ACC: Area Control Centre

AFMU: Air Flow Management Unit

AIS: Aeronautical Information Services

AMC: Acceptable Means of Compliance

ANS: Air Navigation Services

ANSP: Air Navigation Service Provider

ATCO: Air Traffic Controller

ATFCM: Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management

ATFM: Air Traffic Flow Management

AFMU: Air Traffic Flow Management Unit

ATC: Air Traffic Control

ATM: Air Traffic Management

ATSP: Air Traffic Service Provider

ASM: Airspace Management

CAA-NL: Civil Aviation Authority The Netherlands

CDM: Collaborative Decision Making

CDR: Conditional Route

CFMU: Central Flow Management Unit

CNS: Communication, Navigation and Surveillance

CPB: Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis

DSNA: French Air Navigation Service Provider

EASP: European Aviation Safety Programme

EASp: European Aviation Safety Plan

FAB: Functional Airspace Blocks

FABEC: Functional Airspace Block Europe Central

FABEC SSB: States Strategic Board

FAQ: Frequently Asked Question

FIR: Flight Information Region

FL: Flight Level

FPP: FABEC Performance Plan

FUA: Flexible Use of Air Space

IAF: Initial Approach Fix

ICAO: International Civil Aviation Organisation

IFRS: International Financial Reporting Standards

KNMI: Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

KPA: Key Performance Area

KPI: Key Performance Indicator

LARA: Local and Regional Airspace Management System


LOA’s: Letters of Agreement

LSSIP: Local Single Sky Implementation Plan

LVNL: Air Traffic Control the Netherlands

MAA: Military Aviation Authority

MET: Meteorological information

Mill-ATCC: Nieuw Milligen Area Traffic Control Centre

MME: Military Mission Effectiveness

MoD: Ministry of Defence

MoI&E: Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

MUAC: Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre

NSA: National Supervisory Authority

PRB: Performance Review Body

PRC: Performance Review Commission

PRU: Performance Review Unit

PRISMIL: Pan-European Repository of Information Supporting Civil-Military Performance Measurement

RAT: Risk Analysis Tool

RP: Reference Period

RMI: Airport Traffic Decree for Schiphol

SADIS: Satellite Distribution System (meteorological services)

SCM: Stakeholder Consultation Meeting

SES: Single European Sky

SPP: State Safety Programme

SSE: Safety Significant Event

STATFOR: Statistic Forecast Eurocontrol

SU: Service Units

TRA: Temporary Reserved Airspace

VFR: Visual Flight Rules


1. INTRODUCTION

This document contains the Netherlands Performance Plan, which has a clear link to the Functional Airspace Block Europe Central (FABEC) performance plan in that it elaborates at national level the Netherlands cost efficiency Key Performance Indicators (KPI). The aggregated national cost efficiency figures will be included in the FABEC Performance Plan. The national documents on cost efficiency and the additional national KPIs are to be considered as a specific contribution to the FABEC Performance Plan and will be included in an Annex to the FABEC Performance Plan. The national cost efficiency data are coordinated with the KPIs on capacity, environment, safety and Military Mission Effectiveness (MME) as included in the FABEC Performance Plan.

1.1. The situation

1.1.a General Introduction

The Single European Sky (SES) II package was introduced to improve the Air Navigation Service (ANS) performance within the overall objective of the SES initiative to create a single sky in Europe. To improve performance in the European airspace a performance scheme for ANS has been introduced, starting from January 2012. The ultimate goal is an improvement of the ANS performance in four Key Performance Areas (KPA), namely safety, environment, capacity and cost efficiency. The first reference period (RP1) of the scheme runs from 1

st January 2012 till 31

st December 2014. EU

Member States, either individually or jointly within a Functional Airspace Block (FAB), have to develop a national or FAB Performance Plan, with national or FAB targets that are consistent with the European wide targets

1 and setting out the measures (investments, actions plans and incentives) that

need to be taken to meet these targets. In addition, the plan contains a description of the monitoring and reporting mechanisms that have been put in place. The Plan covers the reference period 2012-2014 and deals with the cost efficiency KPI and the other KPIs on safety, capacity and environment, in keeping with the (provisional) FABEC Performance Plan which covers the EU wide KPAs on safety, environment, capacity and MME. The Plan is in accordance with Regulation (EC) 691/2010, Annex II, the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1794/2006 as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1191/2010 and the Guidance Material (GM) provided by the Performance Review Body (PRB) as issued on 23

rd February 2011.

The Plan covers the services provided in the Netherlands airspace controlled by Air Traffic Control the Netherlands (LVNL) and in the Netherlands en route airspace controlled by Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC). This Performance Plan has been developed by the Netherlands National Supervisory Authority (NSA), i.e. the Air Traffic Management Division of the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment and the Civil Aviation Authority The Netherlands (CAA-NL).

1.1.b. Geographical Scope of the Plan

The accountable entities covered by this national Performance Plan are: LVNL (Air Traffic Control Netherlands) MUAC (Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre) KNMI (Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute) The Ministry of Defence, Royal Netherlands Air Force Civil Aviation Authority The Netherlands (CAA-NL) Eurocontrol

1 (COM) 2011/121/EU Commission Decision of 21 February 2011 setting the European Union-wide performance targets and alert thresholds for the provision of air navigation services for the years 2012 to 2014


LVNL (Air Traffic Control the Netherlands) LVNL has been certified for Air Traffic Services (ATS), Communication, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS) and Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) provision and by law been designated as ANSP. ANS are provided at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, Rotterdam-The Hague Airport, Groningen Eelde Airport and Maastricht Aachen Airport. At Amsterdam Airport services are provided by two control units, namely Schiphol Tower and Schiphol Approach. LVNL provides en route ANS in the airspace beyond a radius of 20 km (= 12 nautical miles) around all controlled airports in the terminal charging zone above Flight Level (FL) 30 up to FL 245. Furthermore, LVNL provides terminal services below FL 30 within a radius of 20 km around the four mentioned controlled airports. MUAC (Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre) Under the Maastricht Agreement of 1986, four States, namely Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have entrusted the air navigation services in the upper airspace above 24.500 ft (FL 245) of the Benelux area and the North Western part of Germany to MUAC, which is part of the Eurocontrol organisation. Under the same agreement the four contracting States put, free of charge, specified installations, equipment and air-ground and ground-ground communication facilities at the disposal of MUAC. In addition, other facilities and services which are essential to the operation of the MUAC services, such as AIS, Meteorological (MET) information and navigational facilities are also made available, free of charge. MUAC is a certified ANSP. It is located in the Netherlands and has by Dutch law been designated. MUAC provides en route air navigation services in the entire Flight Information Region (FIR) Amsterdam above FL 245. KNMI (Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute) KNMI has been certified as an ANS provider for meteorological services in the Amsterdam FIR and has by law been designated. Civil Aviation Authority The Netherlands (CAA-NL) CAA partly acts as NSA for Air Traffic Management (ATM and is within the Ministry separated from the policy bodies (organizational separation), i.e. the Directorate General Civil Aviation and Maritime Affairs. It is also separated from the KNMI. LVNL and MUAC are not part of the ministerial organization. Ministry of Defence/ Royal Netherlands Air Force Civil-military cooperation in the Netherlands airspace has been and is increasingly being realized along Flexible Use of Airspace (FUA) lines, with the ultimate goal of a joint and integrated approach to airspace management. Options for closer operational cooperation are being looked into. For the use of airspace by the military, the Minister of Defence has by law his own accountability. Eurocontrol Eurocontrol, the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation is an intergovernmental organization. The Dutch financial contribution to Eurocontrol, based on a sharing key, is part of the costs for ANS provision in the FIR Amsterdam. The geographical scope of the Plan covers the Amsterdam FIR, both for civil and military aviation. The map below shows the geographical situation of the Dutch airspace


Map 1 FIR Amsterdam

Airport operators are currently not taking part in the performance scheme, although they do have an important role to play in the KPA environment and in terminal related PIs. Within the relevant en route airspace, air traffic services are provided under delegated arrangements (so called letters of agreement, LOAs) with Belgium, Germany, the UK and Denmark.

1.2. Overall assumptions for Reference Period 1

1.2.a General

For a correct understanding of the Plan, it is necessary to present its context and especially the assumptions that have been made during its development. This section deals with: the expected general economic situation in The Netherlands at the start of RP1 and the expected

traffic volume; the status of aviation safety and the State Safety Programme (SPP); the institutional context for the ANS provision covered by the Plan.

General economic situation For a realistic picture of the expected trends in civil aviation and ANS provision as well as of the possible ANS performance improvements in the first reference period, the main economic developments have been described in general, qualitative terms. These developments are the basis for the determination of the traffic volumes and the service units volumes in the FIR Amsterdam. The developments also substantially affect the required airspace capacity and the cost efficiency. Although a considerable global economic growth is expected for the 2012 – 2015 period, the economic perspectives for Europe and the Netherlands are considerably less optimistic. Nevertheless, the Dutch economy will to some extent profit from the global economic growth.


In the coming years there will be a modest growth in the gross domestic product and in private consumption, with zero growth in State consumption. Inflation will remain relatively low; wages are expected to increase only slightly in real terms, while the unemployment rate will decrease gradually. The oil price will remain considerably above $ 100 per barrel. The Euro/dollar parity is expected to remain unchanged, i.e. 1€ = $ 1,35 – 1,40. The table 1 below summarizes the key economic indicators for the years 2012-2014.These data are taken as reference for the macro-economic scenarios for the 1

st reference period.

Indicator 2011 2012 2013 2014

Average 2011 – 2014

Relevant world trade (%) 7,40% 6,90%

Average oil price in $ per barrel 107 108

GDP in Bln€ (constant prices) 484.787

492.060 499.991 508.337 change n/n-1 1,75% 1,5% 1,6% 1,7% 1,6%

Inflation, average consumer prices 2,3% 2,2% 2,0% 1,9% 2,0% long term Interest rate in % (April 2011) 3,65% Private consumption 0,8% 1,0% Annual average growth 2011 - 2015: +1,25% State consumption 2,6% 2,6% 2,4% 2,5%

Public deficit (% of GDP) -3,8% -2,7% -2,1% -1,8% -2,6%

Gross public debt (% of GDP) 65,6% 66,5% 66,6% 66,6% 66,3%

Table 1. Key Economic Indicators 2012 - 2014.

The macroeconomic forecasts for the Netherlands are based on the CPB Economic Policy Analysis 2012 and the IMF World Economic Outlook of April 2011.

1.2.b Air Traffic Movements

It is estimated that civil aviation will continue to grow during the coming two decades, both worldwide and in Europe (and in the Netherlands). The STATFOR Medium-Term Forecast - Base Scenario (February 2011) has been used as a basis for the Plan. See also section 2.2. STATFOR indicates that air traffic in the Netherlands is expected to grow between 1,9% and 4,2% in the first reference period, with an average baseline growth of 3% per annum. The table below shows the en route traffic forecast for the Air Navigation Service Provision in FIR Amsterdam.

FIR Amsterdam en route Traffic forecast period 2012 – 2014

Year 2012 2013 2014

Annual traffic movements (in thousands) * 1.106 1.127 1.150 # SUs (x thousand) ** 2.681 2.733 2.794

Table 2. en route traffic forecast 2012 - 2014 * STATFOR Medium-Term Forecast Flight movements, February 2011 ** STATFOR Medium-Term Forecast for Service Units: Base scenario, February 2011.

1.3. Overall Status of Aviation Safety and State Safety Programme

The overall level of aviation safety in the Netherlands is high. According to the ICAO Safety Oversight Audit of 2008 the Netherlands ranks among the global top ten. It is the Netherlands’ ambition for the short term to maintain the current high level of safety and to go on improving it. The White Paper on Dutch Aviation (‘Luchtvaartnota’) of 2009 has set the ambition for the long term to reach the global top 5. To further this ambition the MoI&E has developed a State Safety Programme (SSP), describing the current safety situation, and a policy document (Beleidsagenda Luchtvaartveiligheid 2011-2015)) which describes the manner in which the Netherlands will improve aviation safety. These two documents are in line with the European Aviation Safety Programme (EASP) and the European Aviation Safety Plan (EASp). The mission for safety as mentioned in the SSP is: ‘to make aviation as safe as possible’. The new ‘Beleidsagenda Luchtvaartveiligheid 2011-2015´ uses the following principles, namely: a high safety level and continuous improvement; the sector to take its own responsibility;


a decrease in pressure from regulations and administrative burdens. As required by Regulation 2007/1315/EU, the NSA shall issue a safety directive as soon as it has detected the occurence of an unsafe condition in a functional system requiring immediate action. At this moment no safety directives are pending.

1.4. Institutional context

No major changes in the ATM organisation have recently taken place or are currently envisaged in the 1

st reference period. However, closer civil-military cooperation is being looked into. This might lead to

organisational changes and unforeseen costs, possibly during the first reference period. The institutional context of ANS provision is as follows: 1. The Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (MoI&M, ´Ministerie van Infrastructuur en

Milieu´) 2 is the State authority for civil aviation in the Netherlands. Within MoI&E, the Directorate

General for Civil Aviation and Maritime Affairs (DGLM, ´Directoraat-Generaal Luchtvaart en Maritieme Zaken´) is responsible for the development of aviation policy and legislation, including transport, environment and safety.

2. Policy implementation and supervision have been delegated to the Civil Aviation Authority The Netherlands (CAA-NL, ´Inspectie Verkeer en Waterstaat´), which is also a part of MoI&E. For the SES, part of the Civil Aviation Authority The Netherlands acts as NSA.

3. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is the State military authority responsible for military aviation. By law airspace regulation is a joint responsibility of the civil and military authorities and is realized by MoI&E in cooperation with the MoD. Within the MoD, the Military Aviation Authority (MAA, ´Militaire Luchtvaart Autoriteit´), established in July 2005, closely co-operates with the civil authorities of DGLM and CAA-NL. The military ANSP organisation controls part of the airspace, including all military air bases (some of which with structural civil joint use). The Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF), as part of the MoD, operates MilATCC Nieuw Milligen.

4. Air Traffic Control Netherlands (LVNL, ´Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland´) is the national air navigation service provider (a corporatised public entity since January 1993 – Independent Administrative Body - ZBO). While accountable to MoI&E for its performance, LVNL is a separate entity from DGLM and CAA-NL. The Aviation Act stipulates that LVNL, MilATCC and MUAC share the responsibility for the provision of ANS to all air traffic within the Amsterdam FIR, each within its own area of responsibility. Air Navigation Services located at Amsterdam Airport cover both Schiphol and Rotterdam -The Hague Approach. ATS, CNS and all other activities directly related to Groningen Airport Eelde and Maastricht Aachen Airport are part of the ATM Service Provision of the LVNL Regional Unit. LVNL and MilATCC operate the joint civil-military Airspace and Flow Management Unit (AFMU).

5. The EUROCONTROL Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC) MUAC is part of Eurocontrol. At the request of the Benelux and Germany, MUAC is operated as a EUROCONTROL Agency service under the Maastricht Agreement of 25 November 1986. It is a certified ANSP and designated by law to provide services in the upper airspace of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and the North Western part of Germany.

6. The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI, ´Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut´) is an agency within MoI&E and is responsible for the provision of meteorological services to aviation in the Amsterdam FIR. KNMI is certified as a provider for meteorological services (MET) and has been designated as such by law.

7. Eurocontrol and NSA The Netherlands is a Eurocontrol member State and carries 3% of the yearly Eurocontrol (Part I and IX) costs.

2 The Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, the former State authority for civil aviation, has been merged with the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment into the new Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment.


1.5. Description of the outcome of the Stakeholder Consultation Meetings

In preparation of the Dutch Performance Plan two national Stakeholder Consultation Meetings (SCMs) have been held on 12

th April 2011 and 19

th May 2011, respectively. These SCMs focused on cost-

efficiency and on the additional national KPIs of capacity, environment and safety. At the first meeting the focus was on the preliminary data and targets for cost efficiency and capacity The additional KPIs for environment and safety were also discussed. The aim was to receive provisional advice on these issues from stakeholders. The second SCM was held 19

th May and focused on the final cost efficiency and capacity targets as

well as on investments and equity capital. The aim of this SCM was to get a final advice from the stakeholders and agreement on the targets set. The stakeholders consulted consisted mainly of civil air space users, air navigation providers and airports. Main issues raised:

At the 1st SCM the following main issues were raised:

A solid cost-benefit analysis of the investments planned for the first reference period is missing; The targets for cost-efficiency and (FABEC) capacity should be more ambitious; Stakeholders are of the opinion that there is no justification for the buildup of equity capital to be

financed by the users, considering the lack of ambitious targets for cost-efficiency and the fact that the risk borne by the ANSPs is limited;

The targets for the additional national KPIs on capacity (average ATFM delay (terminal and en-route) and sustainability are not ambitious enough, considering LVNL’s current performance.

NSA opinion to the issues raised:

In reply to the issues raised, it was stated that: More information on the investments planned will be made available prior to the 2

nd SCM;

The target for cost-efficiency is a balanced target, in line with EU wide target. A more ambitious target is not possible, considering the cost containment measures already taken by LVNL in 2009 and 2010.

Equity capital is necessary, considering future ANSP risks.

2nd

SCM

In relation to the Netherlands Performance Plan the airspace users associations expressed in a letter their concerns on the following issues: The EU wide cost-effectiveness target is not being met over the reference period mainly due to the

increasing MUAC contribution; the users expect States to be responsible for all the elements within their cost base;

The combined en route and terminal capacity/delay target of 1 minute is considered insufficient as it will not drive the required capacity improvements;

Major investments must be linked to benefits and value. Given the limited risk for ANSPs from the traffic risk-sharing mechanism together with the safeguards of “uncontrollable” costs the users do not believe there is any justification for the proposed build-up of equity capital for traffic or cost risks;

KNMI and NSA costs have not been discussed as they were dealt with satisfactorily during the first SCM. KNMI sets an outstanding example for MET providers, by reducing its cost base with almost 17% in 2014.

SCM outcomes:

As a result of the 1st SCM it was agreed that:

The targets set for the additional national capacity KPI will be looked into, with a view to set a target which is more ambitious and in line with LVNL’s current performance.

The feedback on the comments of the users in the 2nd

SCM is as follows: A reduction in the MUAC costs is a joint responsibility of the 4 MUAC States. Taking into account

the intergovernmental status of MUAC, cost reductions are only possible in the long run and by


unanimity of the 4 States; More transparency will be given of the total MUAC costs (including the cost for CNS infrastructure of the other ANSPs used by MUAC free of charge), the distribution of the total MUAC costs over the 4 States and the MUAC revenues (again in total and per State of origin)

Without the change in the MUAC cost sharing key, The Netherlands would have met the cost efficiency target; The change in the cost sharing key wiped out the cost efficiencies realised by MUAC in the FIR Amsterdam; Without this change in the cost sharing key the targeted determined en route unit rate in 2014 would have been 11.2% (yearly average of -3.9%) lower than in 2011.

The 2014 average en route delay targets for MUAC (0.22) and LVNL (0.18) are completely in line with the capacity reference values of the PRU and thus consistent with and contributing to the EU wide target;

LVNL will analyze the feasibility of a decrease in the total ATFM delay per flight in cooperation with KLM and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Particular attention will be paid to the role and responsibilities of the various parties involved;

An extensive explanation of the rationale and the building up of LVNL equity capital is included both in this Performance Plan and in the additional information on the reporting tables of the en route cost data.

The consultation documents, including the invitation and the list of participants, as well as the minutes of both SCMs are included in the appendices.


2.NATIONAL PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND ALERT THRESHOLDS

2.1. National performance targets and alert thresholds in each performance area

This section contains the mandatory target for cost-efficiency and the additional national (K)PIs and targets on safety, capacity and environment. The mandatory EU-wide KPIs and PIs on safety, environment and capacity are part of the FABEC Performance Plan. Military Mission effectiveness is also included in the FABEC Performance Plan. The cost efficiency target is applicable to all the accountable entities in the Netherlands, with the exception of the military. The additional national KPIs on safety, capacity and environment are only applicable to LVNL and limited to Amsterdam Airport Schiphol.

2.1. (a) Safety targets and thresholds

In addition to the mandatory EU-wide and FABEC safety KPIs, the Netherlands has selected one national PI for safety, showing LVNL’s contribution to aviation safety. The indicator is ATC related accidents and incidents. An accident or incident is considered to be ATC related as soon as the following criteria are met: Loss of separation between an aircraft and one or more aircraft and/or ground vehicles; An aircraft or ground vehicle which deviates from an ATC instruction or procedure; An aircraft or ground vehicle which does not properly carry out an instruction or has by mistake not

been given an instruction; Loss of or degraded ATC services / failure of technical functions.

Targets For RP1 no targets have been set. Parameters The parameter is the number of ATC related incidents per severity class, in accordance with ESARR2.

3

Data sources The main data source for ATC related accidents and incidents is the electronic “watch report”. (“wachtrapport”). Furthermore, Air Safety Reports are used, submitted by pilots and vehicle drivers.

2.1. (b) Capacity targets and thresholds

In addition to the mandatory EU-wide and FABEC capacity KPI, the Netherlands has set two mandatory national capacity KPIs and associated targets. These KPIs are: the total average ATFM delay for terminal and en route per flight; sustainability of the declared capacity for the 1

st inbound peak.

Targets The table below shows the targets set for the first reference period. As a result of the 1

st SCM, it was

agreed that the targets would be looked at again. The total ATFM delay (terminal and en route) will be reviewed during the first reference period, with a view to setting a more ambitious target for the second reference period. As the terminal delay may be caused by various actors (ANSP, airport and users) it is necessary to analyse first the consequences of a more ambitious target, e.g. on cost-efficiency, capacity, safety.

3 In accordance with EU Regulation 691/2010 the second PI is the application of the severity classification of RAT. LVNL has the intention to develop an AMC for transposing the SSE method into the RAT severity classification.


The year round target for sustainability has been adjusted (from 85% to 92.5%) on the basis of current LVNL performance. However, KLM as the main user of Schiphol has indicated that the sustainability target in 2013 and 2014 should be adjusted to 93% to meet their requirements. LVNL is at present analyzing the feasibility of increasing the target to 93% in 2013 and 2014.There are no associated thresholds for both KPIs.

Capacity KPI 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Actual performance

Target Intermediate Value

Intermediate Value

Target

Total average ATFM delay per flight (in minutes) for terminal and en route

0.94 1 1 1 1

Sustainability of declared capacity (68) in first inbound peak (in %)

92.5 (target 85%)

92.5% 92.5 92.5* 92.5 *

* pending further analysis of LVNL into raising the target to 93% in 2013 and 2014 to meet KLM user requirements.

Table 3. Additional national Capacity intermediate values and targets

Rationale for the KPIs and associated targets 1. Total Average ATFM delay per flight for terminal and en route. For Amsterdam Airport Schiphol and its users, the total average ATFM delay is a very important indicator considering its hub function. LVNL will analyse the feasibility of a decrease in the total ATFM delay per flight in cooperation with KLM and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Attention will be given in particular to the role and responsibilities of the various parties involved. Parameters: The total ATFM delay is calculated by taking the minutes of delay per delay cause (en-route or terminal) and the total number of flights. This results in the number of minutes delay per flight. Data source: Information on ATFM delay is provided by Eurocontrol-CFMU, on the basis of information provided by LVNL. 2. Sustainability of declared capacity for the 1

st inbound peak.

This KPI has been introduced because it is a useful indicator to assess the reliability of the declared capacity. On the basis of the declared capacity the users plan their operations (crew, ground personnel, aircraft, etc). Sustainability is measured for the 1

st inbound peak for two reasons, namely:

There is no spare capacity in the first inbound peak; Insufficient capacity provided in the first inbound peak may affect the entire operation during the

rest of the day. The sustainability KPI is calculated by using the formula actual inbound capacity/declared inbound capacity x 100%. Parameters: Actual available inbound capacity in the 1

st inbound peak of the day with a maximum equal to the

declared capacity. Datasources: Capacity forecast forms and AAA data (ATC data system).

2.1. (c) Environment targets and thresholds

At present no mandatory EU environment KPIs have been set either at national or at FAB level. The prime responsibility for achieving the EU wide target on environment rests at present with the Network Manager. However, since 2002 a number of national mandatory environment KPIs and associated targets have been applied to LNVL. These KPIs are related to noise abatement (not to flight efficiency). They might have a negative effect on the capacity performance. The KPIs are 11 noise abatement rules relating to runway and route use at Schiphol Airport. The table below summarizes the rules and associated targets.


Rules Runway and Route Usage Target

1 Vertical corridor deviations by approaching aircraft outside the TMA during daytime 5%

2 Vertical corridor deviations by approaching aircraft within the TMA during daytime 15%

3 Horizontal corridor deviations by approaching aircraft outside the TMA during night time 0.05%

4 Vertical corridor deviations by approaching aircraft outside the TMA during night time 0.05%

5 Vertical corridor deviations by approaching aircraft within the TMA during night time 0.05%

6 Horizontal corridor deviations by departing aircraft during daytime 3%

7 Horizontal corridor deviations by departing aircraft during night time 0.05%

8 Vertical corridor deviations by departing aircraft within the TMA 0.05%

9 Vertical corridor deviations by departing aircraft outside the TMA 10%

10 Deviations from runway usage by departures 0

11 Deviations from runway usage by arrivals 0

Table 4. Noise abatement rules applicable at Schiphol Airport.

Target It is not allowed to exceed any of the percentages set for each of the applicable rules. The RMI (Airport Traffic Decree Schiphol Airport) targets are laid down in national law. The main aim is to limit noise pollution around Schiphol, while at the same time creating room for growth of the airport. Rationale As mentioned above, the noise abatement rules (laid down in the Airport Traffic Decree, Schiphol Airport) relate to runway and route use at Schiphol Airport and have been applicable since 2002. Schiphol Airport is located in one of the most densely populated areas of the Netherlands. In order to limit the noise hindrance and depending on the circumstances, the use of certain runways or use of runways in certain directions is limited, particularly at night when only two specific runways may be used. Furthermore, there are corridors (‘luchtverkeerswegen’) of which the location is such that aircraft fly as little as possible over dense residential areas when approaching or departing from Schiphol. The rules distinguish between flying within or outside the TMA and between day and nighttime. Data sources The RMI rules impose limits on the number of aircraft that may deviate from a route, both horizontally and vertically, and on the number of aircraft that may deviate from the prescribed runway use. The compliance is monitored and reported based on data provided by the AAA system (ATC data system), together with expert judgement/analysis. RMI results are reported monthly. CAA-NL audits the process.

National horizontal flight efficiency improvement projects

LVNL As indicated in the provisional FABEC Performance Plan, one of the FABEC projects to improve horizontal flight efficiency is the Central West project. A national project, which is related to this project, is the study into a fourth Initial Approach Fix in the South-Eastern part of the Amsterdam FIR. The study will be carried out during the 1st reference period. Furthermore, LVNL is planning a number of Arrival Management Projects during the first reference period. Implementation, and hence benefits, of these projects are expected in the 2nd reference period (2015-2019). MUAC MUAC is implementing the Free Route Airspace (FRAM) concept starting in 2011. With FRAM, 142 additional direct routes will become available and will complement those already introduced as part of the FABEC Night Route Network programme. At (pre) tactical level, MUAC air traffic controllers usually offer direct routes when available. FRAM will allow these routes to be flight planned, which generate significant advantages such as better flight and network predictability, better flight efficiency, reduced fuel carriage, higher cost-effectiveness and reduced environmental impact. FRAM also


provides an initial operational validation for conceptual elements of the SESAR ATM Target Concept. It is therefore a first step towards the implementation of aircraft operators’ preferred business trajectories.

2.2. Cost efficiency in the FIR AMSTERDAM

General introduction The FABEC States Strategic Board (SSB) has decided that for the first reference period the provisional FABEC Performance Plan (FPP) will focus on the KPAs of Safety, Environment, Capacity and Military Mission Effectiveness. The KPA on Cost Efficiency and the possible interrelations of this KPA with the other KPAs will not be included in the FABEC Plan, but in the separate national Performance Plans. Therefore, the Dutch Performance Plan will focus on the following issues: the determined costs for en route and the costs for terminal air navigation services on a full cost

recovery basis as well as possible cost reductions; the forecast of the traffic volume (en route service units) for each year of the reference period.

As a consequence, the determined unit rates for the reference period, which are related to these costs and tariff issue raises the following issues to be dealt with: a description and justification of the return on equity of the air navigation service providers in

relation to the actual risk incurred; a description of the investments necessary to achieve the performance targets in relation to:

v their relevance with the European ATM Master Plan; v their coherence with the main areas and directions of progress and change as set in that plan.

2.2.1 General principles governing the determined ANS (en route and terminal) costs

The general principles for the determined ANS costs are mentioned in. Article 15.2(a) and 2(b) of the service provision Regulation (s (EU) No 550/2004, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1070/2009, set out the principle Commission Regulation of the determined costs. Articles 3.2 and 3.3 of the Charging Regulation (EU) No 1794/2006, as amended by (EU) No 1191/2010 prescribe that the determined ANS costs shall be financed by means of the charges imposed on the users and/or other revenues. For determined costs of terminal ANS the other revenues may include cross-subsidies in accordance with Community law. Article 6.1 makes a distinction between the determined costs (to be established in accordance with Article 15 of the Service Provision Regulation and for performance purposes) and the actual costs (to be established for charging purposes). Determined costs are defined by the European Commission as the costs that are considered necessary in each of the years of the Performance Plan reference period to deliver the forecasted number of service units, given the level of the targets for capacity and environment while assuming the safety level will remain at least the same. In both cost concepts the costs shall be composed of eligible services, facilities and activities. The distinction between the determined costs and the actual costs is very clear in both the traffic risk volume (Article 11a.1) and the cost risk (Article 11a.2). The determined cost level shall be fixed for each year of the performance reference period before the start of that period. This is in line with Article 15.3(c) of Regulation (EU) No 550/2004, which specifies that the charges shall be set in advance per calendar year on the basis of the determined costs, or may be set under conditions established by Member States for determining the maximum level of the unit rate or the maximum revenue for each year over a period not exceeding five years. MUAC For MUAC specific financial arrangements have been agreed upon and are included in the financial protocol to the Maastricht Agreement. It stipulates that the investment expenditure shall be covered by a special annex in the Eurocontrol budget and balanced by receipts from the German Ministry of Defence for the military part of the investment expenditure, on the one hand, and by receipts from route charges, on the other hand. The four national contracting parties therefore include their part of


the annual amortization and interest on the Maastricht capital expenditure in their national en route cost bases. The mechanism is cost neutral for the Eurocontrol Member States as a whole. The investment expenses are pre-financed through the Eurocontrol budget (all States) and covered by bank loans but reimbursed (interest costs included) by the 4 contracting States. Operating expenditure in respect of the Maastricht Centre is offset by direct contributions from the four contracting States for the control of General Air Traffic (GAT) and by a special contribution from the German Ministry of Defence for the military part of the operating costs. Although the contributions are calculated and based on the MUAC budget, a correction mechanism ensures that only actual expenses are claimed. The cost-sharing formula applied to the operational expenses as well as to the amortization and interest costs of the capital expenditure (non military part) by the four contracting States is based on the number of air traffic control personnel assigned to the control sectors serving their specific part of the airspace on 1

st January of the budgetary year. For RP1, the four Contracting States agreed this

cost sharing key would be fixed during the whole period 2012-2014. The traffic volume risk will not be not applicable to MUAC in the first reference period as MUAC does not have equity capital. Possibilities to build up equity capital will be looked into during RP1.

2.2.2a Determined nominal costs for en route ANS for the reference period 2012-2014

The following entities are involved in the en route traffic service provision in the FIR Amsterdam: Air Traffic Control the Netherlands (LVNL) Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC) Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) National Supervisory Authority (NSA) Eurocontrol

The table below contains the determined costs of each of these entities for the en route ANS provision. The MUAC costs are calculated on the basis of the cost sharing keys, which will be valid for the period 2012-2014. An average inflation rate of 2% per year is forecasted (see macro economic scenarios).

ANS en route costs (x 1.000) per entity 2009 A 2010 A 2011 2012 2013 2014

LVNL total costs 123.536

113.993 110.467

108.706

110.070

113.568

%n/n-1 -7,7% -3,1% -1,6% 1,3% 3,2%

MUAC total costs for the Dutch airspace (*) 32.979

31.065

29.354

31.843

33.059

34.505

%n/n-1 -5,8% -5,5% 8,5% 3,8% 4,4%

KNMI MET 9.019

8.033 7.872

7.708

7.544

7.544

%n/n-1 -10,9% -2,0% -2,1% -2,1% 0,0%

NSA (incl. other State costs) - -

1.462

1.862

1.862

1.862

%n/n-1 27,4% 0,0% 0,0%

Eurocontrol 14.092

16.083

16.508

15.707

15.802

16.154

%n/n-1 14,1% 2,6% -4,9% 0,6% 2,2%

Total ANS en route costs (x 1.000) in FIR Amsterdam

179.626 169.174 165.663

165.826 168.337 173.633

%n/n-1 -5,8% -2,1% 0,1% 1,5% 3,1%

(*)This figure represents the MUAC costs for the Dutch airspace and is influenced by application of an agreed cost sharing key.

Table 5. Determined en route nominal costs (x € 1.000) in FIR Amsterdam – breakdown per entity


Figure 1. Determined en route nominal costs (x € 1.000) in FIR Amsterdam – breakdown per entity

In line with Article 6.1(a) of Regulation (EC) 1794/2006 the following costs are included in the determined en route costs for the first reference period Staff costs Other operating costs Depreciation costs Interest costs Exceptional items

The table below contains the cost data for the en route ATS provision broken down by nature.

ANS en route costs (x 1.000) by nature 2009 A 2010 A 2011 2012 2013 2014

Staff costs

123.061

107.521

105.377

106.360

109.521

113.490

%n/n-1 -12,6% -2,0% 0,9% 3,0% 3,6%

Other operating costs

27.799

31.601

29.444

30.663

30.036

30.504

%n/n-1 13,7% -6,8% 4,1% -2,0% 1,6%

Depreciation

11.487

10.488

11.167

10.212

10.681

11.235

%n/n-1 -8,7% 6,5% -8,5% 4,6% 5,2%

Interest

3.187

3.481

3.166

2.884

2.296

2.250

%n/n-1 9,2% -9,0% -8,9% -20,4% -2,0%

Eurocontrol costs

14.092

16.083

16.508

15.707

15.802

16.154

%n/n-1 14,1% 2,6% -4,9% 0,6% 2,2%

Exceptional items

-

-

-

-

-

-

%n/n-1 Total ANS costs by nature

179.626

169.174

165.663

165.826

168.337

173.633

%n/n-1 -5,8% -2,1% 0,1% 1,5% 3,1%

Table 6: Determined en route nominal costs (x € 1.000) in FIR Amsterdam – breakdown by nature


Figure 2. Determined en route nominal costs (x € 1.000) in FIR Amsterdam – breakdown by nature

In the table below the main cost changes and adjustments outside the International Accounting Standards are given for each organization, including those having a significant impact on the overall costs. Major reallocations of ANS costs to the en-route and terminal activities have not taken place since 2008 and are not foreseen before the end of RP1. Based on the use of the facilities for either en route or terminal traffic only marginal changes in the allocation sharing keys have been implemented. Changes in year N are based on the actual allocation of resources in year N-2. Costs by nature

LVNL MUAC KNMI Eurocontrol

Staff costs 2012: no real wage increase

2013 and 2014: 1.5% annually real wage increase

Career progression

Salary index: 2.5% nominal or 0.5% real

Career progression: 1.1%

2012: zero-growth of salaries (no compensation)



Other operating expenses

Annual inflation rate 2%



Depreciation Interests Exceptional items

Expiry of ATCO lease to Vienna at the end of 2013

Table 7. Information on changes in the costs by nature

2.2.2b Determined en-route ANS costs in real terms

The different elements of the conversion of the determined en route costs from nominal terms into real terms are indicated in the table below, including a justification of the rationale for the national average inflation assumption and a link to public official sources. Based on the economic forecasts of the CPB Economic Policy Analysis, the inflation rate has been set at 2% per year. As the depreciation costs of LVNL, KNMI and MUAC are determined on the basis of the historic value (historic capitalization costs), depreciation costs are not related to the inflation rate. Interest costs are not related to inflation. Thus, the inflation rate is corrected for the depreciation costs and the interest costs. If these costs are equal to for instance 20% of the total costs, the weighted average inflation rate is 20% below the assumed originally used inflation rate.


The cost data in the table below are both in nominal and in real terms. This table is a summary of the data given in Appendix A, which is in line with annex 2 of the Regulation1794/2006. Cost by nature (x € 1000)

In nominal terms In real terms

2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014

Staff costs 105.377 106.360 109.521 113.490 102.288 101.218 102.182 103.809


29.444 30.663 30.036 30.504 28.581 29.181 28.024 27.902

Depreciation 11.167 10.212 10.681 11.235 10.840 9.718 9.966 10.277

Interest 3.166 2.884 2.296 2.250 3.074 2.744 2.143 2.058

Eurocontrol costs 16.508 15.707 15.802 16.154 16.024 14.948 14.743 14.776

Exceptional items - - -

- -

-

-

Total 165.663 165.826 168.337 173.633 160.806 157.809 157.057 158.822

Table 8. Conversion of nominal costs into real costs in Euros 2009 – breakdown by costs by nature

Cost by entity (x € 1000)

In nominal terms In real terms

2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014

LVNL total costs 110.467 108.706 110.070 113.568 107.229 103.451 102.694 103.881

MUAC total costs for the Dutch airspace (*)

29.354 31.843 33.059 34.505 28.493 30.303 30.844 31.561

KNMI (MET) 7.872 7.708 7.544 7.544 7.641 7.335 7.038 6.900

NSA 1.462 1.862 1.862 1.862 1.419 1.772 1.737 1.703

Eurocontrol 16.508 15.707 15.802 16.154 16.024 14.948 14.743 14.776

Total 165.663 165.826 168.337 171.841 160.806 157.809 157.057 158.822

(*) This figure represents the MUAC costs for the Dutch airspace and is influenced by application of an agreed cost sharing key.

Table 9. Conversion of nominal costs into real costs in Euros 2009 – breakdown by organization

The table below gives the conversion of the determined costs in nominal terms to determined costs in Euros 2009. 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 2013 2014

Total determined costs in nominal terms

179.626

169.174

165.663

165.826

168.337

173.633

Inflation % 1% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Inflation index (2009 = 100)

100% 101,0% 103,0% 105,1% 107,2% 109,3%

Total determined costs in real terms (at 2009 prices)

179.626

167.499

160.806

157.809

157.057

158.822

% n/n-1 -6,8% -4,0% -1,9% -0,5% 1,1%

Table 10. Conversion of total determined costs in nominal terms into total determined costs in Euros 2009.


Fig. 3. Nominal and real determined en route costs in FIR Amsterdam

2.2.3. Determined nominal costs for terminal ANS for the reference period 2012-2014

The Netherlands has decided to defer the entry into force of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 as amended by this Regulation on terminal charges until December 31

st 2014. By

mentioning the decision in this chapter, the Netherlands has thus notified the Commission thereof.The decision implies that there will be no cost efficiency target in the form of a determined terminal unit rate in FIR Amsterdam during the first reference period. Furthermore, it implies that the full cost recovery system will be applied up until the end of the year 2014. In line with Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) 17 of the PRU Guidance Material the current full cost recovery reporting tables and the additional information on the data in the tables are included in appendix A. Tables 11 and 12 contain the terminal cost data, broken down both at the level of ANSP organisation and by cost category. These costs are not binding for the first reference period. ANS en route costs per entity

2009 A 2010 A 2011 2012 2013 2014

LVNL total costs 61.712 54.107 52.052 54.503 54.876 56.509

%n/n-1 11,7% -12,3% -3,8% 4,7% 0,7% 3,0%

KNMI (MET) 892 1.801 1.728 1.692 1.656 1.656

%n/n-1 102,0% -4,1% -2,1% -2,1% 0,0%

Total 62.604 55.908 53.780 56.195 56.532 58.165

%n/n-1 13,3% -10,7% -3,8% 4,5% 0,6% 2,9%

Table 11. National nominal determined terminal costs – breakdown per entity

ANS terminal costs x € 1 000

2009 A

2010 A

2011 F

2012 P

2013 P

2014 P

Staff 45.570 39.753 38.787 38.394 39.293 40.526

14,7% -12,8% -2,4% -1,0% 2,3% 3,1%

Other operating costs 10.387 10.399 11.548 11.679 11.505 11.723

14,6% 0,1% 11,0% 1,1% -1,5% 1,9%

Depreciation 3.984 3.831 4.345 3.739 3.933 4.194

11,9% -3,8% 13,4% -13,9% 5,2% 6,6%


ANS terminal costs x € 1 000

2009 A

2010 A

2011 F

2012 P

2013 P

2014 P

Cost of capital 2.662 1.925 2.741 2.383 1.801 1.722

-8,8% -27,7% 42,4% -13,1% -24,4% -4,4%

Exceptional items 0 0 -3.641 0 0 0

Total costs 62.604 55.908 53.780 56.195 56.532 58.165

13,3% -10,7% -3,8% 4,5% 0,6% 2,9%

Table 12. National nominal determined terminal costs – breakdown by nature

2.2.4 En route service units

2.2.4 (a) En route service units forecast for each year of the reference period As already mentioned in the introductory chapter on the macro economic scenarios, the traffic volume forecast expressed in number of Service Units is based on the STATFOR Medium Term Forecast, base scenario (February 2011). The table below shows the actual data on the traffic volume in 2009 and 2010 and the forecasts for the years 2011 up until 2014. The forecast for 2011 is the same as the figure mentioned in the reporting tables of October 2010. # en route SUs in FIR Amsterdam 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 F 2013 F 2014 F

En route total service units prior to RP1 2.426 2.476 2.555 2.681 2.733 2.794 Forecast total service units used for the determined unit rate

4,9% 1,9% 2,3%

Source STATFOR medium term forecast of service units ;baseline scenario %n/n-1

STATFOR service units forecast (baseline scenario) February 2010

2.610 2.681 2.733 2.794

Date of STATFOR SU forecast February 2011 %n/n-1 2,7% 1,9% 2,3%

Table 13. En route FIR Amsterdam traffic volume forecast

The “refreshment” traffic forecast of STATFOR (May 2011) has not been taken into account because the differences between this forecast and the February 2011 forecast are very small (0,08%). It would have entailed a total update of the ANSPs Business plans and disproportional number of changes in the Performance Plan and the calculations, without there being any added value.

Figure 4. En route FIR Amsterdam traffic volume forecast


2.2.4(b) Terminal service units forecast for each year of the reference period Table 14 gives the forecast of the terminal service units.

Table 14. Terminal traffic forecast FIR Amsterdam

2.2.5. Determined en route unit rate

In the table below the real en-route determined unit rate for FIR Amsterdam is presented for each year of the first reference period resulting from the costs and traffic developments as described in the previous paragraphs, together with the EU-wide target.

Average per annum

2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D 2009 – 2014 2011- 2014

Total en route determined costs in real terms (at 2009 prices)

179.626 167.499 160.806 157.809 157.057 158.822

Total en route SUs 2.426 2.476 2.555 2.681 2.733 2.794 Real en route determined unit rate in national currency (at 2009 prices)

74,04 67,65 62,94 58,86 57,47 56,84

% n/n-1 -8,6% -7,0% -6,5% -2,4% -1,1% -6,4%

Real en route determined unit rate in EURO (at 2009 prices)

74,04 67,65 62,94 58,86 57,47 56,84

% n/n-1 -6,5% -2,4% -1,1%

-3,3%

EU-wide target: average determined en route unit rate in EURO (at 2009 prices)

62,94 60,74 58,61 56,56

-3,50%

Table 15. Real en route determined unit rate in FIR Amsterdam

Fig 5. En route costs and unit rate development in FIR Amsterdam

In the table below a specification has been given of the development of the partial determined unit rate for each of the organisations involved in the air navigation service provision in the FIR Amsterdam.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

# chargeable terminal SUs in FIR Amsterdam 311 315 332 343 347 352 -9,1% 1,3% 5,4% 3,3% 1,2% 1,4%


Entity 2011 2012 2013 2014 Cumulative

LVNL 41,97 38,59 37,58 37,18 -8,1% -2,6% -1,1% -11,4% KNMI 2,99 2,74 2,58 2,47 -8,5% -5,9% -4,1% -17,4% MUAC (*) 11,15 11,30 11,29 11,30 1,4% -0,2% 0,1% 1,3%

NSA/Eurocontrol

6,83

6,24

6,03

5,90 -8,7% -3,3% -2,2% -13,6% Total 62,94 58,86 57,47 56,84 -6,5% -2,4% -1,1% -9,7% EU-wide target 62,94 60,74 58,61 56,56 -3,5% -3,5% -3,5% -10,1% (*)This figure represents the MUAC part for the Dutch airspace and is influenced by application of an agreed cost sharing key

Table 16: development of the partial determined unit rates

No other KPIs on cost efficiency than the en route determined unit rate will be used in FIR Amsterdam in RP1.

2.2.6. Method of calculation of the determined en route unit rate in the FIR Amsterdam

This paragraph describes the calculation of the determined en route unit rate in the FIR Amsterdam in

a step-by-step manner:

1. First of all, the concept of determined costs has been defined. Determined costs are the costs considered necessary to process the forecasted traffic volume, taking into account the targets set on capacity and environment.

2. Based on the reporting tables of November 2010 which are used for the calculation of the en route unit rate 2011 and based on the changes that have already occurred and are to be expected since September 2010, the organizations involved in the en route ATC in the FIR Amsterdam have updated staff costs, other operating expenses, depreciation costs and interest costs for the period 2012 – 2014,. The non recurring IFRS effects 2011 on the costs of Eurocontrol and MUAC have been excluded from this cost base. This is in line with the way the European Commission has set the cost efficiency target. The costs of these organizations for the various categories add up to the gross determined costs in nominal Euros in the FIR Amsterdam.

3. The under recoveries of LVNL in the years 2008 and 2009, mainly as an effect of the combination of the cost reduction measures, the social costs of staff cuts and the tariff stabilization are considered legacy costs, to be included in the chargeable unit rate.

4. The total determined costs in nominal Euros have to be corrected (deflated) with the inflation rate to calculate the total determined costs in real prices Euro 2009. Based on the inflation rates mentioned in the reporting tables of November 2010 for each year a cumulative inflation correction factor has been calculated. The inflation rate is the average of the inflation rates in the period 2012 – 2014 published by the Dutch CPB Economic Policy Analysis.

5. The accumulated inflation correction factor is used to convert the total determined costs in nominal terms into the total determined costs in real prices (Euro 2009).

6. The determined costs in real prices (Euro 2009), divided by the number of total service units in line with the STATFOR medium term forecast February 2011, base scenario, result in the determined unit rate in real prices.

2.2.7. Local context and specificities of the determined unit rate in the FIR Amsterdam, achievements in the cost efficiency field in the past and shortcomings

The difference between the targeted EU wide en route unit rate development and the development of the Dutch targeted en route unit rate are explained in section 2.3.


2.2.8. Description and justification of the return on equity of the air navigation service providers in relation to the actual risk incurred.

As LVNL will become subject to the traffic volume risk and the cost risk mechanisms, the building up of an equity capital is considered necessary to absorb fluctuations in operating results. The method of building up equity capital is subject to consultation. No capital costs will be included in the chargeable unit rate in the first reference period.

2.2.9. National alert thresholds Both the traffic volume alert threshold and the cost alert threshold have been set at 10%. There is no reason for deviation from the threshold level mentioned in Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 21 February 20114.

2.2.10. Description of investments necessary to achieve the performance targets with a description of their relevance in relation to the European ATM Masterplan and their coherence with the main areas and directions of progress and change set out therein.

Appendix C shows the investments of LVNL, MUAC and KNMI required to achieve the performance targets, including their relevance in relation to the European ATM Master Plan

5 and their coherence

with the main areas and directions of progress and change set out therein. Where possible, an indication is given of the nature of this relationship, by classifying the investments into ATM Master Plan Operational Improvement (OIs), Interoperability Implementing Rules (IR) and Community Specifications (CS).

2.2.11. Description and justification of the measures planned to achieve a lower proportion of debt financing and their timing. Equity capital LVNL It was decided to apply the volume risk as of the first reference period despite a lack of equity. During the first reference period (RP1) of the Performance Plan LVNL aims to build up an equity capital to meet the traffic volume risk. The aim is to have built up an equity capital of M€ 22 at the end of the first reference period. Rationale At the moment LVNL is fully debt financed. It has no equity capital to absorb negative operating results. Due to the absence of any equity capital and the negative en route and terminal appropriation funds (together about M€ 35 at the end of 2010) LVNL is already nearing the limits of a sound financial situation. Continuation of the current situation could lead to possible non compliance with the Common Requirements on financial strength (and could thus possibly jeopardize LVNL’s certification), even in a full cost recovery situation. Exposure to the newly introduced traffic volume risk and cost risk will further deteriorate LVNL’s financial risk profile. In the EU Regulation 1794/2010, laying down a common charging scheme, amended by EU Regulation 1191/2010, the necessity of equity capital is acknowledged. Article 11a.7 allows ANSPs with an equity capital below 5% of total liabilities to be temporarily exempted from the traffic volume risk. If the traffic risk is exempted the Performance Plan has to include a description of the measures to achieve a lower proportion of debt financing as well as the duration of these measures. The Netherlands has opted for an arrangement under which LVNL is given the opportunity to build up equity capital during the first reference period, while at the same time being exposed to the traffic volume risk. This combination is more advantageous for the users than the building up of an equalization provision without the application of the traffic volume risk, as the traffic volume risk scheme possibly gives them 70% of the additional revenues (in case of a traffic volume increase

4 COM 2011/121/EU Commission Decision of 21 February 2011 setting the European-wide performance targets and alert thresholds for the provision of air navigation services for the years 2012 to 2014. 5 More details on the European ATM Masterplan is available at: www.atmmasterplan.eu


above 2% of the forecast) or they bear 70% of the ANSP’s loss in revenues (in case of a traffic decrease more than 2%). Method of building up equity capital During the economic crisis the users called for financial relief and favoured a tariff agreement for a 5 year period. In 2009 LVNL and the Dutch State agreed on cost reduction and tariff stabilisation. In line with this agreement LVNL has taken a number of measures (a staff cut of 100 FTE, a decrease in the other operating expenses in combination with a yearly increase of 2% in the LVNL part of the Dutch en route unit rate and a flat LVNL part of the terminal unit rate). In 2009 LVNL and the State have taken a substantial financial risk by stabilising the unit rates for a period of 5 years ( 2010-2014). The 2009 agreement was subject to user consultation and has been concluded for better and for worse, i.e. in case of a further decrease in traffic volumes LVNL would bear the brunt of the risk, while in case of an increase in traffic and further cost reductions LVNL was allowed to keep the additional revenues to build up an equity capital. It was intended at that time (Nov 2009) to offset LVNL losses in 2008 and 2009 (due to the drastic decrease in traffic) and the forecasted losses in 2010 and 2011 related to the tariff stabilization with the additional revenues resulting from the forecasted increase in traffic volume as from 2011. This agreement is still valid. The current forecasted traffic increase enables LVNL also to build up equity capital. Technically, the building up of equity capital is realised by adding an amount of M€ 22 to the actual costs in 2010 as an exceptional item. A study into the necessary financial coverage of the volume and cost risks at the start of RP2 has been carried out by a consultancy firm. Based upon this study and other considerations, it was concluded that at the end of the first reference period equity capital of at least M€ 22 is necessary. Reduction in LVNL unit rate Based upon the positive effects of the LVNL cost reduction measures and taking into account the increasing traffic volumes LVNL and the State have also agreed on a reduction of the LVNL unit rates. As from 2011 to 2014 the en route unit rate will be reduced by 1% (instead of the earlier agreed upon annual increase of 2%), while the LVNL terminal rate will be reduced by 2% (instead of the earlier agreed upon flat rate for the period 2010 – 2014). Summary The table below shows the combined effects of: the reduction in LVNL’s currently negative appropriation fund; the building up of equity capital.

x 1.000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

2008 -7.566 831 269 2.155 2.155 2.156 7.566 2009 -20.031 7.156 4.706 4.163 4.006 20.031 2010 -19.455 5.615 7.070 6.485 285 19.455 Total -47.052 831 7.425 12.476 13.388 12.647 285 47.052

Per entity

2008 -7.556 LVNL 831 269 2.155 2.155 2.156 7.566

2009 -20.031 LVNL 6.241 3.791 3.248 3.091 16.371 KNMI 202 202 202 202 808 Eurocontrol 713 713 713 713 2.852 Total 20.031

2010 -19.455 LVNL 5.453 6908 6323 285 18.969 KNMI 368 368 368 1.104 Eurocontrol MUAC -824 -824 -824 -2.472 Eurocontrol HQ/NSA 618 618 618 1.854 Total 5.615 7.070 6.485 285 19.455

LVNL 831 6.510 11.399 12.311 11.570 285 42.906 KNMI 202 570 570 570 1.912 Eurocontrol MUAC 713 -111 -111 -111 380 Eurocontrol HQ/NSA 618 618 618 1.854


x 1.000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

Total 831 7.425 12.476 13.388 12.647 285 47.052

* Equity capital is calculated with the formula: M€ 42,906 – (M€ 20,854 + 2011 result); see also 2.2.12

Table 17. Carry overs per year and by organisation

For the purpose of transparency, this table will be updated and included in the additional information on the en route cost data and unit rates in the coming years. Prerequisites 1. As soon as the appropriation funds are completely phased out and the equity capital will be equal

to M€ 22, the State and LVNL will decide upon the best possible allocation of additional revenues amongst the stakeholders, e.g. a reduction in the chargeable unit rate or an addition to the capital reserves;

2. If the service volume will decrease below 95% of the level as indicated in the base scenario of the STATFOR Medium term forecast of February 2011, LVNL unit rates will be adapted. These two prerequisites will be assessed each year.

3. Calculation of a return on equity will not be included in the cost base and the chargeable unit rate in the first reference period. Return on equity will not be considered as an uncontrollable cost in this period.

2.2.12. Description of the uncontrollable costs in line with Article 11a. 2 of Regulation (EC) 1794/2006. The categories of costs, non-exhaustively mentioned in the table below are considered to be uncontrollable: Number Unforeseen and uncontrollable costs by nature

Category as mentioned in EU-regulation 1794/2006

Specification

1 Unforeseen changes due to national pension regulations and pension accounting regulations. Eligible changes to be based on National Law and regulations

Eligible changes to be introduced by the external Pension Fund (Stichting ABP Pensioenfonds) which is responsible for setting premiums etc.

Unforeseen changes in employer’s contribution to pension (incl. early retirement) premiums, insurance contributions

Unforeseen changes in interest rates for pensions (incl. early retirement)

Unforeseen changes in life expectancy tables

Unforeseen changes in earning ceilings/franchises

Unforeseen changes in retirement age

Unforeseen changes in international financial reporting standards (IFRS and IAS)

2 Unforeseen changes due to national taxation law

Unforeseen change in applicable VAT base and percentage

Unforeseen changes in other tax laws with an effect on ANSP costs

3 Unforeseen and new cost items not covered in the national Performance Plan but required by law

Unforeseen changes in social security regulations and employer contributions (health insurance, unemployment, disability, reintegration)

Unforeseen changes in international financial reporting standards (IFRS)

Unforeseen changes in Employer Liability Insurance

Unforeseen changes in statutory duties

4 Unforeseen changes in costs or revenues based on obligations set by international agreements

Unforeseen changes in EUROCONTROL Budget Part I and Part IX provisions

Unforeseen changes in Maastricht Agreement (Eurocontrol Part III provisions)

Unforeseen changes in ICAO regulations


Number Unforeseen and uncontrollable costs by nature

Category as mentioned in EU-regulation 1794/2006

Specification

Unforeseen changes due to new international states agreements (delegation of airspace, LOAs)

Unforeseen MUAC: changes in OAT cost-sharing agreement

Unforeseen MUAC: changes in financial, contract regulations and staff regulations

5 Significant changes in interest rates on loans Every change

6 Differences from projected inflation rates (in line with Article 6a Regulation 1794/2006 on Common Charging Scheme, amended by Regulation 1191/2010

Including the inflation part of

o salary increases

o increases in pension (incl. early retirement) premiums

Table 18: Uncontrollable costs by nature

General salary increases resulting from direct negations between unions and ANSP or ANSP related organisations (MUAC exempted) are not considered as uncontrollable costs.

2.2.13. EU wide PIs on cost efficiency

The following EU wide PIs will be monitored during RP1: 1. Determined en route cost/revenue

This indicator provides information about the effectiveness of the ANSPs’ cost management. 2. Total en route cost per flight hour:

This indicator gives insight into degree of productivity development of the ANSPs. This PI is only meant for monitoring purposes and contains no forward looking information.

3. Total economic cost per flight hour: This indicator gives information on all relevant costs related to ANS, not only the costs of the service provision itself, but also the costs of delays and environmental costs. Thus, this indicator gives an idea of the overall ANS performance in financial terms. This PI is only meant for monitoring purposes and contains no forward looking information.

4. Terminal air navigation services costs and unit rates (see also in section 2.2.11). The differences between the forecasted and the actual terminal air navigation costs and unit rate will be explained to the Commission. This PI has to be monitored because the Commission intends to set a target on the terminal air navigation service unit rates in the second reference period. This PI will be used as a EU wide KPI in RP2. The terminal air navigation costs and unit rate are currently reported once a year to the Commission. The current reporting cycle will be continued.

2.2.14. KPIs on cost efficiency to be used in the second reference period The determined

Terminal Unit rate shall be monitored in the first reference period in preparation of its introduction as KPI in the second reference period.

2.2.15. Reporting tables:

Reporting tables for the costs and unit rate are included in Appendix A. En route: Reporting tables and additional information. Terminal:

Reporting tables and additional information.


2.3. Summary of the (additional) national KPIs.

This sections summarizes the (mandatory) national KPIs and targets and PIs which will be applicable in the first reference period as set out in the previous section.

KPA KPI

National targets National/ thresholds

2012 2013 2014

(a) Safety To maintain current safety levels None None None None (b) Capacity Average Total ATFM delay

(in minutes) terminal and en route

1 1 1 None

Sustainability of the first inbound peak (in %)

92.5 92.5* 92.5* None

(c) Environment Rules related to runway and route use (no. of deviations)

0 0 0 None

(d) Cost-efficiency Determined en-route unit rate (2009 prices in €)

58,86 57,47 56,84

10 % (to be applied on both costs and traffic volumes)

*Pending LVNL analysis of the feasibility of adjusting the target to 93% in 2013 and 2014.

Table 19. Summary of targets and thresholds

2.4.Consistency of the performance targets with the European Union-wide performance targets

In this section a comparison is made between the EU wide targets and the targets on cost efficiency in the FIR Amsterdam and the additional Dutch KPIs. a. Safety As indicated in section 2.1.(a) the Netherlands has decided not to set additional mandatory national safety KPIs and associated targets. However, an additional national safety performance indicator (PI) is set and will be (or is) consistent with the second EU-wide safety PI. b. Capacity As a contribution to the FABEC capacity target as described in Chapter 2.1 of the FABEC Performance Plan, the Netherlands has set the reference values for LVNL and MUAC at the level of the reference value as provided by the Eurocontrol planning process, namely at an average delay of 0.18 and 0.22 minutes per flight respectively. The intermediate values for LVNL are set at 0.20 for 2012 and 2013. These intermediate values differ from the intermediate values as provided by Eurocontrol. The latter show an increase in time, which the Netherlands does not think to be justified now that the performance scheme focuses on performance improvement. For MUAC the 2014 target and intermediate values are set at the level of the reference values as provided by Eurocontrol. Based on past performance of both LVNL and MUAC, as indicated in the table below, this target should be achievable with the expected traffic increase. By setting a capacity target at this level the Dutch target is consistent with and contributes adequately to the EU-wide target.


Table 20. Past performance capacity LVNL and MUAC

LVNL

LVNL offers sufficient en route capacity to handle the forecasted traffic demand and does not expect to experience structural shortages in the first reference period. Most imbalances are solved in the strategic and pre-tactical planning phases, in particular through coordination with the main user, KLM. Therefore there are currently no activities planned to increase significantly the ACC capacity in this period. The focus is on making a better use of available capacity through optimising the sector opening schemes with regard to the expected traffic demand, optimizing ATS route network and procedures and optimising the procedures for issuing regulations. The training of new ATCOs to maintain present capacity will continue as usual. The investments planned in the 1

st reference period as described in Appendix C will enable LVNL to

maintain current capacity and to accommodate both future traffic growth as well as the new ATM concept developed in the SESAR program. Furthermore, LVNL and its military partners are enhancing their cooperation. This is expected to have a positive effect on performance in 2012-2014. In addition, Airport-CDM will be fully implemented during the first reference period. It is expected to contribute positively to capacity performance.

ACC 2012 2013 2014

Amsterdam

(EHAA)

Measures planned

Optimising the sector opening schemes

Optimise ATFCM procedures with ASM procedures

increased cooperation with military ANSP

Significant Events Olympic Games

Capacity increase

p.a. +2% +2% +2%

Table 21. LVNL measures and benefits

c. Sustainability As has been described in section 2.1.(b) the sustainability target has been set at 92.5%. LVNL is analyzing at present the feasibility of raising the target to 93% for 2013 and 2014, to meet the user requirements of KLM, the main user at Schiphol Airport. d. Total ATFM delay The target for total ATFM delay consists of a combination of terminal and en route delays. The associated target has been set at 1 minute per flight. For the first reference period there is also an EU wide target for en route ATFM delay. As has been mentioned earlier the 2014 target for en route delay has been set at 0.18 minutes per flight, which is consistent with and contributes adequately to the EU-wide target. It also means that terminal ATFM delay should not exceed 0.82 minutes per flight. In order to meet this target LVNL, KLM and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AAS) are cooperating to match airport capacity with terminal and en route capacity. This cooperation will be further enhanced by the complete implementation of Airport-Cooperative Decision Making (A-CDM) during the 1

st reference

2009A 2010A 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014F

LVNL En-route ATFM delay prior to RP1 (en-route ATFM delay minutes per flight)

0.03 0.2 PM

Reference value from the capacity planning process of EUROCONTROL (en-route ATFM delay minutes per flight)

0.12 0.14 0.18

% n/n-1 National/FAB capacity target (en-route ATFM delay in minutes per flight)

0.20 0.20 0.18

% n/n-1 Difference between the target and the reference value 0.08 0.06 None MUAC En-route ATFM delay prior to RP1 (en-route ATFM delay minutes per flight)

0.05 0.05 0.20

Reference value from the capacity planning process of EUROCONTROL (en-route ATFM delay minutes per flight)

0. 30 0.24 0.22

% n/n-1 National/FAB capacity target (en-route ATFM delay in minutes per flight)

0.20 0.24 0.22

% n/n-1 Difference between the target and the reference value None None None


period. It is expected that this KPI and its associated target will help LVNL in meeting the capacity target.

MUAC The investments planned in the 1

st reference period as described in Appendix C will enable MUAC to

maintain current capacity or are enablers to accommodate future growth in traffic as well as of the introduction of SESAR compatible ATM-concept(s). ACC 2012 2013 2014

MUAC (EDYY) Measures planned

Free Route Airspace MUAC (FRAM)

Free Route Airspace MUAC (FRAM)

MARS2

NTCA NTCA NTCA

Cross - validation Generic ATCO Licence

AMAN / DMAN interface LUX area redesign

LARA TRA12 Released – CDR1 in Dutch airspace

Traffic Management System (TMS) Levels 1-2

Progressive development and improvement of New FDPS and CWP functions (MTCD, enhanced OLDI, …)

Revised pre-tactical process CPDLC monitoring and implementation

Annual Capacity increase

+3,5% +3,5% +6,0%

Table 22. MUAC main capacity measures and benefits

f. Environment As explained in section 2.1.(c) the additional mandatory national KPIs on environment are related to noise abatement rules and not to horizontal flight efficiency. These rules limit LVNL’s options, to a certain extent, to handle traffic in the most optimal way and might, under certain weather circumstances, have a negative effect on capacity (performance). g. Cost efficiency In the graph below the cumulative changes in each organization’s partial determined unit rate are given.

Fig. 6. Cumulative change partial en route determined unit rate per organization in FIR Amsterdam


The EU wide target of an annual decrease of 3.5% in the determined en route unit rate is almost completely achieved in the FIR Amsterdam, because: 1. the 2009 cost reduction (100 FTE = 15% of the support staff plus a decrease in the other

operating expenses, leading to a decrease in the support staff ratio from 5.1 in 2009 to 4.5 in 2011 and tariff stabilisation measures by LVNL have not left much room for further improvement in the cost efficiency field: nevertheless, LVNL will in the coming years reduce its support staff with 28 FTE. The number of controllers will increase. There will be a net reduction of 104 FTE. Furthermore, the interest costs will decrease by using State loan facilities, both for operating expenses and for investments.

2. After the implementation of AUTO METAR, KNMI has little room left for any further cost reductions. KNMI will reduce its staff by 4.5 FTE and has an ongoing focus on systems automation.

3. On the basis of the cost sharing key agreement for MUAC, lower costs sharing keys have been applied for the Netherlands in 2011. This also implied lower costs. However, the application of the same cost sharing key agreement results in higher cost sharing keys for the Netherlands during the first reference period 2012-2014 and this is resulting in a more than proportional cost increase. The cost reductions achieved by MUAC are negatively compensated by this higher cost sharing key for the Netherlands and finally have a negative effect on the overall Dutch cost efficiency performance.

4. MUAC is also focusing on cost efficiency and cost reduction measures, inter alia the optimisation of the ATCO deployment, the review of its recruitment programme Ab Initio’s by outsourcing its Ab Initio training to FABEC partners, leasing ATCOs to Austrocontrol (2011-2013), a reduction in its support cost ratio, renegotiating running contracts and starting a common procurement of a FABEC compliant New Voice Communication System with DSNA.

All in all, the targeted unit rate in the FIR Amsterdam will decrease with 9.7% in the period 2012 – 2014 (compared to 2011). Without the change in the MUAC cost sharing key, the targeted unit rate would decrease with 11.2%. h. Interdependencies between targets The key performance indicators in this Performance Plan should not be considered in isolation, as performance in one area will affect performance in other areas. A balance should be found specifically between the KPAs on capacity and cost efficiency. Capacity investments will in most cases lead to cost increases and should only be considered if a capacity shortage is expected. Whereas a higher target for cost-efficiency will have an effect on capacity as this would most likely result in reducing the number of ATCOs or reducing investments. For LVNL a more ambitious target for capacity will most certainly require higher investments, the more so as their current system already has reached the end of its life cycle. Higher investments will result in a lower performance on cost efficiency. LVNL will only implement replacements of outdated systems in the first reference period. A higher target on cost–efficiency will not be feasible, considering the substantial cost containment measures that have already been taken by LVNL in 2009 and 2010. In the case of MUAC, a high performing state of the art New FDPS platform is operational. The proposed capacity plan aims at further deploying its capabilities and functionalities to improve ATCO productivity. The current Netherlands targets for cost efficiency and capacity targets are considered to be achievable while maintaining a very high safety standard.

2.5. Carry-overs from the years before RP1

Section 2.2.12 already includes a table (table 14) showing the carry overs.

2.6. Parameters for risk sharing and incentives

Article 11 of the Performance Regulation describes incentives. A distinction is made between financial and non-financial incentives. No distinction is made between ex ante incentives (both the reward and its volume and the criteria for obtaining the reward are set in advance) and ex post incentives in the


form of corrective actions to be taken in case of underperformance and depending on the cause of the underperformance. In the following table the applicable national incentives for each KPA are presented.

KPA Incentive scheme applied on ANSPs

National

Financial Non-financial

Safety n a Ex post: Corrective action(s) depending on the degree and causes of the underperformance

Capacity n a Ex post: Corrective action (s) depending on the degree and causes of underperformance

Environment Ex post: Financial penalties (related to RMI)

Ex post: Corrective action (s) depending on the degree and causes of underperformance

Cost efficiency Ex ante: Traffic volume risk (Art. 11a CIR) Cost risk (Art. 11a CIR) No financial incentives (Art. 12

CIR)

Na

Military Mission Effectiveness

n.a. n.a.

Table 23 Applicable incentives

Safety, capacity and environment There will be no ex ante incentives for safety, environment and capacity in RP1. Ex post incentives will only be applicable to ANSPs and are given in section 6.2. These incentives will only be of a non financial nature. The only exception are the rules related to runway and route use. In case one or more targets in these domains are not met, a financial penalty (bestuurlijke boete) may be imposed up to amaximum of € 100.000.

Cost efficiency: traffic and cost risks a. Traffic risk sharing: LVNL will bear the traffic volume risk in line with Article 11 of the Amended Charging Implementing Regulation

6. A plan is developed to build up an LVNL equity capital. The provisions 3 – 6 of Article 11a

will be applied fully. The volume risk percentages are set at the level of 70%, respectively 30% as mentioned in Article 11a. In line with paragraph 7 of Article 11a MUAC will be given the opportunity to build up an equalization reserve and thus will decrease the proportion of debt financing. Before the actual start of this building up of the equity capital it should be clear whether or not the MUAC Agreement will have to be amended. MUAC will not bear a traffic volume risk in RP1. KNMI, NSA and Eurocontrol Headquarter costs are, in line with aforementioned regulation, not subject to the traffic volume risk. In the figure below the traffic volume risk and the revenue distribution effects on ANSPs and users are given.

6 Commission Regulation (EU) No 1191/2010 of 16 December 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services.


Figure 7. Traffic volume risk

b. Cost risk The cost risk is applied to the cost bases of all organisations which are involved in ATC in the FIR Amsterdam, with the exception of the difference between the actual and the forecasted levels of uncontrollable costs (see 2.2.12). c. Alert mechanism In the Netherlands alert mechanisms will be applied to traffic volume and cost efficiency. For both the threshold levels are set at 10 per cent. d. Incentive scheme in respect of users of air navigation services in line with Article 12.3 of Regulation (EC) 1794/2006 No incentive schemes will be applied to users of air navigation services in reference period 1.


3.CONTRIBUTION OF EACH ACCOUNTABLE ENTITY

The accountable entities in relation to the KPIs in this plan are: 1. LVNL, in its capacity as ANSP for the Lower airspace 2. MUAC, in its capacity as ANSP for the Upper Airspace 3. KNMI, in its capacity as ANSP for meteorological services (MET) 4. NSA, The Netherlands: costs of supervision

3.1. Entity ((x)) share in the national targets and individually binding performance targets.

The table below gives an overview of the accountable entities and their shares in the mandatory EU wide targets and additional national KPIs and targets as given in the previous sections. Cost efficiency is dealt with in a separate table. KPA KPI Accountable

entity Reference values and targets

2012 2013 2014

Safety ATC related incidents and accidents LVNL No targets set no targets set no targets set Capacity Average ATM delay (en route) in minutes LVNL 0.20 0.20 0.18

MUAC 0.20 0.24 0.22 Total Average ATFM delay (en route and terminal) in minutes

LVNL 1 1 1

Sustainability (in %) LVNL 92.5% 92.5%* 92.5*%

Environ ment

Noise abatement rules (11) LVNL 100% 100% 100%

* Pending the outcome of LVNL analysis into the feasibility of raising the target to 93% in 2013 and 2014 to meet KLM user requirements.

Table 24. Entity share in the national targets

Specific individual cost efficiency performance target per entity Each of the organizations involved in en route ATC-provision in the FIR Amsterdam is accountable for achieving its individual cost efficiency target. In case of an overall underperformance at national level and caused by all organisations concerned, each of the organizations involved in en route ATC-provision in FIR Amsterdam is accountable proportionally to this underperformance. An overview of the cost efficiency reference values and targets of the individual organizations in Euros is included in the table below: 2012 2013 2014

LVNL 38.59 37.58 37.18

KNMI 2.74 2.58 2.47

MUAC 11.30 11.29 11.30

NSA/Eurocontrol 6.24 6.03 5.90

Total 58.86 57.47 56.84

Table 25. Cost efficiency reference values and targets per organization

3.2. Incentive mechanism to be applied to entity x to encourage targets to be met over the reference period.

The table below gives an overview of the incentives, as described in section 2.4., applicable to each accountable entity. KPA Accountable

entity Incentive

Ex ante Ex post

Safety LVNL Corrective action(s) depending on


KPA Accountable entity

Incentive

Ex ante Ex post

MUAC the degree and causes of the underperformance

Capacity LVNL Corrective actions depending on the degree and causes of underperformance

MUAC

Environment LVNL Financial penalties (bestuurlijke boete)

Corrective action (s) depending on the degree and causes of underperformance

Cost –efficiency LVNL Traffic and cost risk sharing mechanism Art. 11 Charging Scheme Regulation

MUAC Cost risk sharing mechanism KNMI Cost risk sharing mechanism NSA Cost risk sharing mechanism

Table 26. Incentives applicable to each accountable entity.


4.CIVIL-MILITARY DIMENSION OF THE PLAN

4.1. Performance of the FUA concept

Current situation A joint Civil Military ATM Policy Unit (MoI&E and MoD) is responsible for ASM Level 1 and is supported by the Netherlands Air Traffic Committee (LVC). This committee is established by agreement between MoI&E and MoD and acts as advisory body on airspace issues to the two ministers. It consists of representatives of both ministries (involving the MLA, DGLM and CAA-NL) and the service providers (LVNL, MUAC and Mill-ATCC, KNMI) while other ad-hoc stakeholders, such as airlines, also take part. Improvement of FUA measures planned At the end of 2011 the Dutch government will agree on a strategic airspace vision developed by the MoI&E and the MoD so as to provide political guidance at a national level to meet national requirements and the international framework of SES and FABEC. The main objective of this policy document is to provide guidance regarding future perspectives and the context of the way in which the Dutch airspace will be designed, managed and used. This document must be in line with the FABEC developments and the (inter)national initiatives regarding the use of airspace and the respective roles and tasks of the many stakeholders, both civil and military. Within the Netherlands, civil military cooperation is gaining momentum. The ongoing deployment and enhancement of the AFMU entity (as a centralised focal point in airspace management from a national perspective) and the corresponding processes and procedures are, together with the realisation of enhanced civil-military cooperation, on the political agenda. Following an agreement between the MoD and MoI&E, in April 2011, the civil-military cooperation programme will have to develop a plan for the realisation of military ACC tasks at the LVNL premises. This is expected to take place in the first reference period.

FUA Level 1

The Dutch MoD and MoI&E aim at setting up a formalised national decision making process during 2011 in support of the national and FABEC ASM and Airspace Design work in which AFMU will play a vital role; The Dutch MoD plans to introduce PRISMIL (Pan European Repository of Information Supporting Civil Military Performance Measurement) and LARA (Local and Regional Airspace Management System) during the first reference period. These tools will provide the required data and analyses regarding performance data which are mainly focussed on MME and on complete transparency of airspace use data to EUROCONTROL (PRC, CFMU), FABEC Committees and relevant task forces. A similar transparency is requested from the civil ANSPs (MUAC and LVNL) to allow for informed, performance based decision-making.

The introduction of LARA will support transparency, enhance the military booking processes and is envisaged to facilitate real-time CDM between all parties involved. The introduction of LARA is expected before the end of 2011.

At present no data are available to perform any formal data analysis regarding airspace utilisation and booking performance. With the absence of any data, (K)PIs cannot be measured and targets cannot be set. The introduction of PRISMIL should change this situation; but reference data should be collected for at least one year after the introduction of PRISMIL.

FUA Level 2 A joint civil military Airspace and Flow Management Unit (AFMU) has been established and operates from LVNL Schiphol. For the activation of two major exercise areas (TRA 10(A) and 12(A)) enhanced FUA application is proving to increase efficiency. The short notice activation option of the TRAs provides the required flexibility on the military side and offers an optional offload for the affected CDRs. All major exercises, requiring a non standard airspace volume with its associated impact on


civil capacity, are subject to a coordination process involving civil and military stakeholders and CDM. If no consensus can be reached, a formal decision will be requested from level 1. FUA Level 3 Additional CDR 2 utilisation is envisaged after the introduction of LARA. At present the introduction of new CDRs on the 10th of March 2011 involving the Temporary Restricted Area (TRA) 10(A) is expected to provide substantial benefits to civil ANSPs and users. Based on the feasibility study the estimated benefits for airspace users as a result of fuel savings (and CO2 reduction) and network optimisation, based on the optimal use of air space, range between €14 million and €21 million per year, consisting of possible cost savings and additional income. In addition, a possible cost saving of air traffic service for the benefit of both civil and military airspace users is expected, depending on the details of a possible merger or co-location of LVNL and the military air traffic control.

4.2. Additional KPI’s

No additional national civil-military KPA/KPIs are set for the first reference period.


5. ANALYSIS OF SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS

PERFORMANCE PLAN

5.1.Sensitivity to external assumptions

This section contains an analysis of the sensitivity of performance targets set against variations in the external assumptions and external factors used to define the targets.

Assumptions Effect of a change Mitigation and control measures

Safety

Capacity

Delay targets are related to a static capacity model (Eurocontrol).

The model is a tool for modeling structural problems, but does not take into account dynamic issues such as delay caused by bunched traffic and weather. For LVNL and MUAC dynamic effects are the main reasons for restrictions.

NL reports the delay cause and this should be taken into account by the EC when determining performance.

Environment

Flight efficiency is optimised at European level by the Network Manager. These flight efficiency solutions may cause a deterioration in the performance for the KPAs and KPIs at local ANSP level.

Changes in route structure may decrease capacity in sectors or make approach and departure more complex at an airport

Close cooperation between Network Manager and ANSP. Clear cause attribution in case network solutions decrease ANSP performance.

Changes in major traffic flows Changes outside managerial control may cause changes in traffic flows across Europe, which may cause a higher than anticipated traffic demand causing a reduction in performance. Reasons for traffic flow changes are social unrest/industrial action, increased charges, market developments, etc.

Delay cause may be reported and EC should take this into account when determining performance. (see STATFOR for actual traffic growth)

Financial

Difference between actual and forecasted traffic volume

Traffic volume risk in line with Article 11a.1 of the amended Charging Implementing Rule: between max -4,4% and max 4.4% of revenues annually

More stringent cost control

Use of equalization reserve

Difference between actual and forecasted inflation rate

Difference between the determined costs expressed in nominal terms prior to the reference period and the determined costs adjusted on the basis of the actual inflation (as recorded by the Commission (Eurostat)) for the year which shall be carried over no later than in the year n+2.

Liquidity risk

To be carried over within two years

Sufficient availability of short term credit lines

Difference between actual and forecasted interest rate

Increase in costs, which may be considered as uncontrollable costs as far as they are the result of a significant 7 change in interest rates on loans and thus are to be considered as


7 The PRU has been requested to clarify the meaning of “significant”. The Commission has given no clear answer.


Assumptions Effect of a change Mitigation and control measures

uncontrollable; thus, the small differences are the ANSP’s cost risk

Liquidity risk. Difference between actual and budgeted salaries

Increase in costs Productivity increases Salary control Restriction of salary increases to

inflation rate level Difference between actual and budgeted social costs

Increase in costs, which may be considered as uncontrollable costs as far as it concerns unforeseen changes in national taxation law;

Liquidity risk

To be carried over within two years


Pension fund obligations Increase in costs, which may be considered as uncontrollable costs as far as it concerns unforeseen changes in national pension regulations and pension accounting regulations;

Liquidity risk


Higher depreciation costs than budgeted

Postponement of necessary investments because of cost increase effects. This will result in a possible increase in safety risk and as an effect of the decrease in safety capacity also will decrease

Decrease of capacity; Suspension of investment; Suspension (later start) of

depreciation period; Exemption of determined unit rate

because of the necessity and/or justification of an investment on the basis of a sound cost benefit analysis: the advantages of a speedy implementation of an investment exceeds the increase in the determined costs in the reference period.

Oil price above $ 150 per barrel Decrease in traffic

Increase in costs

Creation of more flexibility in the organisation of ANS provision

Currency rate Euro – dollar below 1,20 Decrease in traffic

Increase in costs

Transition costs in case of discharges to decrease ATC costs

Increase in short term costs with cost reduction effects in the longer run

Neither ANSPs, nor states able/willing to bear this risk;

Unforeseen changes in costs or revenues stemming from international agreements

Change of legal entity and cost structure of MUAC resulting from amended Maastricht Agreement and funding principles

Eurocontrol staff regulations and salary adjustment mechanisms applicable to MUAC

Transition costs in case of restructuring/termination of ACCs



Additional costs of new forms of civil-military cooperation



Military mission effectiveness

Change in political circumstances Effect on MME KPIs (in case of foreign deployment there is a need for additional training)

Table 27 sensitivity parameters

5.2.Comparison with previous Performance Plan

There are no previous Performance Plans in a comparable form.


6. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERFORMANCE PLAN

6.1 Monitoring and reporting

This section deals with the monitoring and reporting mechanisms as well as with the measures put in place to ensure that the targets are monitored and met. a) Content of the monitoring and reporting The monitoring and reporting will focus on the following: Achievement of the actions defined in the ANS part of the State Safety Programme(s) and of the

ANS Business Plans; Performance of the accountable entity with regard to each of the KPAs; Actual realisation of external assumptions and external factors affecting performance; Evolution of uncontrollable costs; Reaching of the alert threshold beyond which the alert mechanism may be activated; In case the alert thresholds are likely to be reached, a description of the possible measures the

relevant accountable entity plans to take to resolve the situation; Corrective measures, action plans (necessity, planning, implementation, costs and effects).

The NSA will once a year report to the European Commission on the monitoring of the progress made under the Performance Plan. This annual monitoring report will be sent to the Commission in May of the following year.

b) Monitoring and reporting cycle

For the monitoring of the cost efficiency KPI and the additional mandatory national KPIs and PIs on safety, capacity and environment the following applies: LVNL Monitoring and reporting on the performance of the additional mandatory national KPIs and PIs on safety, capacity, environment and cost efficiency will be done on a quarterly basis. Because of its ZBO status, LVNL will also report on specific financial issues as is done in the present circumstances. LVNL will submit a report to the NSA on a quarterly basis. MUAC Monitoring and reporting on the safety, capacity, environment and cost efficiency will be on a quarterly basis as part of the Management Review process applied to MUAC. MUAC will submit a monitoring report to the Maastricht Coordination Group. KNMI Monitoring and reporting on the cost efficiency performance will be on an annual basis. KNMI will submit a monitoring report to the NSA each year in May.

6.2.Appropriate measures

Accountable entity In case the performance targets are not met or are likely not to be met, the relevant accountable entity (ies) will be requested to submit a corrective action plan to the NSA within two months containing the following information: An analysis of the causes of the underperformance; A description of possible measure(s) to be taken to resolve the situation, taking due account of

other developments planned at national and/or FABEC level to achieve the performance targets; A description of any (negative) effect of the (possible) corrective measures taken on other KPIs

and targets;


An indication of the lead time for the corrective measures to have an effect; The costs associated with the measures to be taken;

A planning of the development, deployment and implementation of the corrective measures. NSA On the basis of the corrective action plan, the NSA has to decide which measures are to be taken by the relevant accountable entity to rectify the underperformance and what frequency is applied for submitting progress reports to assess progress in the situation. Current consultation procedures will remain unchanged.

6.3 Adaptation of the Performance Plan

In case it is decided to adapt the Performance plan, (e.g. in case the alert thresholds have been met), a new Performance plan will be drafted.


APPENDICES

A Reporting tables

B Overview of investments

C Extracts from the State Safety Plan

D Stakeholder consultation documents


Appendix A : Reporting Tables

En route

Charging zone name Netherlands

Consol idation - a l l enti ties

Cost details 2010F* 2011F* 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1. Detail by nature (in nominal terms)

1.1 Staff 108,8 105,4 106,4 109,6 113,5 106,1

1.2 Other operating costs 48,0 43,9 46,3 45,8 46,6 41,3

1.3 Depreciation 10,6 11,2 10,2 10,7 11,2 11,1

1.4 Cost of capita l 3,5 3,2 2,9 2,3 2,3 3,2

1.5 Exceptional i tems -7,0 -1,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 22,0

1.6 Tota l costs 164,0 161,8 165,8 168,4 173,6 183,7

Tota l % n/n-1 -1,4% 2,5% 1,6% 3,1%

Staff % n/n-1 -3,2% 1,0% 3,0% 3,6%

Other op. % n/n-1 -8,4% 5,4% -1,2% 1,8%

2. Detail by service (in nominal terms)

2.1 Ai r Traffic Management 126,4 124,5 128,7 131,2 135,7 147,0

2.2 Communication 3,9 4,6 4,8 4,8 4,9 4,7

2.3 Navigation 3,9 4,0 3,4 3,5 3,6 3,4

2.4 Survei l lance 2,6 3,0 2,1 2,1 2,2 2,1

2.5 Search and rescue 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

2.6 Aeronautica l Information 2,1 1,8 1,6 1,6 1,7 1,5

2.7 Meteorologica l services 8,0 7,9 7,7 7,5 7,5 8,2

2.8 Supervis ion costs 1,0 1,4 1,8 1,8 1,8 0,9

2.9 Other State costs 16,1 14,6 15,7 15,8 16,2 15,9

2.10 Tota l costs 164,0 161,8 165,8 168,4 173,6 183,7

Tota l % n/n-1 -1,4% 2,5% 1,6% 3,1%

ATM % n/n-1 -1,6% 3,4% 2,0% 3,5%

CNS % n/n-1 12,8% -11,9% 1,1% 2,8%

3. Complementary information on the cost of capital and on the cost of common projects (in nominal terms)

Average asset base

3.1 Net book va l . fixed assets 92,4 78,9 86,9 93,8 111,5 92,4

3.2 Adjustments tota l assets -16,6 8,0 6,8 17,8 25,2 -13,5

3.3 Net current assets 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

3.4 Tota l asset base 75,8 86,9 93,7 111,6 136,6 78,9

Cost of capital %

3.5 Cost of capita l pre tax rate 4,6% 3,6% 3,1% 2,1% 1,6% 4,1%

3.6 Return on equity

3.7 Average interest on debts 4,6% 3,6% 3,1% 2,1% 1,6% 4,1%

Cost of common projects

3.8 Common Project 1

4. Complementary information on inflation and on total costs in real terms

4.1 Inflation % (1) 0,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 0,9%

4.2 Price index - Base 100 in 2009 100,9 102,9 105,0 107,1 109,2 100,9

4.3 Tota l costs rea l terms (2) 162,6 157,2 157,9 157,2 159,0 182,0

Tota l % n/n-1 -3,3% 0,4% -0,4% 1,1%

5. Deduction of costs allocated to exempted VFR flights (in nominal terms)

5.1 Tota l costs 164,0 161,8 165,8 168,4 173,6 183,7

5.2 Costs for exempted VFR fl ights 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4

5.3 Tota l costs after deduction (3) 163,6 161,4 165,4 167,9 173,2 183,3

Costs and asset base items in '000 000 Euro - Service units in '000 000

(1) Forecast inflation used for establishing the determined costs in nominal terms - actual inflation

(2) Determined costs (performance plan) in real terms - actual costs in real terms - base 100 in 2009

(3) Determined costs (after deduction of VFR costs) reported at line 1.1 - Reporting Table 2 (in nominal terms)

*Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F)

Actual costs

Period of reference : 2012-2014

Table 1 - Total Costs

Forecast Costs* Determined Costs



ANSP Name LVNL

Cost details 2010F* 2011F* 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


1.1 Staff 79,0 77,2 76,6 78,5 81,1 77,6


1.3 Depreciation 7,8 8,5 7,4 7,8 8,3 7,6

1.4 Cost of capita l 3,0 2,8 2,5 1,9 1,8 3,0

1.5 Exceptional i tems -7,0 0,6 22,0

1.6 Tota l costs 107,0 111,1 108,7 110,1 113,6 129,3

Total % n/n-1 3,8% -2,1% 1,3% 3,2%

Staff % n/n-1 -2,2% -0,8% 2,5% 3,3%

Other op. % n/n-1 -9,7% 1,3% -1,4% 2,0%



2.2 Communication 3,9 3,5 3,7 3,7 3,9 3,6

2.3 Navigation 3,9 4,0 3,4 3,5 3,6 3,4

2.4 Survei l lance 2,6 3,0 2,1 2,1 2,2 2,1

2.5 Search and rescue 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0



2.8 Supervis ion costs 1,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,9

2.9 Other State costs 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

2.10 Tota l costs 107,0 111,1 108,7 110,1 113,6 129,3

Total % n/n-1 3,8% -2,1% 1,3% 3,2%

ATM % n/n-1 5,5% -0,8% 1,3% 3,2%

CNS % n/n-1 1,6% -12,6% 1,2% 3,2%


Average asset base


3.2 Adjustments tota l assets -16,6 5,9 5,3 15,7 25,2 -16,6

3.3 Net current assets

3.4 Tota l asset base 62,3 68,2 73,5 89,2 114,4 62,3

Cost of capital %



3.7 Average interest on debts 4,8% 4,2% 3,4% 2,1% 1,6% 4,8%




4.1 Inflation % (1) 0,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 0,9%



Total % n/n-1 1,7% -4,0% -0,7% 1,2%


5.1 Tota l costs 107,0 111,1 108,7 110,1 113,6 129,3








Actual costs






MET Service provider name KNMI

Cost details 2010F* 2011F* 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


1.1 Staff 3,9 3,9 3,8 3,7 3,7 4,3


1.3 Depreciation 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1

1.4 Cost of capita l 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

1.5 Exceptional i tems

1.6 Tota l costs 8,0 7,9 7,7 7,5 7,5 8,2

Total % n/n-1 -2,0% -2,1% -2,3% 0,2%

Staff % n/n-1 -1,1% -2,1% -2,2% 0,0%

Other op. % n/n-1 -3,0% -2,1% -2,5% 0,4%


2.1 Ai r Traffic Management

2.2 Communication

2.3 Navigation

2.4 Survei l lance

2.5 Search and rescue

2.6 Aeronautica l Information


2.8 Supervis ion costs

2.9 Other State costs

2.10 Tota l costs 8,0 7,9 7,7 7,5 7,5 8,2

Total % n/n-1 -2,0% -2,1% -2,1% 0,0%

ATM % n/n-1

CNS % n/n-1


Average asset base


3.2 Adjustments tota l assets 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0


3.4 Tota l asset base 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4

Cost of capital % 2,9% 4,3% 4,1% 3,9% 3,9% 3,4%

3.5 Cost of capita l pre tax rate


3.7 Average interest on debts




4.1 Inflation % (1) 0,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 0,9% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%



Total % n/n-1 -3,9% -4,0% -4,0% -2,0%


5.1 Tota l costs 8,0 7,9 7,7 7,5 7,5 8,2

5.2 Costs for exempted VFR fl ights 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0







Actual costs






State - NSA

Cost details 2010F* 2011F* 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


1.1 Staff 0,0 0,8 1,0 1,0 1,0 0,0


1.3 Depreciation 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

1.4 Cost of capita l

1.5 Exceptional i tems

1.6 Tota l costs 16,1 16,0 17,6 17,7 18,0 15,9

Total % n/n-1 10,1% 0,5% 1,7%

Staff % n/n-1 33,3% 0,0% -5,0%

Other op. % n/n-1 8,9% 0,6% 2,1%


2.1 Ai r Traffic Management

2.2 Communication

2.3 Navigation

2.4 Survei l lance



2.7 Meteorologica l services 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

2.8 Supervis ion costs 0,0 1,4 1,8 1,8 1,8

2.9 Other State costs (inc.ECTL) 16,1 14,6 15,7 15,8 16,2 15,9

2.10 Tota l costs 16,1 16,0 17,6 17,7 18,0 15,9

Total % n/n-1 -0,7% 9,7% 0,5% 2,0%

ATM % n/n-1

CNS % n/n-1


Average asset base

3.1 Net book va l . fixed assets

3.2 Adjustments tota l assets


3.4 Tota l asset base

Cost of capital %

3.5 Cost of capita l pre tax rate






4.1 Inflation % (1) 0,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 0,9%



Total % n/n-1 -2,6% 7,6% -1,4% 0,0%


5.1 Tota l costs 16,1 16,0 17,6 17,7 18,0 15,9








Actual costs






MUAC

Cost details 2010F* 2011F* 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


1.1 Staff 26,0 23,6 25,0 26,4 27,7 24,1


1.3 Depreciation 2,8 2,6 2,7 2,8 2,8 3,4

1.4 Cost of capita l 0,5 0,3 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,2

1.5 Exceptional i tems 0,0 -2,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

1.6 Tota l costs 32,8 26,9 31,8 33,1 34,5 30,3

Total % n/n-1 -18,2% 18,5% 3,8% 4,4%

Staff % n/n-1 -9,2% 6,2% 5,4% 5,2%

Other op. % n/n-1 -18,7% 27,6% -6,1% 0,7%



2.2 Communication 1,2 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1

2.3 Navigation

2.4 Survei l lance


2.6 Aeronautica l Information

2.7 Meteorologica l services

2.8 Supervis ion costs

2.9 Other State costs (inc.ECTL)

2.10 Tota l costs 32,8 26,9 31,8 33,1 34,5 30,3

Total % n/n-1 -18,2% 18,3% 4,1% 4,2%

ATM % n/n-1

CNS % n/n-1


Average asset base


3.2 Adjustments tota l assets 0,0 2,1 1,5 2,1 0,0 3,1


3.4 Tota l asset base 13,1 18,3 19,8 21,9 21,9 16,2

Cost of capital %







4.1 Inflation % (1) 0,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 0,9%



Total % n/n-1 -19,8% 16,0% 2,1% 2,2%


5.1 Tota l costs 32,8 26,9 31,8 33,1 34,5 30,3










Actual costsForecast Costs* Determined Costs


Charging zone name : Netherlands

Consol idation - a l l enti ties

Unit rate calculation 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1. Determined costs in nominal terms and inflation adjustment

1.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl . - Table 1 163,6 161,4 165,4 167,9 173,2

1.2 Actual inflation rate - Table 1 0,9%

1.3 Forecast inflation rate - Table 1 0,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0%

1.4 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : year n amount to be carried over

2. Forecast and actual total service units

2.1 Forecast tota l service units (performance plan) 2,5 2,6 2,7 2,7 2,8

2.2 Actual tota l service units 2,5

2.3 Actual / forecast tota l service units (in %)

3. Costs subject to traffic risk sharing (ANSP)

3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl . (reported from Table 1) 106,6 110,6 108,3 109,6 113,1

3.2 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : amount carried over to year n

3.3 Traffic - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n

3.4 Traffic ri sk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : add. revenue carried over to year n

3.5 Traffic ri sk sharing - Article 1.4.2: revenues losses carried over to year n

3.6 Uncontrol lable costs - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n

3.7 Bonus or penalty for performance - Article 1.11.2

3.8 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 0,8 6,5 11,4 12,3 11,5

3.9 Tota l for the ca lculation of year n unit rate 107,5 117,1 119,7 121,9 124,6

3.10 Traffic ri sk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : add. rev. year n to be carried-over

3.11 Traffic ri sk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : revenue loss year n to be carried-over

Parameters for traffic ri sk sharing

3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article 1.4.2 70% 70% 70%

3.13 % loss of revenue borne by a i rspace users - Article 1.4.2 70% 70% 70%

4. Costs not subject to traffic risk sharing - Article 11a (2)

4.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl . (Table 1) 57,0 50,8 57,1 58,3 60,1






5. Other revenues - applied unit rate (in national currency)

5.1 Revenues from other sources - Article 1.3 1,5 1,1 2,0 2,0 1,5

5.2 Grand tota l for the ca lculation of year n unit rate 163 168 176 179 184

5.3 Year n unit rate (in national currency) 65,67 65,66 65,58 65,63 65,95

5.4 ANSP component of the unit rate 42,69 45,42 44,07 44,07 44,07

5.5 MET component of the unit rate 3,24 3,16 3,09 2,97 2,90

5.6 NSA-State component of the unit rate 6,50 6,27 6,78 6,69 6,67

5.7 MUAC component of the unit rate 13,24 10,81 11,82 12,07 12,31

5.8 Year n unit rate that would have appl ied without other revenues 66,29 66,09 66,33 66,35 66,48

Costs, revenues and other amounts in '000 000 Euro - Service units in '000 000

(1) O ver/under recoveries incurred up to the year of entry into force of the determined cost method


Table 2 - Unit rate calculation



ANSP name : LVNL




1.2 Actual inflation rate - Table 1 0,9%








3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl . (reported from Table 1) 106,6 110,6 108,3 109,6 113,1












3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article 1.4.2 70% 70% 70%

3.13 % loss of revenue borne by a i rspace users - Article 1.4.2 70% 70% 70%


4.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl . (Table 1)




4.5 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n

4.6 Tota l for the ca lculation of year n unit rate



5.2 Grand tota l for the ca lculation of year n unit rate 105,9 116,0 118,2 120,4 123,1


5.4 ANSP component of the unit rate

5.5 MET component of the unit rate

5.6 NSA-State component of the unit rate








MET Service provider name : KNMI




1.2 Actual inflation rate - Table 1








3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl . (reported from Table 1)












3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article 1.4.2

3.13 % loss of revenue borne by a i rspace users - Article 1.4.2






















State - NSA















































MUAC































4.5 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 0,8 -0,1 -0,1 -0,1



5.1 Revenues from other sources - Article 1.3 0,0 0,5 0,5 0,0


5.3 Year n unit rate (in national currency) (MUAC) 13,24 10,81 11,64 11,90 12,31










Additional Information on the tables in Annexes II, III and VI of the EU Regulation on the Common Charging Scheme (1794/2006, amended by 1191/2010)

State: Netherlands – FIR Amsterdam en route Definitive data on targeted unit rate 2012 – 2014

Preliminary data on the chargeable unit rate for the period 2012 - 2014

General information

Introduction Under the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services, particularly Chapter II (the cost of Air Navigation Service Provision), every year the reporting tables on cost bases, planned investments and expected traffic as well as the reporting table on charging mechanisms have to be filled in. A description/explanation is given below of the way in which these tables have been filled in. Charging zones This part describes the charging system in the Netherlands. In 2008, two charging zones were established in the Netherlands airspace. An en route charging zone has been introduced, covering the whole of the Flight Information Region (FIR) Amsterdam, which consists of the airspace beyond a radius of 20 km (= 12 nautical miles) around LVNL controlled airports above flight level (FL) 30 (~ 3000 feet). Service units are calculated in line with the annexes to Regulation 1794/2006. A single cost base and a single unit rate are applicable to this charging zone, except for helicopter flights in the North Sea Area Amsterdam. A separate charge is applicable to these flights. Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC) provides en route air navigation services (ANS) from FL 245. LVNL (Air Traffic Control the Netherlands) provides en route ANS in the air space beyond a radius of 20 km (= 12 nautical miles) around the airports above FL 30 up to FL 245. The approach services in this part of the airspace are part of the en route services. On the basis of operational requirements the ANS approach costs are allocated to the en route charging zone. KNMI has been designated as ANS Provider for meteorological services (MET) in the FIR Amsterdam There is no competition in the field of air navigation services in the Netherlands, Article 1.6 of Regulation 1794/2006 is not applicable. Since January 1

st 2008, both the en route service and the terminal service units are calculated in line with

Regulation 1794/2006. The unit rates and their underlying national costs (cost bases) are calculated in line with Commission Regulation 1794/2006, while observing the Eurocontrol principles for establishing the cost base for en route facility charges and the calculation of the unit rates as well as the conditions of application of the route charges system and conditions of payment. Both LVNL and KNMI have introduced new cost allocation models as of January 1

st 2009 LVNL also applied

this model on its Annual Report 2008. These models and the underlying allocation principles are in line with Regulation 1794/2006 and the other Regulations. The LVNL model has been simplified in 2010. This change had no effects on the allocation of costs to the various charging zones.

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Under article 12 of the Service Provision Regulation (EC no 550/2004) the accounts of ANSPs have to comply with the IFRS to the maximum possible extent. LVNL As of 2008 the LVNL financial statements comply with IFRS with the exception of the provisions related to the early retirement arrangements of the operational LVNL-staff (FLNA; IAS 19 IFRS). The Netherlands has decided to exclude this specific item from the IFRS implementation. As a consequence of this decision neither the FLNA obligations nor a related provision is presented as liabilities in the LVNL balance sheet. As


in the past users will only be charged for the actual FLNA expenses. According to actuarial calculations of December 31

st 2010, the net present value of the defined benefit obligations is about

M€ 250, including the standard tax penalty of 52%). To minimize the lack of transparency on this issue, LVNL presents these obligations as ‘off-balance sheet rights and commitments’. KNMI Under Article 12 of the Service Provision Regulation (EC no 550/2004) the accounts of KNMI have to comply with IFRS to the maximum possible extent. From 2011 onwards the financial statements of KNMI have been as much as possible drawn up in accordance to IFRS. A few issues remain which could not be dealt with according to IFRS due to the national legal rules and regulations . These issues are described in the financial statements of KNMI. Since January 2009 the under or over recovery of the charges due to the traffic volume changes and the costs are included in the KNMI balance, instead of the LVNL balance. Since the start of 2011 KNMI receives its part of the Dutch en route charge directly from CRCO. MUAC and Eurocontrol The financial impact of non-recurring effects of the introduction of IFRS in the 2011 cost base of MUAC is estimated at M€ 2,632 and will be reduced from the cost base. From 2012 onwards, these one-off effects will not influence the cost base any more. The cost base will resume to the previous levels. For the calculation of the 2011 baseline these non-recurring IFRS effects have not been taken into account in the calculation of the targeted determined unit rate .

State costs The Eurocontrol, ICAO/SADIS and NSA costs are classified as State costs. All these costs are included in the NSA cost spreadsheet. The non-recurring effects of the introduction of IFRS in the 2011 cost base of Eurocontrol is M€ 1.615. These non-recurring effects are allocated to the cost base 2011. From 2012 onwards these effects will not affect the cost base anymore. Thus, the cost base will return to the previous levels. In the calculation of the targeted unit rate these non-recurring IFRS effects have not been taken into account. The termination of MUAC/ASRO (Agency Safety Regulatory Oversight) and the transfer of ASRO activities to the Dutch NSA, the development of the EU-wide performance scheme (Performance Implementing Rule), the increase in FABEC-related activities, international NSA cooperation and coordination and NSA ATM EASA activities have led to a considerable increase in the oversight workload and thus to an increase in the oversight costs. Unit rates, costs and cost allocation model Determined costs are defined by the European Commission as the costs which are considered necessary to be made in each of the years of the performance plan reference period to provide the forecasted number of air navigation service units, given the level of the targets for capacity and environment while assuming the safety level will at least remain at the same level. In line with Article 7 of Regulation 1794/2006, the cost of all eligible services, facilities and activities as defined in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been allocated, in a transparent manner, to the charging zones, where they have been actually made. As of 1

st January 2009, both LVNL and KNMI have introduced a new

and more sophisticated cost allocation model. The targeted unit rates and their underlying national costs are in line with the Commission Regulation 1794/2006, while observing the Eurocontrol principles for establishing the cost base for en route facility charges and the calculation of the unit rates as well as the conditions of application of the route charges system and conditions of payment. Enforced recovery Enforcement measures to secure payment of the charges by the users will enter into force in 2011. Possible enforcements will take place in close cooperation with Eurocontrol (CRCO). Consultation In line with the Commission Regulations 1794/2006 (amended by Regulation 1191/2010) and 691/2010 the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment organises Dutch Stakeholder Consultation Meetings. At this meetings under the chairmanship of the Ministry LVNL, MUAC and KNMI present their plans on the


Performance KPAs, as well as ways to improve their performance and the unit rates to be applied. The Netherlands contributed also to the FABEC consultation meeting on the provisional FABEC Performance Plan, albeit that the cost efficiency performance is dealt with at national level. At FABEC level both the consolidated FABEC performance and the national performance have been presented just for information purposes. Furthermore, the Eurocontrol Enlarged Committee organises Multilateral User Consultation Meetings on the en route charging schemes, while the European Commission organises meetings on the terminal charging schemes (costs, unit rates, etc.). Costs General information This part describes the developments in the costs to be allocated to the en route charging zone. Inflation In 2010 inflation in the Netherlands was 0,9% (Source: Eurostat, Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP). Based on the economic forecasts of both IMF WEO and CPB Economic Policy Analysis the inflation rate is set at an average rate of 2% per year. LVNL LVNL has taken a number of cost containment measures for the period 2010 up to and including 2014. Internal cost reduction measures have been taken, such as a cut in staff of 100 fte in 2010 and an additional reduction of 28 fte in the period 2012 - 2014, a salary freeze in 2010, an anticipation of the R&D activities within the SESAR project and a decrease in general operating costs (about M€ 10) and in capital costs. Regarding the latter LVNL agreed with the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment on a funding arrangement for the investment plan of the coming years. This funding through the State will reduce the cost of capital. Furthermore, the Dutch government has also taken some measures, inter alia the permission to establish an equalisation provision, government funding of past under recoveries due to the TNC service provision on the regional LVNL controlled airports, access to loan facilities (both operating and investments) and the earmarking of the net available amount of internal tax to the TNC cost base. NSA costs have been redistributed and (from 2011 onwards) included in under “Other State costs”. With these cost containment measures and the expected recovery of the traffic volume it is possible to decrease the LVNL component of the en route unit rate with 1% for 2012 to € 44,07 and to freeze it on this level for the years 2013 and 2014. Equity capital LVNL It was decided to apply the volume risk as of the first reference period despite a lack of equity. During the first reference period (RP1) of the performance plan LVNL will build an equity capital to cope with the traffic volume risk. At the end of RP1 there will be an equity capital of at least M€ 22. Rationale At the moment LVNL is fully debt financed. It has no equity capital to absorb negative operating results. Due to the absence of any equity capital and the negative en route and terminal appropriation funds (together about M€ 35 at the end of 2010) LVNL is already nearing the limits of a sound financial situation. Continuation of the current situation could lead to possible non compliance with the Common Requirements on financial strength (and could thus possibly jeopardize LVNL’s certification), even in a full cost recovery situation. Exposure to the newly introduced traffic volume risk and cost risk will worsen LVNL’s financial risk profile. In the EU Regulation 1794/2010, laying down a common charging scheme, amended by EU Regulation 1191/2010, the necessity of equity capital is acknowledged. Article 11a.7 allows ANSPs with an equity capital below 5% of total liabilities to be temporarily exempted from the traffic volume risk. If the traffic risk is exempted the performance plan has to include a description of the measures to achieve a lower proportion of debt financing as well as the duration of these measures.


The Netherlands has opted for an arrangement under which LVNL is given the opportunity to build up equity capital during the first reference period, while at the same time being exposed to the traffic volume risk. The combination of a participation in the traffic volume risk and the establishment of the minimum required equity capital is in any case more advantageous for the users than the building up of an equalization provision without the application of the traffic volume risk, as the traffic volume risk scheme possibly brings them a part of the additional revenues (in case of a traffic volume increase above 2% of the forecast) or they will have to bear only a part of the ANSP’s loss in revenues (in case of a traffic downturn greater than minus 2%). Method of building up equity capital During the economic crisis the users called for financial relief and favored a tariff agreement for a 5 year period. In 2009 LVNL and the State have come to an agreement on cost reduction and tariff stabilization. In line with this agreement LVNL has taken a number of measures (a staff cut of 100 fte, a decrease in the other operating expenses in combination with a yearly increase of 2% in the LVNL part of the Dutch en route unit rate and a flat LVNL part of the terminal unit rate). In 2009 LVNL and the State have taken a huge financial risk by stabilizing the unit rates for a period of 5 years ( 2010-2014). The 2009 agreement was subject of user consultation and concluded for better and for worse, i.e. in case of a further decreasing in the traffic volumes LVNL would bear the brunt of the risk, while in case of an increase in the traffic and further cost reductions LVNL was allowed to keep the additional revenues to build up an equity capital. It was intended at that time (Nov 2009) to offset LVNL losses in 2008 and 2009 (due to the drastic decrease in the traffic) and the forecasted losses in 2010 and 2011 related to the tariff stabilization with the additional revenues resulting from the forecasted increase in traffic volume as from 2011. This indeed still stands. The currently forecasted traffic increase enables LVNL also to build up equity capital. Technically, the building up of equity capital is realized by adding an amount of M€ 22 to the actual costs in 2010 as an exceptional item. A study into the necessary financial coverage of the volume and cost risks at the start of RP2 has been carried out by a consultancy firm. Based upon this study and other considerations, it was concluded that at the end of the first reference period an equity capital of at least M€ 22 is necessary. Reduction in LVNL unit rate Based upon the positive effects of the LVNL cost reduction measures and taking into account the increasing traffic volumes LVNL and the State have also agreed on a reduction of the LVNL unit rates. As from 2011 to 2014 the en route unit rate will be reduced by 1% (instead of the earlier agreed upon annual increase of 2%), while the LVNL terminal rate will be reduced by 2% (instead of the earlier agreed upon flat rate for the period 2010 – 2014). Summary The table below shows the combined effects of: the reduction of LVNL’s currently negative appropriation fund the building up of equity capital. Specification of under and over recoveries

x 1.000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

2008 -7.566 831 269 2.155 2.155 2.156 7.566

2009 -20.031 7.156 4.706 4.163 4.006 20.031

2010 -19.455 5.615 7.070 6.485 285 19.455

Total -47.052 831 7.425 12.476 13.388 12.647 285 47.052

Per entity

2008 -7.556

LVNL 831 269 2.155 2.155 2.156 7.566

2009 -20.031

LVNL 6.241 3.791 3.248 3.091 16.371

KNMI 202 202 202 202 808

Eurocontrol 713 713 713 713 2.852

Total 20.031


2010 -19.455

LVNL 5.453 6908 6323 285 18.969

KNMI 368 368 368 1.104

Eurocontrol MUAC -824 -824 -824 -2.472

Eurocontrol HQ/NSA 618 618 618 1.854

Total 5.615 7.070 6.485 285 19.455

LVNL 831 6.510 11.399 12.311 11.570 285 42.906

KNMI 202 570 570 570 1.912

Eurocontrol MUAC 713 -111 -111 -111 380

Eurocontrol HQ/NSA 618 618 618 1.854

Total 831 7.425 12.476 13.388 12.647 285 47.052

* Equity capital is calculated with the formula: M€ 42,906 – (M€ 20,854 + 2011 result)

For the purpose of transparency, this table will be updated and included in the additional information on the en route cost data and unit rates in the coming years. Prerequisites As soon as the appropriation funds are completely phased out and the equity capital will be equal to M€ 22 the State and LVNL will decide upon the best possible allocation of additional revenues amongst the stakeholders, e.g. a reduction of the chargeable unit rate or an addition to the capital reserves. If the service volume will decrease below 95% of the level as indicated in the base scenario in the STATFOR Medium term forecast of February 2011 LVNL unit rates will be adapted. These two prerequisites will be assessed each year. Calculation of a return on equity will not be included in the cost base and the chargeable unit rate in the first reference period. Return on equity will not be considered as an uncontrollable cost in this period. KNMI KNMI has also introduced cost containment measures (staff cuts and the introduction of AUTO METAR at Groningen Airport Eelde, Maastricht Aachen Airport and Rotterdam The Hague Airport). This will result in cost reductions in the coming years. MUAC MUAC has implemented cost-effectiveness plans in the past and has responded to the economic crisis by reducing ATCO recruitment and support costs. It has also actively explored the option to generate new revenues and succeeded in leasing ATCOs to Austrocontrol over the period 2010-2013 which will result in a total revenue to an amount of M€ 7, to be returned to the users. However, the costs for MUAC in the Amsterdam FIR are affected by the introduction of the agreed cost sharing key mechanism. The cost sharing key for the Netherlands decreased in 2011 and will increase again for the first reference period. The combined effect of lower costs and higher sharing keys will lead to higher costs for MUAC services in the FIR Amsterdam during RP1. Eurocontrol The 2012 - 2014 Eurocontrol costs will be about the same as those for 2011. NSA The termination of MUAC/ASRO and the transfer of ASRO activities to the Dutch NSA, the development of the EU wide performance scheme (Performance Implementing Rule), the increase in FABEC related activities, international NSA cooperation and coordination and NSA ATM EASA activities have led to a considerable increase in the oversight workload and thus to an increase in the oversight costs. To limit the increase in NSA costs, it has been decided not to pass on all the NSA costs to the airspace users. From 2012 onwards NSA’s chargeable costs are M€ 1,8. Furthermore, The Netherlands has so far refrained from considering membership contributions to international organisations such as ICAO and ECAC (together about M€ 1 per year) as other State costs to be added to the ATC cost bases and thus to be recovered from the ATC unit rates.


The 2014 targeted determined unit rate in the FIR Amsterdam will show a decrease of more than 9% compared with 2011. This is almost in line with the EU-wide cost efficiency target. The 2012 chargeable en route unit rate in the FIR Amsterdam will show an increase from € 65,67 in 2011 to € 65,80 in 2012. Taking into account the inflation rate in The Netherlands this is an actual decrease of the unit rate. Cost by nature LVNL Staff costs: The change is due to: In the period 2012-2014 a reduction in staff with 28 FTE; In the period 2012-2014 a salary compensation related to the increase in the cost of living will be between 1-1,5%; Increased pension premiums to bring the pension coverage ratio again at the minimum level; The, as a rule, individually agreed upon annual steps in salary grades (career progression); Intake of candidate controllers due to the current shortage (also in preparation of a future demand increase (prevention of future capacity problems). Other operating costs This cost category shows a slight increase due to an increase in energy and housekeeping costs after a decrease of over 20% in 2010. Depreciation costs An increase in the depreciation costs is due to new investments, e.g. Voice Communication System (2014). The investment program was subject to the user and stakeholder consultations in 2011. Capital costs The average operating capital is the sum of the average net book value of fixed assets used by the air navigation service provider in operation or under construction (average long term assets (complementary information) and of the average value of the net current assets. In both cases, assets are those required for the provision of en route services; The cost of capital before tax is the weighted average of the interest rate on debts. As LVNL does not have equity capital the cost of capital before tax is the weighted average of the interest rate on debts (in %). Part of the LVNL debt consists of commercial loans, the remaining part consists of government loans. It is LVNL’s intent to decrease the portion of the commercial loans and fulfil all future funding needs through the funding arrangements with the State. As LVNL will in the future be exposed to the traffic volume risk and the cost risk, the building up of an equity capital is necessary to absorb fluctuations in its operating results. In the first reference period equity capital will be established to cover for the volume risk. Exceptional items There are no exceptional items Other income stems from the sale of Aeronautical publications, hardware maintenance services for third parties and space rental to third parties. KNMI The interest rate is the same as the one used by LVNL. Due to its status as Government Agency KNMI has only a very small equity capital. MUAC Due to its status as part of an intergovernmental organisation MUAC does not have any equity capital. For the first reference period, MUAC is exempted from traffic volume risk. From the start of the second reference period MUAC will be exposed to the traffic volume risk and the cost risk. Thus, MUAC also has to build up of an equity capital to absorb fluctuations in its operating results. The method of building up this equity capital is still object of study and consultation.


By service The more sophisticated cost allocation model (introduced as of 1

st January 2009) enables both LVNL and

KNMI to fill in both reporting tables on costs by nature and on costs by service simultaneously.


Annex II, Transparency of the cost base

1. Description of the methodology used for allocating costs of facilities or services between different air navigation services based on the list of facilities and services listed in the relevant ICAO Regional Air Navigation Plan (Doc 7754) and a description of the methodology used for allocating those costs between different en route charging zones;

Conformity of cost allocation model with regulations The cost allocation models used by both LVNL and by KNMI are in line with: The Convention on International Civil Aviation (ICAO-Treaty; Chicago Convention), Article

15 and the ICAO Rules en Standards: Ø ICAO’s policies on charges for airports and air navigation services (Doc 9082/7), viz.

numbers 36, 38, 40, 41 en 44; Ø ICAO Manual on Air Navigation Services Economics (Doc 9161);

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6th December 2006 laying down a common

charging scheme for air navigation services as amended by Commission regulation (EC) No 1191/2011 of 16

th December 2010;

Eurocontrol International Convention relating to Co-operation for the safety of Air Navigation (“Eurocontrol”, 1961), as amended by Protocol of 12

th February 1981;

Ø Protocol consolidating the Eurocontrol International Convention relating to Co-operation for the safety of Air Navigation, dated 27

th June 1997 (Revised Convention);

Ø Multilateral Agreement Relating to Route Charges; to be replaced by Annex IV of the Revised Convention;

Ø Agreement relating to the provision and operation of air traffic services and facilities by Eurocontrol at Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre” (dated 25

th November 1986);

Ø Principles for establishing the cost-base for en route charges and the calculation of the unit rates (latest version);

Ø Conditions of application of the route charges system and conditions of payment (latest version)

The cost allocation model of KNMI is also in line with:

Convention of the World Meteorological Organization, adopted by the Washington Conference on 11

th October 1947;

Guide 904 of the World Meteorological Organization – Guide on Aeronautical Services Cost Recovery – Principles and Guidance;

Annex 3 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation - Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation;

Other relevant ICAO Documents (e.g. Docs 9377, 7604 and 4444); LVNL Article 7 of the amended Commission regulation (EC) 1794/2006 of 6

th December 2006 laying

down a common charging scheme for air navigation services specifies that, where costs are incurred across different charging zones, they shall be allocated in a proportional way on the basis of a transparent methodology as required in Article 8 of the Regulation. Before the start of a performance plan reference period the criteria used to allocate costs between terminal and en route services for each airport have to be defined and reported to the Commission. Since January 1

st 2008, LVNL has reallocated the costs for air navigation services. The costs

for the traffic services related to the approach phase up to flight level 30 (~ 3000 feet) within 20 kilometres (12 NM) from the LVNL controlled airports are allocated to the terminal charging zone on the basis of the operational requirements. The costs for air traffic services related to the approach phase outside this zone are allocated to the en route charging zone. In line with Article 7 of Regulation 1794/2006, the cost of all eligible services, facilities and activities as defined in Article 5 of said Regulation, have been allocated, in a transparent manner, to the charging zones, where they have actually incurred. Costs of ATCOs are directly


allocated to the relevant charging zones. Depending on the degree of application of the various production factors in a specific charging zone, sharing keys are used to allocate the other costs proportionally to these charging zones.

About two thirds of the LVNL costs are related and allocated to the en route charging zone.

KNMI

The KNMI allocation model is also in line with Regulation 1794/2006. 82% of KNMI costs are allocated to the en route charging zone.

NSA

Since January 1st 2011 the NSA costs are taken out of the LVNL cost base and transferred to

the NSA en route cost spreadsheet.

The same goes for the SADIS costs. They are mentioned under the heading “Other state costs” in the NSA spread sheet.

MUAC costs

The costs of the MUAC ATC-services allocated to the FIR Amsterdam above FL 245 are incorporated in the separate en route MUAC costs spreadsheet. The allocation of the MUAC costs to the FIR Amsterdam are based on a cost sharing key of 21,7107%. This cost sharing key is fixed during the whole first reference period. MUAC costs are 100% allocated to En-Route. Eurocontrol contribution The Eurocontrol costs, Parts I and IX, allocated to the Netherlands, are included in the consolidated table.

2. Description and explanation of the method adopted for the calculation of depreciation costs: historic costs or current costs. When current cost accounting is adopted, provision of comparable historic cost data;

Historic capitalization costs are used for the calculation of the depreciation costs.

3. Justification for the cost of capital, including the components of the asset base, the possible adjustments to total assets and the return on equity;

The average operating capital is the sum of the average net book value of fixed assets (on the basis of historic capitalization costs) used by the air navigation service provider in operation or under construction (average long term assets) and of the average value of the net current assets. In both cases, assets are those required for the provision of en route services;

As LVNL does not have an equity capital at the start of the first reference period, the cost of capital before tax is the weighted average of the interest rate on debts (in %). Part of the LVNL debt consists of commercial loans, the remaining part consists of government loans.

Due to its status as Government Agency KNMI has only a very small equity capital. It is financed by the State.

Due to its status as part of an intergovernmental organisation MUAC does not have equity capital. Investment expenditure is financed through bank loans. Capital cost is the average


weighted cost of debt.

4. Description of the total determined costs for each airport submitted to the provision of this Regulation for each terminal charging zone; for airports with less than 20 000 commercial air transport movements per year being calculated as the average over the previous three years, costs may be presented in an aggregated way;

This question is not relevant in the context of additional information on en route costs as it is a terminal cost issue

6. Breakdown of the meteorological costs between direct costs and ‘MET core costs’ defined as the costs of supporting meteorological facilities and services that also serve meteorological requirements in general. These include general analysis and forecasting, weather radar and satellite observations, surface and upper-air observation networks, meteorological communication systems, data-processing centres and supporting core research, training and administration;

Aviation Met Costs are based on:

Direct costs, e.g. Airport observation network, Dedicated Aviation Met systems, ICAO / WMO(CAeM) contribution Dedicated Aviation Met Staff, Housing and Dedicated Aviation Met costs incurred by KNMI Technical and Research departments;

Overhead, AviMet allocation “key” based on Dedicated AviMet Staff divided by Total Forecast Services Department Staff which is used to allocate costs of Management of KNMI Forecast Services Department, Training, Customer Relations Services and Office management, and;

Core costs (fixed price for 5 years, except indexation): Radar-, satellite-, surface (SYNOP)-, lightning observations networks (including maintenance and development), Numerical Weather Prediction System infrastructure (including maintenance and development), KNMI overhead not directly allocated to aviation (staffing costs, several international contributions, administrative systems).

7. Description of the methodology used for allocating total MET costs and MET core costs to civil aviation and between en route charging zones;

See also reply to question 1. The KNMI cost allocation model is in line with the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) No. 904 “Guide to Aeronautical Meteorological Services Cost Recovery”. 82% of KNMI costs

5. Definition of the criteria used to allocate costs between terminal and en route services for each regulated airport

As stated in reply to the first question, since January 1st 2008, LVNL has reallocated the costs

for air navigation services. The costs for the traffic services related to the approach phase up to flight level 30 (~ 3000 feet) within 20 kilometres (12 nM) from the LVNL controlled airports are allocated to the terminal charging zone on the basis of the operational requirements. The costs for air traffic services related to the approach phase beyond this zone are allocated to the en route charging zone. As all LVNL controlled airports are put into a One Group of Airports, the same 12 nM criterion is used for all these airports.


are allocated to the en route charging zone.

8. Description of the reported forecast costs and traffic volume (eighteen months before the start of the reference period)

All organisations involved in the air navigation service provision in the FIR Amsterdam have updated their costs data as reported in October 2010 for each of the years of the first reference period.

The following assumptions on possible changes of the costs have been made:

LVNL MUAC KNMI Eurocontrol

Staff costs 2012 -2014: 1-1,5% annually real wage increase due to increased costs of living

Career progression






Other operating expenses





Depreciation

Interests

Exceptional items

Expiration of ATCO lease to Vienna at the end of 2013

The en route traffic volume forecast for the FIR Amsterdam is the same as the one forecasted by STATFOR in its Medium term forecast, base scenario (February 2011).

9. Description of the reported actual costs and their difference against the determined costs (every year of the reference period)

An answer to this question cannot be given because the reference period has not yet started.


Annex III. Additional information to the reporting table in Annex III, specific transparency requirements for the provision of air navigation services at airports falling within Article 1(6)

The following reasons exist for not delivering this information:

1. In The Netherlands no airports are falling within Article 1(6). 2. The information is not relevant as in this document the additional information is related to en route

cost and unit rate data.


Terminal

Organisation: ANSP Year 2012

Charging zone: Netherlands TNC 4 Airports

2005

A

2006

A

2007

A

2008

A

2009

A

2010

A

2011

F

2012

P

2013

P

2014

P

2015

P

2016

P

2017

P

Detail by nature (in '000 euro)

Staff 39.714 45.118 38.194 37.923 37.548 38.465 39.698 41.059

13,6% -15,3% -0,7% -1,0% 2,4% 3,2% 3,4%

Other operating costs 9.067 9.960 9.369 10.709 10.858 10.702 10.920 10.885

9,8% -5,9% 14,3% 1,4% -1,4% 2,0% -0,3%

Depreciation 3.559 3.974 3.741 4.323 3.717 3.911 4.172 4.532

11,7% -5,9% 15,6% -14,0% 5,2% 6,7% 8,6%

Cost of capital 2.920 2.660 2.803 2.738 2.380 1.798 1.719 1.364

-8,9% 5,4% -2,3% -13,1% -24,5% -4,4% -20,7%

Exceptional items -3.641

Total costs 55.260 61.712 54.107 52.052 54.503 54.876 56.509 57.840

11,7% -12,3% -3,8% 4,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4%

2.387 2.289 1.933

Detail by services (in '000 euro)

Air traff ic management 48.804 54.256 47.294 45.325 47.641 47.967 49.395 50.558

11,2% -12,8% -4,2% 5,1% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4%

Communication 2.310 2.148 2.553 1.938 2.571 2.589 2.666 2.729

-7,0% 18,9% -24,1% 32,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4%

Navigation 1.502 784 838 707 844 850 875 896

-47,8% 6,9% -15,6% 19,4% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4%

Surveillance 1.792 3.666 2.707 3.308 2.727 2.745 2.827 2.893

104,6% -26,2% 22,2% -17,6% 0,7% 3,0% 2,3%

Search and rescue

Aeronautical information 852 858 715 774 720 725 746 764

0,7% -16,7% 8,3% -7,0% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4%

Meteorological services

Supervision costs

Other State costs

Total costs 55.260 61.712 54.107 52.052 54.503 54.876 56.509 57.840

11,7% -12,3% -3,8% 4,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4%

Complementary information on inflation and on the cost of capital (in '000 euro)

Inflation rate 1,8% 1,5% 2,0% 2,6% 0,8% 1,5% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0%

Average operating capital 32.135 31.912 30.678 33.596 36.207 43.943 56.332 66.612

-0,7% -3,9% 9,5% 7,8% 21,4% 28,2% 18,2%

Of w hich, average long term assets 32.135 31.912 30.768 33.596 36.207 43.943 56.332 66.612

-0,7% -3,6% 9,2% 7,8% 21,4% 28,2% 18,2%

Cost of capital before tax (%)

Return on equity (%)

Average interest on debts (%) 9,09% 8,34% 9,11% 8,15% 6,57% 4,09% 3,05% 2,05%


Organisation: MET Year 2012


2005

A

2006

A

2007

A 2008 A

2009

A

2010

A

2011

F

2012

P

2013

P

2014

P

2015

P

2016

P


Staff 452 921 864 846 828 828 828

103,7% -6,2% -2,1% -2,1% 0,0% 0,0%

Other operating costs 427 856 839 821 803 803 803

100,3% -2,0% -2,1% -2,2% 0,0% 0,0%

Depreciation 10 21 22 22 22 22 22

110,0% 4,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Cost of capital 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

50,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Exceptional items

Total costs 892 1.801 1.728 1.692 1.656 1.656 1.656

102,0% -4,1% -2,1% -2,1% 0,0% 0,0%


Air traff ic management

Communication

Navigation

Surveillance

Search and rescue

Aeronautical information

Meteorological services 892 1.801 1.728 1.692 1.656 1.656 1.656

102,0% -4,1% -2,1% -2,1% 0,0% 0,0%

Supervision costs

Other State costs

Total costs 892 1.801 1.728 1.692 1.656 1.656 1.656

102,0% -4,1% -2,1% -2,1% 0,0% 0,0%


Inflation rate 1,8% 1,5% 2,0% 2,6% 0,8% 1,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0%

Average operating capital 101 101 101 101 101 101

Of w hich, average long term assets 101 101 101 101 101 101



Average interest on debts (%) 2,98% 2,98% 2,98% 2,98% 2,98% 2,98%


Organisation: NSA Year 2012


2005

A

2006

A

2007

A

2008

A

2009

F

2010

P

2011

P

2012

P

2013

P

2014

P

2015

P

2016

P

2017

P

2018

P

2019

P


Staff


Depreciation

Cost of capital

Exceptional items

Total costs


Air traff ic management

Communication

Navigation

Surveillance

Search and rescue



Supervision costs

Other State costs

Total costs


Inflation rate 1,8% 1,5% 2,0% 2,6% 0,8% 1,5% 2,0% 2,0%

0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Average operating capital

Of w hich, average long term assets



Average interest on debts (%)


Organisation: Consolidated Year 2012


2005

A

2006

A

2007

A

2008

A

2009

A

2010

A

2011

F

2012

P

2013

P

2014

P

2015

P

2016

P

2017

P

2018

P

2019

P


Staff 39.714 45.570 39.115 38.787 38.394 39.293 40.526 41.887

14,7% -14,2% -0,8% -1,0% 2,3% 3,1% 3,4%


14,6% -1,6% 12,9% 1,1% -1,5% 1,9% -0,3%

Depreciation 3.559 3.984 3.762 4.345 3.739 3.933 4.194 4.554

11,9% -5,6% 15,5% -13,9% 5,2% 6,6% 8,6%

Cost of capital 2.920 2.662 2.806 2.741 2.383 1.801 1.722 1.367

-8,8% 5,4% -2,3% -13,1% -24,4% -4,4% -20,6%

Exceptional items 0 0 -3.641 0 0 0 0

Total costs 55.260 62.604 55.908 53.780 56.195 56.532 58.165 59.496

13,3% -10,7% -3,8% 4,5% 0,6% 2,9% 2,3%



11,2% -12,8% -4,2% 5,1% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4%

Communication 2.310 2.148 2.553 1.938 2.571 2.589 2.666 2.729

-7,0% 18,9% -24,1% 32,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4%

Navigation 1.502 784 838 707 844 850 875 896

-47,8% 6,9% -15,6% 19,4% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4%

Surveillance 1.792 3.666 2.707 3.308 2.727 2.745 2.827 2.893

104,6% -26,2% 22,2% -17,6% 0,7% 3,0% 2,3%

Search and rescue


0,7% -16,7% 8,3% -7,0% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4%


102,0% -4,1% -2,1% -2,1% 0,0% 0,0%

Supervision costs

Other State costs

Total costs 55.260 62.604 55.908 53.780 56.195 56.532 58.165 59.496

13,3% -10,7% -3,8% 4,5% 0,6% 2,9% 2,3%


Inflation rate 1,8% 1,5% 2,0% 2,6% 0,8% 1,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0%

Average operating capital 32.135 31.912 30.779 33.697 36.308 44.044 56.433

-0,7% -3,6% 9,5% 7,7% 21,3% 28,1%

Of w hich, average long term assets 32.135 31.912 30.869 33.697 36.308 44.044 56.433

-0,7% -3,3% 9,2% 7,7% 21,3% 28,1%

Cost of capital before tax (%) 9,09% 8,34% 9,12% 8,13% 6,56% 4,09% 3,05%


Average interest on debts (%) 4,20% 4,20% 4,20% 4,20% 4,20% 4,20% 4,20%




2005

A

2006

A

2007

A

2008

A 2009 A

2010

A

2011

F

2012

P

2013

P

2014

P

2015

P

2016

P

2017

P

2018

P

2019

P

Unit rate (in '000 euro) and service units ('000)

Total costs for the zone(1) 55.260 62.604 55.908 53.780 56.195 56.532 58.165 59.496

13,3% -10,7% -3,8% 4,5% 0,6% 2,9% 2,3%

Cost of exempted VFR flights

Costs of exempted IFR flights

Costs of exempted f lights

Amounts carried over to year (i) -12.950 0 -3.747 -3.537 -3.439 -3.439 0

Income from other sources 6.932 5.753 7.820 3.587 3.737 3.475 4.354 1.476

-17,0% 35,9% -54,1% 4,2% -7,0% 25,3% -66,1%

Chargeable costs 48.328 69.801 48.088 53.940 55.995 56.496 57.250 58.020

44,4% -31,1% 12,2% 3,8% 0,9% 1,3% 1,3%

Total service units 342 311 315 332 343 347 352 357

-9,1% 1,3% 5,4% 3,3% 1,2% 1,4% 1,4%

Chargeable service units 342 311 315 332 343 347 352 357

-9,1% 1,3% 5,4% 3,3% 1,2% 1,4% 1,4%

Unit rate (2) 141,31 224,44 152,66 162,47 163,25 162,81 162,64 162,52

58,8% -32,0% 6,4% 0,5% -0,3% -0,1% -0,1%

(1) As the sum of all total costs presented in Reporting Table 1 w hich are allocated to this charging zone

(w hen certain air navigation services are outsourced, the cost to be taken into account shall be the cost of the annual expenditure).

(2) Unit rate (in euro) = Chargeable costs/Chargeable service units.

2005

A

2006

A

2007

A

2008

F 2009 A

2010

A

2011

F

2012

P

2013

P

2014

P

2015

P

2016

P

2017

P

2018

P

2019

P

Unit rate (in euro)

Exchange rate (1 EUR =) 1,00000 1,00000 1,00000 1,00000 1,00000 1,00000 1,00000 1,00000 1,00000 1,00000 1,00000

0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Unit rate 141,3 224,4 152,66 162,47 163,25 162,81 162,64 162,52

58,8% -32,0% 6,4% 0,5% -0,3% -0,1% -0,1%



2005

A

2006

A

2007

A

2008

A 2009 A

2010

A

2011

P

2012

P

2013

P

2014

P

2015

P

2016

P

2017

P

2018

P

2019

P

Balance to be carried over (in '000 euro)

Charges billed to users 49.973 51.065 52.661 53.940 55.995 56.496 57.250 58.020

2,2% 3,1% 2,4% 3,8% 0,9% 1,3% 1,3%

Total costs for the zone(1) 55.260 62.604 55.908 53.780 56.195 56.532 58.165 59.496

13,3% -10,7% -3,8% 4,5% 0,6% 2,9% 2,3%

Income from other sources 6.932 5.753 7.820 3.587 3.737 3.475 4.354 1.476

-17,0% 35,9% -54,1% 4,2% -7,0% 25,3% -66,1%

Cost of exempted VFR flights

Cost of exempted IFR flights

Costs of exempted f lights

Amounts carried over to year (i) -14.595 -12.950 -3.747 -3.537 -3.439 -3.439

Balance of year (i) -12.950 -18.736 4.573 0 0 0 0 0



Charging zone: Netherlands - TNC / Schipol

2005

A

2006

A

2007

A

2008

A

2009

A

2010

A

2011

F

2012

P

2013

P

2014

P

2015

P

2016

P

2017

P

2018

P

2019

P


Staff 30.591 36.393 31.346 31.073 30.757 31.469 32.451 33.536

%i/i-1 19,0% -13,9% -0,9% -1,0% 2,3% 3,1% 3,3%


%i/i-1 -1,3% -0,5% 12,6% 1,1% -1,5% 1,9% -0,3%

Depreciation 3.005 3.176 3.001 3.466 2.983 3.138 3.345 3.632

%i/i-1 5,7% -5,5% 15,5% -13,9% 5,2% 6,6% 8,6%

Cost of capital 1.374 2.121 2.236 2.184 1.899 1.435 1.372 1.090

%i/i-1 54,4% 5,4% -2,3% -13,1% -24,4% -4,4% -20,6%

Exceptional items 0 0 -2.900 0 0 0 0

%i/i-1

Total costs 43.440 50.051 44.902 43.193 45.109 45.371 46.672 47.732

%i/i-1 15,2% -10,3% -3,8% 4,4% 0,6% 2,9% 2,3%



%i/i-1 14,3% -12,8% -4,2% 5,1% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4%

Communication 2.035 1.711 2.034 1.544 2.048 2.062 2.124 2.174

%i/i-1 -15,9% 18,9% -24,1% 32,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4%

Navigation 1.323 625 668 563 672 677 697 714

%i/i-1 -52,8% 6,9% -15,6% 19,4% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4%

Surveillance 1.579 2.920 2.156 2.635 2.172 2.187 2.252 2.305

%i/i-1 84,9% -26,2% 22,2% -17,6% 0,7% 3,0% 2,3%

Search and rescue

%i/i-1


%i/i-1 0,5% -16,7% 8,3% -7,0% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4%


%i/i-1

Supervision costs

%i/i-1

Other State costs

%i/i-1

Total costs 43.440 50.051 44.903 43.193 45.109 45.370 46.671 47.731

%i/i-1 15,2% -10,3% -3,8% 4,4% 0,6% 2,9% 2,3%



Charging zone: Netherlands - TNC / Rotterdam

2005

A

2006

A

2007

A

2008

A

2009

P

2010

A

2011

F

2012

P

2013

P

2014

P

2015

P2016

P

2017

P

2018

P

2019

P


Staff 5.042 5.744 4.862 4.828 4.780 4.897 5.054 5.227

%i/i-1 13,9% -15,3% -0,7% -1,0% 2,4% 3,2% 3,4%


%i/i-1 8,6% -5,9% 14,3% 1,4% -1,4% 2,0% -0,3%

Depreciation 347 506 476 550 473 498 531 577

%i/i-1 45,8% -5,9% 15,6% -14,0% 5,2% 6,7% 8,6%

Cost of capital 182 339 357 349 303 229 219 174

%i/i-1 86,1% 5,4% -2,3% -13,1% -24,5% -4,4% -20,7%

Exceptional items 0 -463 0 0 0 0

%i/i-1

Total costs 6.738 7.856 6.888 6.626 6.938 6.985 7.193 7.362

%i/i-1 16,6% -12,3% -3,8% 4,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4%


Air traffic management 6.091 6.907 6.021 5.770 6.065 6.106 6.288 6.436

%i/i-1 13,4% -12,8% -4,2% 5,1% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4%

Communication 196 273 325 247 327 330 339 347

%i/i-1 39,5% 18,9% -24,1% 32,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4%

Navigation 127 100 107 90 107 108 111 114

%i/i-1 -21,4% 6,9% -15,6% 19,4% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4%

Surveillance 152 467 345 421 347 349 360 368

%i/i-1 207,0% -26,2% 22,2% -17,6% 0,7% 3,0% 2,3%

Search and rescue

%i/i-1


%i/i-1 -36,5% -16,7% 8,3% -7,0% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4%


%i/i-1

Supervision costs

%i/i-1

Other State costs

%i/i-1

Total costs 6.738 7.856 6.888 6.626 6.938 6.986 7.194 7.363

%i/i-1 16,6% -12,3% -3,8% 4,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4%



Charging zone: Netherlands - TNC / Eelde

2005

A

2006

A

2007

A

2008

A

2009

P

2010

A

2011

F

2012

P

2013

P

2014

P

2015

P2016

P

2017

P

2018

P

2019

P


Staff 1.906 1.701 1.440 1.430 1.416 1.450 1.497 1.548

%i/i-1 -10,8% -15,3% -0,7% -1,0% 2,4% 3,2% 3,4%

Other operating costs 348 375 353 404 409 403 412 410

%i/i-1 7,9% -5,9% 14,3% 1,4% -1,4% 2,0% -0,3%

Depreciation 103 150 141 163 140 147 157 171

%i/i-1 45,5% -5,9% 15,6% -14,0% 5,2% 6,7% 8,6%

Cost of capital 59 100 106 103 90 68 65 51

%i/i-1 70,0% 5,4% -2,3% -13,1% -24,5% -4,4% -20,7%


%i/i-1

Total costs 2.416 2.327 2.040 1.962 2.055 2.069 2.130 2.181

%i/i-1 -3,7% -12,3% -3,8% 4,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4%



%i/i-1 -9,2% -12,8% -4,1% 5,0% 0,7% 2,9% 2,3%

Communication 52 81 96 73 97 98 101 103

%i/i-1 55,7% 18,9% -24,1% 32,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4%

Navigation 35 30 32 27 32 32 33 34

%i/i-1 -15,6% 6,9% -15,6% 19,4% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4%

Surveillance 40 138 102 125 103 103 107 109

%i/i-1 245,5% -26,2% 22,2% -17,6% 0,7% 3,0% 2,3%

Search and rescue

%i/i-1


%i/i-1


%i/i-1

Supervision costs

%i/i-1

Other State costs

%i/i-1

Total costs 2.416 2.327 2.043 1.963 2.058 2.071 2.132 2.182

%i/i-1 -3,7% -12,2% -3,9% 4,8% 0,7% 2,9% 2,3%



Charging zone: Netherlands - TNC / Beek

2005

A

2006

A

2007

A

2008

A

2009

P

2010

A

2011

F

2012

P

2013

P

2014

P

2015

P2016

P

2017

P

2018

P

2019

P


Staff 2.175 1.733 1.467 1.456 1.442 1.477 1.524 1.577

%i/i-1 -20,3% -15,3% -0,7% -1,0% 2,4% 3,2% 3,4%

Other operating costs 325 382 360 411 417 411 419 418

%i/i-1 17,7% -5,9% 14,3% 1,4% -1,4% 2,0% -0,3%

Depreciation 104 153 144 166 143 150 160 174

%i/i-1 46,7% -5,9% 15,6% -14,0% 5,2% 6,7% 8,6%

Cost of capital 62 102 108 105 91 69 66 52

%i/i-1 64,7% 5,4% -2,3% -13,1% -24,5% -4,4% -20,7%


%i/i-1

Total costs 2.666 2.370 2.078 1.999 2.093 2.107 2.170 2.221

%i/i-1 -11,1% -12,3% -3,8% 4,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4%



%i/i-1 -16,8% -12,7% -4,1% 5,0% 0,7% 3,0% 2,3%

Communication 49 82 98 74 99 99 102 105

%i/i-1 68,3% 18,9% -24,1% 32,7% 0,7% 3,0% 2,4%

Navigation 34 30 32 27 32 33 34 34

%i/i-1 -11,5% 6,9% -15,6% 19,4% 0,7% 2,9% 2,4%

Surveillance 38 141 104 127 105 105 109 111

%i/i-1 270,5% -26,2% 22,2% -17,6% 0,7% 3,0% 2,3%

Search and rescue

%i/i-1


%i/i-1


%i/i-1

Supervision costs

%i/i-1

Other State costs

%i/i-1

Total costs 2.666 2.370 2.081 2.000 2.095 2.109 2.172 2.223

%i/i-1 -11,1% -12,2% -3,9% 4,8% 0,7% 3,0% 2,3%


Table 1

Total costs - Aerodromes


Charging zone: Netherlands - Terminal / List

2005

A

2006

A

2007

A

2008

A

2009

A

2010

A

2011

F

2012

P

2013

P

2014

P

2015

P

2016

P

2017

P

2018

P

2019

P

Total costs 55.260 62.604 55.908 53.780 56.195 56.532 58.165 59.496

Aerodrome Schiphol 43.440 50.051 44.902 43.193 45.109 45.371 46.672 47.732

Aerodrome Rotterdam 6.738 7.856 6.888 6.626 6.938 6.985 7.193 7.362

Aerodrome Eelde 2.416 2.327 2.040 1.962 2.055 2.069 2.130 2.181

Aerodrome Beek 2.666 2.370 2.078 1.999 2.093 2.107 2.170 2.221

Total 0 0 0 55.260 62.604 55.907 53.780 56.195 56.532 58.165 59.496 0 0 0 0

%i/i-1


Additional Information on the tables in Annexes II, III and VI of the EU Regulation on the Common Charging Scheme (1794/2006, amended by 1191/2010)

State: Netherlands – FIR Amsterdam Terminal Preliminary data on the chargeable unit rate in the period 2012 – 2014

General information

Introduction

Under the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services, particularly Chapter II (the cost of Air Navigation Service Provision), every year the reporting tables on cost bases, planned investments and expected traffic as well as the reporting table on charging mechanisms have to be filled in.

A description/explanation is given below of the way in which these tables have been filled in.

1. Charging zones

This part describes the charging system in the Netherlands.

In 2008, two charging zones were established in the Netherlands airspace.

An en route charging zone has been introduced, covering the whole of the Flight Information Region (FIR) Amsterdam, which consists of the airspace beyond a radius of 20 km (= 12 nautical miles) around LVNL controlled airports above flight level (FL) 30

(~ 3000 feet). Service units are calculated in line with the annexes to Regulation 1794/2006. A single cost base and a single unit rate are applicable to this charging zone, except for helicopter flights in the North Sea Area Amsterdam. A separate charge is applicable to these flights.

Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC) provides en route air navigation services (ANS) from FL 245. LVNL (Air Traffic Control the Netherlands) provides en route ANS in the air space beyond a radius of 20 km (= 12 nautical miles) around the airports above FL 30 up to FL 245. The approach services in this part of the airspace are part of the en route services. On the basis of operational requirements the ANS approach costs are allocated to the en route charging zone.

KNMI has been designated as ANS Provider for meteorological services (MET) in the FIR Amsterdam

As of January 1st 2008, the terminal charging zone is defined as the volume of airspace under

FL 30 (~ 3000 feet) within a radius of 20 km (= 12 nautical miles) around each of the airports of landing and take-off. All airports controlled by LVNL (Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, Rotterdam the Hague Airport, Groningen Airport Eelde, Maastricht Aachen Airport) have been placed together into one single group of airports. A single cost base and a single unit rate are applicable to this terminal-charging zone. All airports belonging to this group have more than 20.000 commercial air transport movements per year. Of the four airports belonging to this group Groningen Airport Eelde has less than 20.000 commercial air transport movements per year. Twenthe Airport (formerly a military air base), Eindhoven Airport (military air base) and Lelystad Airport (not controlled) do not belong to the aforementioned One Group of Airports for the reasons stated.

There is no competition in the field of air navigation services in the Netherlands, Article 1.6 of Regulation 1794/2006 is not applicable.

Since January 1st 2008, both the en route service and the terminal service units are calculated

in line with Regulation 1794/2006. The unit rates and their underlying national costs (cost bases) are calculated in line with

Commission Regulation 1794/2006. Both LVNL and KNMI have introduced new cost allocation models as of January 1

st 2009

LVNL also applied this model on its Annual Report 2008. These models and the underlying allocation principles are in line with Regulation 1794/2006 and the other Regulations.

The LVNL model has been simplified in 2010. This change had no effects on the allocation of


costs to the various charging zones.

As of 1st January 2008, both the en route service and the terminal service units are calculated

in line with Regulation 1794/2006. The weight factor in the calculation of the terminal service unit is fixed at 0,7.

2. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Under article 12 of the Service Provision Regulation (EC no 550/2004) the accounts of ANSPs have to comply with the IFRS to the maximum possible extent.

LVNL

As of 2008 the LVNL financial statements comply with IFRS with the exception of the provisions related to the early retirement arrangements of the operational LVNL-staff (FLNA; IAS 19 IFRS). The Netherlands has decided to exclude this specific item from the IFRS implementation. As a consequence of this decision neither the FLNA obligations nor a related provision is presented as liabilities in the LVNL balance sheet. As in the past users will only be charged for the actual FLNA expenses. According to actuarial calculations of December 31

st

2010, the net present value of the defined benefit obligations is about M€ 250, including the standard tax penalty of 52%). To minimize the lack of transparency on this issue, LVNL presents these obligations as ‘off-balance sheet rights and commitments’.

KNMI

Under Article 12 of the Service Provision Regulation (EC no 550/2004) the accounts of KNMI have to comply with IFRS to the maximum possible extent. From 2011 onwards the financial statements of KNMI have been as much as possible drawn up in accordance to IFRS. A few issues remain which could not be dealt with according to IFRS due to the national legal rules and regulations. These issues are described in the financial statements of KNMI.

Since January 2009 the under or over recovery of the charges due to the traffic volume changes and the costs are included in the KNMI balance, instead of the LVNL balance. Since the start of 2011 KNMI receives its part of the Dutch en route charge directly from CRCO.

3. Unit rates, costs and cost allocation model In line with Article 2 of Regulation 1191/2010, amending Regulation 1794/2006, the concept of the determined costs, targeted unit rates and the traffic volume and cost risk will not be applied on the terminal ANS provision. The entry into force of the amendments of the Charging Implementing Rule will be deferred to January 1

st 2015.

In line with Article 7 of Regulation 1794/2006, the cost of all eligible services, facilities and activities as defined in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been allocated, in a transparent manner, to the charging zones, where they are actually incurred. As of January 1

st 2009, both

LVNL and KNMI have introduced a new and more sophisticated cost allocation model.

The terminal unit rates and their underlying costs are in line with the Commission Regulation 1794/2006.

4. Enforced recovery Enforcement measures to secure payment of the charges by the users will enter into force in 2011. Possible enforcements will take place in close cooperation with Eurocontrol (CRCO).

5. Consultation In line with the Commission Regulations 1794/2006 (amended by Regulation 1191/2010) and 691/2010 the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment organises Dutch Stakeholder Consultation Meetings. At these meetings under the chairmanship of the Ministry LVNL, MUAC and KNMI present their plans on the Performance KPAs, as well as ways to improve their performance and the unit rates to be applied.


Furthermore, the Eurocontrol Enlarged Committee organises Multilateral User Consultation Meetings on the en route charging schemes, while the European Commission organises meetings on the terminal charging schemes (costs, unit rates, etc.).

6. Costs 6.1. General information

This part describes the developments in the costs to be allocated to the terminal charging zone. Inflation In 2010 inflation in the Netherlands was 0,9% (Source: Eurostat, Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP). Based on the economic forecasts of both IMF WEO and CPB Economic Policy Analysis the inflation rate is set at an average rate of 2% per year. LVNL LVNL has taken a number of cost containment measures for the period 2010 up to and including 2014. Internal cost reduction measures have been taken, such as a cut in staff of 100 fte in 2010 and an additional reduction of 28 fte in the period 2012 - 2014, a salary freeze in 2010, an anticipation of the R&D activities within the SESAR project and a decrease in general operating costs (about M€ 10) and in capital costs.

Furthermore, the Dutch government has also taken some measures, inter alia the permission to establish an equalisation provision, government funding of past under recoveries due to the TNC service provision on the regional LVNL controlled airports, access to loan facilities (both operating and investments) and the earmarking of the net available amount of internal tax to the TNC cost base.

With these cost containment measures and the expected recovery of the traffic volume it is possible to decrease the LVNL component of the terminal unit rate with 2% for 2012 from € 161,15 to € 157,93 and to freeze it on this level for the years 2013 and 2014.

KNMI

KNMI has also introduced cost containment measures (staff cuts and the introduction of AUTO METAR at Groningen Airport Eelde, Maastricht Aachen Airport and Rotterdam The Hague Airport). This will result in cost reductions in the coming years.

Terminal unit rate

Unit rate in € 2011 2012 2013 2014

LVNL 161,15 157,93 157,93 157,93

KNMI 5,33 5,32 4,88 4,71

Terminal unit rate

166,48 163,25 162,81 162,64

6.2. Cost by nature LVNL

Staff costs:

The change is due to:

In the period 2012-2014 a reduction in staff with 28 FTE; In the period 2012-2014 a salary compensation related to the increase in the cost of living

will be between 1-1,5%; Increased pension premiums to bring the pension coverage ratio again at the minimum

level; The, as a rule, individually agreed upon annual steps in salary grades (career


progression); Intake of candidate controllers due to the current shortage (also in preparation of a future

demand increase (prevention of future capacity problems).


This cost category shows a slight increase due to an increase in energy and housekeeping costs after a decrease of over 20% in 2010.

Depreciation costs

An increase in the depreciation costs is due to new investments, e.g. Voice Communication System (2014).

Capital costs

The average operating capital is the sum of the average net book value of fixed assets used by the air navigation service provider in operation or under construction (average long term assets (complementary information) and of the average value of the net current assets. In both cases, assets are those required for the provision of en route services;

The cost of capital before tax is the weighted average of the interest rate on debts. As LVNL does not have equity capital the cost of capital before tax is the weighted average of the interest rate on debts (in %). Part of the LVNL debt consists of commercial loans, the remaining part consists of government loans. It is LVNL’s intent to decrease the portion of the commercial loans. As LVNL will in the future be exposed to the traffic volume risk and the cost risk, the building up of an equity capital is necessary to absorb fluctuations in its operating results.

Exceptional items

There are no exceptional items.

Other income

Other income stems from the sale of Aeronautical publications, hardware maintenance services for third parties and space rental to third parties.

KNMI

The interest rate is the same as the one used by LVNL. Due to its status as Government Agency KNMI has only a very small equity capital.

6.3. By service The more sophisticated cost allocation model (introduced as of 1

st January 2009) enables both

LVNL and KNMI to fill in both reporting tables on costs by nature and on costs by service simultaneously.


Annex II, Transparency of the cost base 1. Description of the methodology used for allocating costs of facilities or services between different air navigation services based on the list of facilities and services listed in the relevant ICAO Regional Air Navigation Plan (Doc 7754) and a description of the methodology used for allocating those costs between the different charging zones;

Conformity of cost allocation model with regulations The cost allocation models used by both LVNL and KNMI are in line with: The Convention on International Civil Aviation (ICAO-Treaty; Chicago Convention), Article 15

and the ICAO Rules en Standards: Ø ICAO’s policies on charges for airports and air navigation services (Doc 9082/7), viz.

numbers 36, 38, 40, 41 en 44; Ø ICAO Manual on Air Navigation Services Economics (Doc 9161);

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6th December 2006 laying down a common

charging scheme for air navigation services. As stated before the concept of the determined costs, targeted unit rates and the traffic volume and cost risk will not be applied on the terminal ANS provision. This is in line with Article 2 of Regulation 1191/2010, amending Regulation 1794/2006. The entry into force of the amendments of the Charging Implementing Rule will be deferred to January 1

st 2015.

The cost allocation model of KNMI is also in line with:

Convention of the World Meteorological Organization, adopted by the Washington Conference on 11th October 1947;

Guide 904 of the World Meteorological Organization – Guide on Aeronautical Services Cost Recovery – Principles and Guidance;

Annex 3 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation - Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation;

Other relevant ICAO Documents (e.g. Docs 9377, 7604 and 4444). LVNL Article 7 of the amended Commission regulation (EC) 1794/2006 of December 6

th 2006 laying

down a common charging scheme for air navigation services specifies that, where costs are incurred across different charging zones, they shall be allocated in a proportional way on the basis of a transparent methodology as required in Article 8 of the Regulation. Before the start of a performance plan reference period the criteria used to allocate costs between terminal and en route services for each airport have to be defined and reported to the Commission. Since January 1

st 2008, LVNL has reallocated the costs for air navigation services. The costs for

the traffic services related to the approach phase up to flight level 30 (~ 3000 feet) within 20 kilometres (12 nM) from the LVNL controlled airports are allocated to the terminal charging zone on the basis of the operational requirements. The costs for air traffic services related to the approach phase outside this zone are allocated to the en route charging zone. In line with Article 7 of Regulation 1794/2006, the cost of all eligible services, facilities and activities as defined in Article 5 of said Regulation, have been allocated in a transparent manner, to the relevant charging zone, where they have actually incurred. Costs of ATCOs are directly allocated to the relevant charging zone. Depending on the degree of application of the various systems in a specific charging zone, sharing keys are used to allocate the other costs proportionally to these charging zones. About two-thirds of the LVNL-costs are related and allocated to the en route charging zone.

KNMI

The KNMI allocation model is also in line with Regulation 1794/2006. 18% of KNMI costs are allocated to the terminal charging zone.


MUAC, Eurocontrol and NSA costs

The MUAC, Eurocontrol Parts I and IX and NSA/Other State costs are exclusively allocated to the en route charging zone.

2. Description and explanation of the method adopted for the calculation of depreciation costs: historic costs or current costs. When current cost accounting is adopted, provision of comparable historic cost data;

Historic capitalization costs are used for the calculation of the depreciation costs.

3. Justification for the cost of capital, including the components of the asset base, the possible adjustments to total assets and the return on equity;

The average operating capital is the sum of the average net book value of fixed assets (on the basis of historic capitalization costs) used by the air navigation service provider in operation or under construction (average long term assets) and of the average value of the net current assets. In both cases, assets are those required for the provision of en route services;

As LVNL does not have an equity capital at the start of the first reference period, the cost of capital before tax is the weighted average of the interest rate on debts (in %). Part of the LVNL debt consists of commercial loans, the remaining part consists of government loans.

Due to its status as Government Agency KNMI has only a very small equity capital. It is financed by the State.

4. Description of the total determined cost for each airport for each terminal charging zone: for aerodromes with less than 20 000 commercial air transport movements per year being calculated as the average over the previous three years, costs may be presented in an aggregated way per aerodrome;

As stated before the concept of the determined costs, targeted unit rates and the traffic volume and cost risk will not be applied on the terminal ANS provision in the period 2012 - 2014. This is in line with Article 2 of Regulation 1191/2010, amending Regulation 1794/2006. The entry into force of the amendments of the Charging Implementing Rule will be deferred to January 1

st 2015.

The costs of the terminal services in the One Group of Airports are pooled and financed by means of the terminal charges imposed on the users of air navigation services. In accordance with Community law other sources of cost recovery (e.g. cross subsidies between en route en terminal charging zone) are not available. The cost data for each one of the LVNL controlled airports are included in the reporting tables.

5. Definition of the criteria used to allocate costs between terminal and en route services for each regulated airport

As stated in reply to the first question, since January 1st 2008, LVNL has reallocated the costs for

air navigation services. The costs for the traffic services related to the approach phase up to flight level 30 (~ 3000 feet) within 20 kilometres (12 nM) from the LVNL controlled airports are allocated to the terminal-charging zone on the basis of the operational requirements. The costs for air traffic services related to the approach phase beyond this zone are allocated to the en route charging zone. As all LVNL controlled airports are put into a One Group of Airports, the same 12 nM criterion is used for all these airports.


6. Breakdown of the meteorological costs between direct costs and ‘MET core costs’ defined as the costs of supporting meteorological facilities and services that also serve meteorological requirements in general. These include general analysis and forecasting, weather radar and satellite observations, surface and upper-air observation networks, meteorological communication systems, data-processing centres and supporting core research, training and administration;

Aviation Met Costs are based on:

Direct costs, e.g. Airport observation network, Dedicated Aviation Met systems, ICAO / WMO(CAeM) contribution Dedicated Aviation Met Staff, Housing and Dedicated Aviation Met costs incurred by KNMI Technical and Research departments;

Overhead, AviMet allocation “key” based on Dedicated AviMet Staff divided by Total Forecast Services Department Staff which is used to allocate costs of Management of KNMI Forecast Services Department, Training, Customer Relations Services and Office management and;

Core costs (fixed price for 5 years, except indexation): Radar-, satellite-, surface (SYNOP)-, lightning observations networks (including maintenance and development), Numerical Weather Prediction System infrastructure (including maintenance and development), KNMI overhead not directly allocated to aviation (staffing costs, several international contributions, administrative systems).

7. Description of the methodology used for allocating total MET costs and MET core costs to civil aviation and between charging zones;

See also answer to question 1. The KNMI cost allocation model is in line with the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) No. 904 “Guide to Aeronautical Meteorological Services Cost Recovery”. 18% of KNMI costs are allocated to the en route charging zone.

8. Description of the reported forecast costs and traffic volume (eighteen months before the start of the reference period)

All organisations involved in the air navigation service provision in the FIR Amsterdam have updated their costs data.

The following assumptions on the possible changes of the costs have been made:

All organisations involved in the air navigation service provision in the FIR Amsterdam have updated their costs data as reported in October 2010 for each of the years of the first reference period.

The following assumptions on possible changes of the costs have been made:

LVNL KNMI

Staff costs 2012 -2014: 1-1,5% annually real wage increase due to increased costs of living

Career progression


Other operating expenses Annual inflation rate 2% Annual inflation rate 2%

Depreciation

Interests

Exceptional items


The terminal volume forecast for the FIR Amsterdam is based upon the LOW Scenario of Statfor regarding the O/D traffic.

9. Description of the reported actual costs and their difference against the determined costs (every year of the reference period)

As stated before the concept of the determined costs, targeted unit rates and the traffic volume and cost risk will not be applied on the terminal ANS provision. This is in line with Article 2 of Regulation 1191/2010, amending Regulation 1794/2006. The entry into force of the amendments of the Charging Implementing Rule will be deferred to January 1

st 2015.


Annex III. Additional information to the reporting table in Annex III, specific transparency requirements for the provision of air navigation services at airports falling within Article 1(6)

In The Netherlands no airports are falling within Article 1(6).


Additional information to the reporting table in Annex IV, Charging mechanism

1. Description and rationale for the establishment of the different charging zones, in particular with regard to terminal charging zones and potential cross-subsidies between airports;

In 2008 two charging zones have been established in FIR Amsterdam.

Since January 1st 2008, the terminal charging zone has been defined as the volume of

airspace within a radius of 20 kilometres (= 12 nautical miles) around the LVNL controlled airports of landing and take-off and up to flight level 30 (~ 3000 feet).

Since January 1st 2008, all airports controlled by LVNL (Air Traffic Control the Netherlands)

(Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, Rotterdam the Hague Airport, Groningen Airport Eelde, Maastricht Aachen Airport) have been put into a single One Group of Airports. The terminal charging zone comprises the airports in this group.

One single cost base and one single unit rate are also applicable to this terminal charging zone. All airports belonging to this One Group of Airports, Amsterdam Airport Schiphol excepted, have less than 20.000 commercial air transport movements per year.

Twenthe Airport (formerly a military air base), Eindhoven Airport (military air base) and Lelystad Airport (not controlled) do not belong to the aforementioned One Group of Airports for the reasons stated.

As competition in the field of air navigation services is not relevant in the Netherlands, none of the Dutch airports is exempted from Article 1.6 of Regulation 1794/2006.

KNMI is the designated meteorological service provider for the FIR Amsterdam.

2. Description and explanation on the calculation of the forecast chargeable service units;

The number of service units is based on estimates by LVNL of the latest traffic developments, taken into account the CATM forecasts of Amsterdam airport Schiphol. The calculation of a service unit in the terminal charging zone is in line with the Annex V to Regulation 1794/2006.

3. Description of the policy on exemptions and a description of the financing means to cover the related costs;

Since January 1st 2010 the following traffic categories are exempted from the terminal

navigation charges:

Flights performed exclusively for the transport of the reigning monarch and his immediate family, etc.;

Search and rescue flights; Training flights, with the exception of the first touch and go and every successively fourth

touch and go; Humanitarian flights.

In line with Article 9, LVNL receives a financial compensation for the services provided to the exempted flights in the Amsterdam FIR. Funding comes out of the State receipts from the Internal Tax.


4. Description of the carry overs of over or under recoveries incurred by member states up to the year 2011 for en route charges;

Article 10 of Regulation 1794/2006 specifies the recovery of the balance resulting from the over and under recoveries of the previous years in general terms. The Netherlands intends to eliminate the under recoveries in the period up until and including 2011 in the first reference period. This will, however, also depend on the traffic volume tendencies. The Dutch government at the same time intends to keep the total chargeable unit rate at the 2011 level. Since January 1

st 2011 the N+2 system of under and over recoveries has been replaced for all

the components of the Dutch cost basis by a N+5 system and thus will be distributed over the years in the period 2011 up until and including 2014.

Although Article 4.1.2 of the Principles for establishing the cost-base for en route charges and the calculation of the unit rates, stating that under- or over-recoveries shall be carried over and included in the cost base of year “N+1” or to a period of up to six years (for years “N” up to “N+5”), is formally not applicable to the terminal charging zone, the en route charging zone carrying over system is applied on the terminal charging zone: in the Dutch terminal cost base in the period 2008 – 2014 will be distributed over the years in the period 2010 up until and including 2014.

5.Description of the under recoveries carried over in accordance with Article 11a (4) second subparagraph;

As stated before, the concept of the determined costs, targeted unit rates and the traffic volume and cost risk will not be applied on the terminal ANS provision in the next years. This is in line with Article 2 of Regulation 1191/2010, amending Regulation 1794/2006. The entry into force of the amendments of the Charging Implementing Rule will be deferred to January 1

st 2015.

Thus, there are no financial traffic volume risk effects on the moment

6 Description by factors of the amounts carried over from the previous reference period in accordance with Article 11a (8) (c);

As stated before the concept of the determined costs, targeted unit rates and the traffic volume and cost risk will not be applied on the terminal ANS provision. This is in line with Article 2 of Regulation 1191/2010, amending Regulation 1794/2006. The entry into force of the amendments of the Charging Implementing Rule will be deferred to January 1

st 2015.

Thus, there are no uncontrollable cost effects on the moment.

7. Description of the other revenues when they exist;

Other income relates to the sale of Aeronautical publications, hardware maintenance services for third parties and space rental to third parties.


8. Description of the formula used for calculating terminal charges;

Service units in the terminal charging zone are calculated in line with the formula in Annex V to Regulation 1794/2006. The weight factor is set at 0,7.

9. Description and explanation of incentives applied on users of terminal services;

On the moment no ANS incentive schemes on users are applied. Incentives on users are incorporated in the airport charges, for instance based on the noise production and MTOW.


Appendix B

Overview of investments In the tables below details of the investments of LVNL , MUAC and KNMI are given for the main investments which will have an effect during RP1 (in monetary terms). Most of the investments of LVNL and MUAC are replacements of systems having reached the end of their life span. The investments of KNMI mainly concern substitution for current systems and meteorological observation equipment. ANSP Investments 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 F 2013 F 2014 F 015 F 2016 F Total

LVNL Systems etc 0 3,1 12,3 21,4 30,2 43,9 38,7 37,4 187

Others 6,6 6,5 11,2 6,9 6 6,2 4,5 5,8 53,7

Total LVNL 6,6 9,6 23,5 28,3 36,2 50,1 43,2 43,2 240,7

MUAC Systems etc 12,9 11,5 14,3 18,6 11,6 6,3 75,0

Others 5,9 5,8 7,2 5,0 6,7 6,0 36,5

Total MUAC 18,7 17,3 21,4 23,6 18,2 12,2 111,6

KNMI Systems etc 0,5 0 0 0 0 0 0,5

Others 0,2 0,13 0,145 0,875 0,6 0 1,95

Total KNMI 0,7 0,13 0,145 0,875 0,6 0 2,45

Total Systems etc 0 3,1 25,7 32,9 44,5 62,5 50,3 43,7 262,5

Others 6,6 6,5 17,3 12,8 13,3 12,1 11,8 11,8 92,2

General 6,6 9,6 42,9 45,7 57,8 74,6 62,0 55,4 354,7

Table 1 Annual investments (capex) in nominal terms

In the table below the LVNL investments are mentioned. Budget period 2012-2016

Assessed impact on performance target

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016+ Planned total CAPEX

Mustang (COM) Cost efficiency: realisation of cost savings

0,6 2,0 2,6

Contingency Capacity target: service provision is restored at agreed time and capacity

3,6 2,9 6,5

Replacement TAR-4 (SUR)

n/a: necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures

8,0 8,0

Replacement VCS (COM)

n/a: necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures. Capacity: enables future growth

3,1 4,4 3,6 5,9 6,6 23,6

Fallback air-ground | ground-ground voice

n/a: necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures. Capacity: increased capacity during degradation mode

1,5 3,7 2,0 7,2


Budget period 2012-2016


2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016+ Planned total CAPEX

Replacement AAA (FDP)

n/a: necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures. Enabler SESAR concept.

3,2 2,9 21,3 31,5 11,7 4,4 75,0

Replacement IT office automation

n/a: necessary replacement.

0,5 1,7 2,2

Reservation possible acquisition TWR Schiphol

Cost efficiency: realisation of cost savings

6,8 6,8

Primary radar coverage Polderbaan (18R/36L)

Safety: maintain level of safety Capacity: increased availability of Schiphol main runway 18R/36L

1,5 1,5 3,0

Digital strips TWR Schiphol

Safety: improves with better unambiguous data distribution Capacity: information sharing supports CDM and improves planning

2,1 2,1

Adjustment facilities Guarantees service provision during transition AAA, host new functionalities and organisational changes

25,0 25,0 50,0

Other investments Office automation, company fleet, etc.

6,6 6,5 11,2 6,9 6,0 6,2 4,5 5,8 53,7

Total 6,6 9,6 23,5 28,3 36,2 50,1 43,2 43,2 240,7

Table 2 LVNL Investments

Breakdown of MUAC’s investments The table below includes the total investments of MUAC (21.7% of MUAC's cost base is allocated to FIR Amsterdam).

2011 F 2012 F 2013 F 2014 F 2015 F 2016 and beyond F Total

MUAC

EATM Communication Gateway 1,1

Voice systems 2,5 3,3 3,6 1,4 0,7 1,8 13,3

New generation CWP 0,3 2,6 11,0 7,7 0,8 22,3

ATFCM/ASM Tools 1,8 1,7 1,7 1,2 0,9 0,9 8,1

SESAR Compliant ATM 1,37 0,6 1,175 2,2 2,35 2,85 10,5

Infrastructure 6,1 5,6 5,2 2,8 19,6

Total ATC systems 12,9 11,5 14,3 18,6 11,6 6,3 75,0

Other investments 5,9 5,8 7,2 5,0 6,7 6,0 36,5

Total 18,7 17,3 21,4 23,6 18,2 12,2 111,6

Table 3 MUAC Investments

Specification of LVNL Investments Budget period 2012-2016

Domain Allocation to en-route charging zone


Planned start date

Planned end date

European ATM Master plan OIs

IR/CS reference

Mustang (COM)

54,5% Cost efficiency: realisation of cost savings

2010 2012 Enabler for future growth and implementation of SESAR concept


Budget period 2012-2016

Domain Allocation to en-route charging zone


Planned start date

Planned end date


IR/CS reference

Contingency

100,0% Capacity target: service provision is restored at agreed time and capacity

2011 2012 Complies with SES and SESAR and is realised in bilateral FABEC cooperation

Replacement TAR-4 (SUR)

100,0% n/a: necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures

2016

Replacement VCS (COM)

54,5% n/a: necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures. Capacity: enables future growth

2010 2014

Fallback air-ground ground-ground voice

54,5% n/a: necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures. Capacity: increased capacity during degradation mode

2014 System requirements were developed in bilateral FABEC cooperation

Replacement AAA (FDP)

100,0% n/a: necessary replacement. Ultimately preventing decline in capacity due to system failures. Enabler SESAR concept.

2011 2017 Enabler for implementation SESAR concept. Facilitates multiple operational improvements: e.g. 4D contract and improved operability

Replacement IT office automation

90,0% n/a: necessary replacement.

2011 2012

Reservation possible acquisition TWR Schiphol

0,0% Cost efficiency: realisation of cost savings

2011 2012

Primary radar coverage Polderbaan (18R/36L)

0,0% Safety: maintain level of safety Capacity: increased availability of Schiphol main runway 18R/36L

2013

Digital strips TWR Schiphol

0,0% Safety: improves with better unambiguous data distribution Capacity: information sharing supports CDM and improves planning

2013 2014

Adjustment facilities

90,0% Guarantees service provision during transition AAA, host new functionalities and organisational changes

2015 2017

Table 4 Specification of LVNL investments

Specification of MUAC investments CAPEX project ID

Domain Allocation to. charging zone

Assessed impact on performance targets

Planned start date YY

Planned end dateYY

Planned total CAPEX in M€


IR/CS reference

Voice 100% En Na : 2011 2014 13.3


CAPEX project ID

Domain Allocation to. charging zone

Assessed impact on performance targets

Planned start date YY

Planned end dateYY

Planned total CAPEX in M€


IR/CS reference

Systems Route replacement New generation CWP

100 % En Route

Productivity 2012 2014 22.3

ATFCM / ASM Tools

100% En Route

Capacity 2012 2016 8.1

SESAR Compliant ATM

100% En Route

Capacity and Safety

2013 2016 10.5

Table 5 Specification of MUAC investments


Appendix C Extracts from State Safety Programme

Excerpt

Dutch State Safety Program / Policy agenda Aviation Safety 2011 – 2015

State Safety Programme ICAO standards set out the requirements for States to establish a State Safety Programme (SPP) in order to achieve an acceptable level of safety (AloS) in the operation and maintenance of aircraft, the provision of air traffic services and the operation of aerodromes. The ALoS is a means to verify the performance of the SSP and the separate safety management systems of the various service providers in the aviation chain. The AloS allows a more performance based approach, which complements the more classic compliance based approach. ICAO defines an SPP as a integrated set of rules and activities aiming at improving aviation safety. However, the Netherlands has decided to make a distinction between the State Safety Programme, which describes the current safety situation in the Netherlands and a policy document (Beleidsagenda Luchtvaartveiligheid 2011-2015)) which describes the manner in which the Netherlands intends to improve aviation safety.

Policy document Aviation Safety 2011-2015

The policy document on aviation safety focuses on those issues that need to be improved in the next 5 years in order to be able to improve the civil aviation safety level. The issues have been chosen on the basis of the underlying risks, the division of responsibility and the possibilities to influence the results. Focusing on issue that cannot be influenced should be avoided as this does not contribute to a higher level of safety.

The issues have been selected on the basis of current knowledge of the aviation safety system. This knowledge is based on expert judgment, research and information on incidents and accidents. Furthermore, the issues have been checked by the aviation sector.

As part of the process, an international benchmark of a number of other civil aviation authorities and international organizations has been carried out. It has become clear that the Dutch approach to SSP and SMS does not differ much from those organizations. The issue of strengthening safety management systems is also addressed by that of ICAO, the United States, the United Kingdom and France.

Despite the fact that more and more information is available from incident reporting, it is not yet possible to underpin all the issues in the Aviation Safety Policy Document with evidence. The aim of this policy document is therefore to make issues more measurable as the basis for future policy development issues.


Agenda item 4.1.

Introduction and Oversight of Safety Management Systems (SMS)

Introduction

The compliance with rules and regulations by companies and individual persons is currently enforced by granting licenses and carrying out oversight. Oversight consists of both inspections and audits at a system level as well as at product level.

It is considered necessary/essential that all stakeholders in the aviation chain are permanently aware of safety and the need to further improve safety. It is important to deal with the aviation chain as a whole rather than with the individual components. This is the only way to maintain and improve the high safety standard.

The current status

Currently, safety management systems have been implemented (completely or at least partly) in the Dutch aviation sector. A number of companies is preparing the implementation of SMS. In certain parts of the sector SMS is not implemented yet. The degree of the implementation of safety management is dependent the degree of legislation.

Ambition 2011-2015

Support the development of ICAO (Annex 19) on safety management; Align Dutch SMS approach with European developments; Stimulate/promote the increase of the number of companies with SMS; Improve safety awareness in General Aviation (GA) by introduction and elaboration of SMS; Finalise the introduction of SMS certification and developing SMS maturity model to be able to

measure SMS performance.

Actions

Implement an SMS for all those companies in the aviation sector which are legally obliged comply; Stimulate the implementation of SMS in other parts of the aviation sector (esp. General Aviation). Certify Competent Authority (CAA-NL and Military Aviation Authority); Adapt oversight focus towards SMS system and establishing an optimal balance between system

and product oversight; Select indicators to measure effectiveness of SMS; Promote a sector wide SMS system

Indicators

% of companies with an approved SMS; % companies with minimum level of system oversight

Concrete goals 2011-2015

SMS fully implemented in European and national legislation; In 2015 95% of the companies have a certified SMS; ISO certification for Competent Authority


Agenda item 4.2.

Development of objective and measurable safety targets

Introduction

The dashboard contains the various elements of the government safety management process. Leading indicators are used to describe the quality of safety management and while lagging indicators are used to describe the performance in the various safety areas. The dashboard gives an overview of the balance between efforts and performance, both at system level and for the various parts.

By clearly defining the goals to be achieved the industry will be enabled to decide which measures they will have to take to meet these goals. The goals should be defined in such a manner as to make the interdependencies within the aviation chain visible.

Current status

The safety goals have already been described at the highest strategic level. Within the context of EU, EASA and ICAO performance indicators and corresponding targets are being developed. By participating in a number of working groups the Netherlands contributes to the international development of these targets.

Ambition 2011-2015

Development of international and harmonized safety indicators

Concrete actions

Define the issues that are of paramount importance to achieve safety; Development of concrete and measurable safety indicators for each part of the aviation system; Set Acceptable and Target Safety Levels in coordination with the relevant stakeholders; Set up an objective monitoring system.

Indicators

Number of objective and measurable indicators Timeliness: the degree to which compliance with implementation dates of international

performance indicators and targets.

Tangible goals

In 2013: development and implementation of a maturity model as indicator of the development phase of Safety Management Systems of both government and major players in the commercial aviation;

In 5 years: a well functioning system for measuring safety performance of the commercial aviation based (safety ) indicators and targets will be in place. The system meets all international requirements/agreements and will enable international benchmarking.


Agenda item 4.3. Improvement of data collection and analysis

Introduction

In case of incidents, these are being investigated by the aviation companies within the context of their safety management system. These incidents are also reported to the Analysis Bureau Aviation Incidents (Analyse Bureau Luchtvaartvoorvallen, ABL). On the basis of this information ABL identifies and analyses incidents. It may make recommendations on the basis of these analyses. Feedback is an essential element of safety management systems. By sharing information it is possible to learn from other incidents. Sharing information makes it possible to identify at an early stage possible problems between interfaces. Furthermore, it is possible to use the audit and inspection results for trend analysis.

By investigating possible shortcomings proactively it is possible to prevent incidents and accidents.

Current situation/status

In line with ICAO and European legislation/agreements The Netherlands has incorporated the incident reporting duty in national legislation. A substantial number of incidents have been reported, however, incident analysis can be improved further. The ABL is responsible for collecting the incident reports as well as for analyzing the incidents. Following the evaluation of the mandatory reporting requirement in 2009, the quality of ABL has been improved. The Netherlands shares this information at a European level via the Eccairs (European Co-ordination Centre for Aviation Incident Reporting Systems).

Ambition 2011-2015

Improve quality of incident statistics; Improve European analysis to be able to identify trends or specific problems at an early stage.

Concrete actions

Improve the quality and logging of the data; Carry out frequent and clear trend analyses and warning reports for increasing the benefits of

incident reporting; Subdivide incident reports into quality categories (e.g. usefulness, completeness and relevance); Provide feedback on incident reporting; Improve European analysis to be able to identify trends or specific problems at an early stage; Incident reporting should enable setting new policy priorities on an annual basis.

Indicators

Number of incident analyses carried out by ABL; Quality of the data.

Tangible goals

Semi-annual ABL reports should be available within 2 months; At least 4 signal reports and recommendations (preferably at international level) on the basis of

trend analysis; As of 2015 annual European trend analysis.


Agenda item 4.4. Set prerequisites for just culture

Introduction

Having a safety management system in place will not be sufficient to continuously improve aviation safety. Another prerequisite is information. This information will only be available if there is no naming and shaming. Providing or sharing information should be based on trust. In a just culture people will report incidents, which as part of the safety management system will help improve safety. People should not be punished for making mistakes, however repetition/reoccurrence should be prevented. In case of intent or blame, this should be reprimanded/penalized. A mature safety culture depends on trust, transparency and effort as well as on a just culture or a safety culture. A culture of blaming will be detrimental to safety performance.


The State Law on the Establishment of a Council for Safety (Rijkswet OVV) stipulates that incident and accident analysis is carried out for the benefit of aviation safety;

To increase incident reporting is has also been laid down in law that OVV- testimonies shall not be used in a criminal investigation;

On the basis of an evaluation (Commission van Delden) it has been concluded that none of the indents reported to ABL have been forwarded to the Public Prosecutor;

There is an open dialogue between relevant stakeholders (the aviation sector, ministry of Transport and Justice) on their respective responsibilities and duties.

Ambition 2011-2015

In 2015 there is a safety culture that allows/stimulates an open and transparent sharing of information and investigation of incidents to improve aviation safety;

Sanctions will not be applicable to those who report incidents/provide certain information; Measures will be taken to improve trust between the sector and the Public Prosecutor Stimulate voluntary reporting (in addition to obligatory reporting).

Concrete actions

Develop a tool to measure the maturity of the safety culture; Carry out a bi-annual survey to measure the degree to which one is prepared to report incidents

and accidents and get insight into the main issues one comes across when reporting incidents and accidents;

Draw up clear and concise protocols on the responsibility of the various actors. Establish a strategic meeting to discuss a number of relevant cases and share this information at

a strategic level; Stimulate companies to establish a good code of practice for whistle blowers (people that report

information); Strengthening of just culture by spreading the message that an effective and proactive safety

culture is based on continuously learning; Implement ICAO recommendations; Implement the latest European legislation on incident analysis and incident reporting.

Indicators

% of employees willing to report both internally and externally; The maturity of the safety culture of aviation companies; Number of incident reports

Tangible goals

A minimum of 80% of the participants is willing to report; The safety development develops positively;


90% of all the incidents reported that should be reported by several parties are indeed reported.

Agenda item 6.5.

Optimization of Air Navigation Services

Introduction

In the coming years a large number of national and international activities with regard to the use of the Dutch airspace will be carried out, e.g. :

New arrival routes (a a result of the agreement on noise abatement measures); New agreements/arrangements with regard to the civil military use of controlled airspace; Developing and implementing the new Dutch Airspace Vision; Implementation of Single European Sky; Establishment of Functional Airspace Block Europe Central; The transfer of the aviation safety, including Air Navigation Services to the Commission.

The amount of changes require an evaluation of the possible needs to adjust the current the safety concepts/design to maintain a robust safety system. With higher complexity the risk of mistakes and consequences increases.


The Netherlands is actively involved in European initiatives (EASA, SES and FABEC). Air traffic control the Netherlands, local residents and airports and aircraft operators are involved in the Round Table on Schiphol-issues.

Ambition 2011-2015

Implementation a new air traffic management system to cater for the increase in traffic while at the same time decreasing the complexity;

In case of emergency landings aircraft should preferably make use of the preferential runways in order to avoid densely populated areas;

To increase aviation safety unnecessary flight profiles should be limited as much as possible; New spatial developments that might negatively influence navigation and safety related ground

equipment are avoided; Changes in equipment and systems are only implemented if they contribute to increasing safety

and strengthen the interrelationship between the parties involved/concerned; Arrival and departure routes are designed so as to limit safety risks; The use of the airport is such as to limit safety risks.

Concrete actions

Strengthen safety management systems by introducing change management initiatives involving various actors (introduce pilots in cooperation with the aviation sector) and European legislation.

Decrease the complexity of the operation and increase the overall picture of the operation as well a decentralizing tactical decision making of the operation. LVNL will carry out an impact analysis to assess the impact of the changes proposed on the complexity of the operation;

Air Traffic Control The Netherlands (LVNL) and the Ministry of Transport will jointly set up projects to decrease operational complexity and optimize the role of the pilot in air traffic management as well as technological aids for the support of air traffic management;

Establish the changes needed in ANS to increase safety and efficiency when traffic increases as well as to decrease the environmental impact of air traffic;

Implement new measures to decrease the number of COMLOSS substantially; LVNL reports on the way emergency landings are handled as well as on unusual flight profiles; Establish which ANS changes are necessary to increase safety and to integrate in the policy

agenda; Fit in UAVs in non segregated air space.

Indicators


To monitor progress: establish a list of necessary ANS changes for improving safety as well as a schedule for implementation.

Tangible goals 2011-2015

Introduction of Management of Change; Development of a method in order to be able to present internal safety in an uncomplicated

manner; Decisions on changes are only taken if and when the different aspects contribute to a less

complex operation and a reduction in risks. Overall the operation should be less complicated even when capacity increases.


Annex D: Stakeholder Consultation Documentation

These documents are provided in a separate document.

Pagina 1 van 4

> Retouradres Postbus 20904 2500 EX Den Haag

Datum 23 maart 2011

Betreft Stakeholder Consultation Meeting on April 12th 2011

Directoraat-Generaal

Luchtvaart en Maritieme

Zaken

Luchthavens

Luchtverkeer

Plesmanweg 1-6

Den Haag

Postbus 20904

2500 EX Den Haag

Ons kenmerk

IenM/BSK-2011/47289

Dear Madam, Sir, The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (IandE) is pleased to invite you to the first SES Stakeholder Consultation Meeting (SCM) on issues re-lated to the Performance plan for air navigation services in the reference period 2012 – 2014, in particular cost efficiency. The SCM will be held on Tuesday, April 12th 2011 at LVNL’s head office at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. In line with Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 2010 laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions the meet-ing will take place under the chairmanship of the Ministry. As it has already been decided that there will be no Single Unit Rate in the FABEC area during the first reference period of the SES performance scheme, each of the FABEC Member States is obliged to elaborate a national performance plan on the cost efficiency Key Performance Area (KPA). The FABEC performance plan will be related to the KPAs on capacity, environment and military mission effectiveness. The main focus of the SCM will be on the preliminary ideas on the en route cost efficiency in relation to the intended strategic investments. Other important per-formance issues will be the sustainability (reliability) of the declared capacity dur-ing the first inbound peak and the noise abatement. We would like to discuss the preliminary ideas and hear your views on the assumptions used. Furthermore, the proposed Dutch contribution to the FABEC targets for Capacity and Environment will be dealt with. The draft agenda for the SCM is enclosed. Documents for the meeting will be sent to the invitees in advance. Presentations on the various issues from the separate perspectives will be held by Air Traffic Control the Netherlands (LVNL), the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC/Eurocontrol) and the Dutch NSA. The Ministry of IandE will present the integral Dutch perspective concerning the various topics.



Zaken

Luchthavens

Luchtverkeer

Datum

23 maart 2011

Pagina 2 van 4

We kindly request your company or organisation to adequately mandate you as its representative(s) to formally advise the Ministry on these matters. The timetable is as follows: from 09.00 CET onwards: welcome in the LVNL facilities; 10.00 CET: start of the SCM; 12.45 CET: users will be given an opportunity for mutual consultation and a

lunch; From 13.30 CET onwards: consultation and discussion; 14.30 CET: end of the meeting.

Please confirm your attendance before Friday, April 1st 2011 and provide us with the name(s) of the attendant(s) of your organisation and their arrival time. Re-garding the expansive list of invitees it is important for us to receive your confir-mation timely to enable us to make reservation for the required meeting accom-modation. For confirmation and further information or queries, please contact Mr. A. van der Westen via e-mail [email protected] (telephone 0031(0)70 – 4561329 or 0031(0)6 15359784) and/or Mr J. van Kooperen via e-mail [email protected] (telephone 0031(0)20 – 406 3273). Be advised that for security reasons attendants of the meeting need an identifica-tion document (e.g. a passport) to obtain entry passes for the LVNL head office. The LVNL address is Stationsplein Zuid-West 1001, 1117 CV Schiphol-Oost, The Netherlands. A route description is enclosed. Yours sincerely, Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, Directorate-General for Civil Aviation and Maritime Affairs Ms. Jacqueline Prins Deputy Director ATM and Airspace Policy, LLM MA Encl

- Route description - Agenda



Zaken

Luchthavens

Luchtverkeer

Datum

23 maart 2011

Pagina 3 van 4

List of invitees

Airline Representative

KLM Edwin Kleiboer

Bert van der Weyden

Ard Rombout

KLM Cityhopper Rene de Vogel

Vincent van Valkenburg

Bert van Gent

Jan Ordelman

Transavia Peter Spruit

Han Schutte

Martinair Holland Ben Gooijer CityJet Bas van Itallie EasyJet Matthew Wood

William Vet

Lufthansa German Airlines Michael Dietz

Wolfgang Scheel

Air France Represented by KLM

Delta Airlines (DAL) Lorne Cass Northwest Airlines Frank Alexander

Mike Belanger

British Airways Tony Buss

Paul Wiggens

Simon Cox

Aer Lingus Niall Walsh

TomMcRann

SAS Scandinavian Airlines Jens Justesen

Jens Albek

BMI Jane Irving

Jim Snee

Arke Fly Koen Kouwenberg

Carl Zwanenburg

Swiss International Airlines Ms Nicole Ammann

Urs Roth

Malev Hungarian Airlines Baradziej Károlyné Alitalia Fabio Cittadini

Davide Bardelli

Iberia Jose Gonzalez Marcos

Rafael Arostegui Parra

TAP Portugal Fernando Ramos Ferreira Austrian Stefan Hafenscher

Andreas Trost



Zaken

Luchthavens

Luchtverkeer

Datum

23 maart 2011

Pagina 4 van 4

Airspace user organisations

IATA Laurie O'Toole

Ton van der Veldt

SAOC Roel Oudeboon AOPA Ary Stigter

I-AOPA Ms Peggy v. Ootmarsum BARIN Mr. P. Phillippou

ELFAA Han Schutte IACA Guy Battistella KNvVL Michaëel Tefsen AEA Vincent De Vroey ERAA Nick Mower EBAA Pedro Vincente Azua

Observer

Schiphol Airport Daniel dos Reis Miranda

Martijn van der Meer

KNMI representatives KNMI Remco den Besten

Jan Sondij

LVNL representatives LVNL Jasper Daams

René van Schoubroeck

Bert Rolvink

Jeroen van Kooperen

Jeroen Vermeij

Frederik Eriksson

Raymond Deleu

MUAC representatives MUAC Karl-Heinz Kloos

Onno Reitsma

Frans van Gysegem

Ministry of Defence LtKol J.A.M. Laarhoven

LtKol J. van Bommel

NSA representatives NSA Jos Wilbrink

Jos Nollet

Ministry of Transport DGLM Ms Jacqueline Prins

Ad van der Westen

Ms Saskia Brouwer

SES

Perfo

rm

an

ce S

ch

em

eA

NS

1stS

takeh

old

er

Co

nsu

ltati

on

Meeti

ng

co

ncern

ing

Prelim

inary

data

on

perfo

rm

an

ce

for

Am

ste

rd

am

FIR

2

01

2 –

20

14

Agenda

•10.0

0-1

0.1

0 W

elc

om

e–

Purp

ose

and f

orm

at

•10.1

0 –

10.1

5–

Appro

val of

dra

ft m

inute

s o

f U

CM

Septe

mber

21

st2010 (

Chair)

•10.1

5 –

10.2

5–

Info

rmative b

riefing o

n s

tatu

s o

f th

e F

ABEC a

nd N

L-c

ontr

ibution t

o t

he F

ABEC p

erf

orm

ance p

lan:

(Min

istr

y o

f In

frastr

uctu

re a

nd t

he E

nvironm

ent)

•10.2

5 –

10.

35

–Perf

orm

ance p

lan g

enera

l item

s (

Min

istr

y o

f Ia

ndE)

•10.3

5 –

12.1

5–

KPIs

and t

arg

ets

: pre

senta

tions b

y L

VN

L,

KN

MI,

MU

AC a

nd N

SA

•12.1

5 –

12.3

0–

Genera

loverv

iew

, in

clu

din

gin

terr

ela

tionship

s b

etw

een

KPAs/K

PIs

(Min

istr

y I

andE)

•12.3

0 –

12.4

5–

Recap (

Chair)

•12.

45 –

13.3

0–

Users

’m

utu

al consultation d

uring lunch b

reak

•13.3

0 –

14.3

0–

Consultation a

nd d

iscussio

n

•14.3

0–

End o

f m

eeting

2

Purp

ose

and f

orm

at

1stSCM

Purp

ose

•Pre

lim

inary

advic

eof sta

kehold

ers

to t

he M

inis

try

of

Infr

astr

uctu

reand t

he E

nvironm

ent

on:

•SES P

erf

orm

ance t

arg

ets

for

Am

ste

rdam

FIR

•Additio

nalnationalperf

orm

ance t

arg

ets

In first

perf

orm

ance r

efe

rence

period

2012 -

2014

Conte

xt

•N

L c

ontr

ibution

to t

he F

ABEC

perf

orm

ance p

lan (

capacity)

•N

ational perf

orm

ance p

lan o

ncost

eff

icie

ncy

Next

ste

ps

•Ela

bora

ting

the n

ationalperf

orm

ance p

lan o

ncost

eff

iency

and t

he a

dditio

nalnationalperf

orm

ance t

arg

ets

in F

IR A

mste

rdam

•2nd S

CM

: M

ay 1

9th

, 2011 (

Belg

ocontr

ol, S

teenokkerz

eel)

Form

at

•SCM

willbe

chaired

by

Min

istr

yof Ia

ndE.

•Pre

senta

tions

on

capacity

and c

ost

eff

icie

ny

by

LVN

L,

MU

AC,

KN

MI

and N

SA r

epre

senta

tives

•Focus o

nth

e p

relim

inary

cost

eff

icie

ncy t

arg

et

and c

apacity

targ

et

3

Min

ute

sand a

ction

list

•M

inute

s:

finalappro

valof

dra

ftre

port

of

meeting S

epte

mber

21st,

2010

suggestions

and r

em

ark

sre

ceiv

ed

have b

een inclu

ded

•Action

list:

all a

ctions

com

ple

ted

and c

losed

4

SES P

erf

orm

ance S

chem

eRefe

rence

period

1 (

2012-2

014)

•Sta

tes

or

FABs

need

to e

lebora

tePerf

orm

ance P

lan.

•FABEC S

SB h

as d

ecid

ed

to s

ubm

ita “

pro

vis

ional”

FABEC

Perf

orm

ance P

lan

for

the first

refe

rence

period

dealing

with

:

–Safe

ty;

–Environm

ent;

–Capacity;

–M

ilitairy

Mis

sio

nEffectivenes;

–Aggre

gate

dnationalCost

effic

iency t

arg

ets

at

FABEC level

(glo

balfigure

dem

onstr

ating

the c

ost

eff

icie

ncy e

ffort

at

FABEC level)

•Cost

effic

iency a

t nationalle

vel due

to a

bsence o

f a F

ABEC s

ingle

unit r

ate

.

The indiv

idualnationalpla

ns o

ncost

effic

iency a

nd a

dditio

nalnationalKPIs

willbe

inclu

ded

in a

nannex t

o F

ABEC P

P.

5

NL m

acro

-econom

icconte

xt

in R

P1

•Purp

ose:

•Expla

nation o

f th

e a

ssum

ptions o

n t

he e

conom

ic c

onditio

ns a

nd c

ircum

sta

nces u

nder

whic

h t

he p

erf

orm

ance p

lan w

ill be im

ple

mente

d.

•Rele

vant

glo

bal econom

ic d

evelo

pm

ents

in g

enera

l qualita

tive t

erm

s:

•Although p

rofiting f

rom

econom

ic d

evelo

pm

ents

in o

ther

regio

ns e

conom

icpers

pectives f

or

NW

-Euro

pe c

onsid

era

bly

less p

ositiv

e/o

ptim

istic t

han f

or

those

oth

er

regio

ns

•O

il p

rice c

onsid

era

ble

incre

ase:

in S

TATFO

R f

ore

cast

betw

een $

100 a

nd $

150 p

er

barr

el.

•Euro

/dollar

parity

will sta

y a

t th

e s

am

e level:

1€

= $

1,3

5 –

1,4

0.

•N

L:

GD

P:

betw

een +

1,5

% a

nd +

2%

per

year

Private

consum

ptions:

+ 1

,25%

per

year

Sta

te’s

consum

ption:

no c

hange

Inflation:

betw

een 1

,5%

and 3

,5%

per

year

Incre

ase in w

ages:

2,5

% p

er

year

Unem

plo

ym

ent

rate

: sta

yin

g a

t about

4,5

%

6

LV

NL

(sep

arate

presen

tati

on

an

d r

oad

map

en

clo

sed

)

7

MU

AC

(sep

arate

presen

tati

on

an

d r

oad

map

en

clo

sed

)

8

KN

MI

(sep

arate

presen

tati

on

an

d r

oad

map

en

clo

sed

)

9

NS

A(sep

arate

presen

tati

on

an

d r

oad

map

en

clo

sed

)

10

MIN

IS

TR

Y I

AN

D E

C

on

so

lid

ati

on

11

Overv

iew

nationalperf

orm

ance t

arg

ets

Cost

eff

icie

ncy

Capacity

Environm

ent

Safe

ty

12

Cost

eff

icie

ncy a

ssum

ptions

Issu

eLV

NL

MU

AC

KN

MI

Tra

ffic

volu

me

Mediu

m t

erm

fore

cast

base s

cenario F

IR A

mste

rdam

En r

oute

cost

effic

iency

targ

et

-3.5

% a

nnualdecre

ase

in d

ete

rmin

ed

unit r

ate

;

Applicability

of

traff

icvolu

me r

isk

Yes

No d

uring

RP1

Not

at

all

Equity

capitalto

be

build

up

during

firs

tre

fere

nce

period

Yes

Yes

(change

of

MU

AC A

gre

em

ent

necessary

)

No

Fin

ancia

l in

centives

Not

applicable

Term

inal charg

ing

zone

Neither

traff

icvolu

me r

isk,

nor

cost

risk a

pplicable

until1-1

-2015

13

Cost

eff

icie

ncy:

genera

loverv

iew

(data

update

d,

where

possib

le)

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

Dete

rm

ined

co

sts

(x 1

.00

0)

LVN

L106.0

18

102.6

66

102.0

49

101.8

62

KN

MI

7.6

41

7.3

34

7.0

36

6.8

98

MU

AC

28.5

76

30.4

26

31.0

17

31.7

86

NSA (

incl.

Euro

contr

ol H

Q)

15.5

38

17.2

35

16.8

90

16.5

53

Tota

l costs

(x 1

.000)

15

7.7

72

15

7.9

67

15

7.5

97

15

7.8

42

# (

x 1

.000)

tota

lserv

ice u

nits (

base

scenario)

2.5

55

2.6

81

2.7

33

2.7

94

NL D

ete

rm

ined

un

it r

ate

(in

€)

61

,75

58

,92

57

,66

56

,49

Ten

den

cy

NL

95,4

%93,4

%91,5

%

EU

-targ

et

96.5

%93.1

%89.9

%

14

Capacity

Additio

nalnationalkpiand t

arg

ets

for

Schip

hol

•KPI

–Avera

ge A

TFM

dela

ySchip

hol(e

n r

oute

and

term

inal)

–Susta

inability

of

decla

red

capacity

in f

irst

inbound

peak.

•Targ

et

–1 m

inute

avera

ge A

TFM

dela

yper

flig

ht

–85%

of

decla

red

capacity

of

68 m

ovem

ents

(inbounds)

15

Environm

ent

•KPI:

–avera

ge e

n-r

oute

horizonta

l flig

ht

eff

icie

ncy

•EU

-wid

eta

rget:

–im

pro

vem

ent

of

-0.7

5%

avera

ge h

orizonta

l flig

ht

eff

icie

ncy in 2

014 v

s2009 (

5%

) fo

rN

etw

ork

Manager.

•FABEC:

-D

iffe

rence

betw

een

length

of

route

of th

e e

n r

oute

part

of

the a

ctu

al

traje

cto

ryand

the G

reat

Circle

Dis

tance.

•N

ational:

–N

ois

eabate

ment

rule

sre

late

dto

route

and r

unw

ay

use

on

the b

asis

of

Luchtv

erk

eers

beslu

it (

LVB).

16

Safe

ty

•N

o E

U w

ide

targ

ets

for

safe

tyin

the f

irst

refe

rence

period.

•FABEC:

-N

o t

arg

ets

•N

ational:

–N

o t

arg

ets

but

report

ing

on

ATC r

ela

ted

incid

ents

and a

ccid

ents

(type,

num

ber

and s

everity

).

17

Monitoring

& r

eport

ing

•Purp

ose:

check o

n p

erf

orm

ance c

om

pliance;

in c

ase o

f non c

om

pliance,

trig

gering o

f suitable

action.

FABEC P

erf

orm

ance P

lan:

monitoring

and r

eport

ing

once

or

twic

ea y

ear

(dependin

gon

the K

PA/K

PI)

•M

UAC:

Capacity:

to b

ein

clu

ded

in F

ABEC p

rocedure

;

Cost-

eff

icie

ncy:

continuation

of

curr

ent

Euro

contr

ol pra

ctice

•LVN

L :

Capacity

to b

ein

clu

ded

in F

ABEC p

rocedure

;

Cost-

effic

iency

and a

dditio

nalkpis

: m

onitoring

and r

eport

ing

on

a q

uart

erly

base (

continuation

of curr

ent

nationalpro

cedure

)

•M

ET:

Cost

eff

icie

ncy:

regula

rly

(continuation

of

curr

ent

nationalpro

cedure

)

18

Next

ste

ps

•19th

May s

econd

and f

inalN

L S

CM

at

Belg

ocontr

olpre

mis

es

on

cost

eff

icie

ncy a

nd a

dditio

nalnationalkpis

on

capacity

and

environm

ent

and s

afe

ty;

•M

id-J

une

appro

valby

Secre

tary

of Sta

te;

•End o

f M

ay f

inalre

port

ing

table

s o

ncost

and u

nit r

ate

data

to

Euro

contr

ol;

•End o

f Ju

ne

–finalperf

orm

ance p

lan t

o E

uro

pean

Com

mis

sio

nfo

rappro

val.

19

2nd

SCM

MAY 1

9th,

at

Belg

ocontr

ol

Purp

ose

•Fin

aladvic

eof

sta

kehold

ers

to t

he M

inis

try

of

Infr

astr

uctu

reand t

he

Environm

ent

on:

Cost

data

and t

arg

ete

dunit r

ate

.

Additio

nalnationalperf

orm

ance t

arg

ets

20

Questions

21

KP

AFA

BEC

Nati

on

al

KP

IP

IK

PI

Indic

ato

rs 1

st

refe

rence

period

Eff

ectiveness

of safe

tym

anagem

ent

Application

of

severi

tycla

ssific

ation

of

RAT t

ool

Safe

tyATC r

ela

ted

accid

ents

and incid

ents

(type,

num

ber

and

severi

ty)

Report

ing

of

just

culture

Dir

ect

route

exte

nsio

nin

tra F

ABEC

flig

hts

(flight

pla

n v

s.

GD

C)

Envir

onm

ent

Diffe

rence

betw

een

length

of

route

of th

een r

oute

part

of th

e a

ctu

altr

aje

cto

ryand

the G

reat

Circle

Dis

tance.

Nois

eabate

ment

rule

sre

late

dto

route

and r

unw

ay

use

on

the b

asis

of D

utc

hle

gis

lation.

Share

of FABEC

air

port

soffering

pro

cedure

s s

upport

ing

CD

Os

CD

A c

onfo

rmity

ás

a s

hare

of

arr

ivals

usin

gCD

A p

rocedure

s

Capacity

Min

ute

sof

en r

oute

ATFM

dela

yper

flig

ht

% o

f contr

olled

flig

hts

with

en r

oiu

tedela

yof

> 1

5 m

inute

sAvara

ge

ATFM

dela

y(t

erm

inal and e

n r

oute

)

Tota

l ATFM

dela

ys

Susta

inability

of decla

red

capacity

infirs

tin

bound

peak.

Additio

naltim

e in

taxi out

phase

Additio

naltim

e f

or

ASM

A

Cost

effic

iency

Dete

rmin

ed e

n r

oute

costs

/ re

venues

Dete

rmin

ed

unit r

ate

for

en r

oute

AN

S

Tota

l en r

oute

cost

per

flig

ht

hour

Tota

l econom

ic c

ost

per

flig

ht

hour

Dete

rmin

ed t

erm

inalair

navig

ation

serv

ice u

nit r

ate

Optim

um

SU

A d

imensio

n v

spublished S

UA

str

uctu

e

Perc

enta

ge o

f SU

A c

apacity r

equeste

d

Perc

enta

ge o

f SU

A c

apacity a

llocate

dPerc

enta

ge o

f SU

A c

apacity u

sed

Militair

yM

issio

nEff

ectiveness

Tota

l tr

ain

ing t

ime a

gain

st

tota

l air

born

e

tim

e

SU

Atim

e a

llocate

d v

stim

e r

equeste

d

Avera

ge t

ransit t

ime

22

Sta

keh

old

er C

on

su

ltati

on

Meeti

ng

LV

NL p

resen

tati

on

Ap

ril

12

th,

20

11

Conte

nt

•Str

ate

gic

orienta

tion L

VN

L

•ATM

syste

m d

evelo

pm

ent

•Perf

orm

ance p

lan

•Safe

ty

•Capacity

•Envir

onm

ent

•Cost

effic

iency

•M

eeting t

he t

arg

ets

Str

ate

gic

orienta

tion L

VN

L

20

10

20

11

20

12

t

20

13

Str

ate

gic

reorienta

tion L

VN

L

Focus o

n c

ore

busin

ess (

Schip

holhub f

unction)

Incre

ased (

inte

r)nationalcoopera

tion

Cost

managem

ent

Changes in a

irspace a

nd r

oute

s

Adoption o

f new

technolo

gic

al develo

pm

ents

Apply

tra

ffic

volu

me a

nd c

ost

risk m

echanis

m (

EU

perf

orm

ance s

chem

e)

Str

ate

gic

reorienta

tion L

VN

L

•Reduction o

f 15%

support

sta

ff (

realised b

y t

he e

nd o

f 2014)

•N

o c

ut

backs o

n A

TCO

tra

inin

g

•Q

uality

level of

air n

avig

ation s

erv

ice p

rovis

ion (

SEE)

must

not

decline

•Eff

icie

ncy im

pro

vem

ents

•In

cre

ased (

inte

rnational)

coopera

tion

•Postp

onin

g investm

ents

if

possib

le

•Additio

nal cost

conta

inm

ent

measure

s

Eff

ect

of

str

ate

gic

orienta

tion L

VN

L

•At

the e

nd o

f 2009 facin

g a

deficit o

f €

42,4

million

•Fundam

enta

l id

ea t

o s

upport

the a

irlines d

uring t

he c

risis

in o

ptim

al w

ay

•LVN

L s

hare

in u

nit r

ate

s s

tabilis

ed 2

010-2

014

•Eff

ect

of

cost

conta

inm

ent

pro

gra

ms c

learly v

isib

le

•Larg

e d

eficit w

hile facin

g t

he im

ple

menta

tion o

f th

e p

erf

orm

ance

schem

e

Ap

pro

pri

ati

on

fu

nd

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

But

what

will happen if…

..

Ap

pro

pri

ati

on

fu

nd

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015?

Changes in a

irspace a

nd r

oute

s [

1|2

]

DV

R

CB

A L

and

SW

AP

CB

A22

2011-2

01

4

2012

2012

2014+

2014

LU

X

AR

KO

N-R

KN

2015

2010,

AM

RU

FRA

Changes in a

irspace a

nd r

oute

s [

2|2

]

•Susta

inability a

nd

hourly c

apacity

•Support

gro

wth

to

510.0

00 m

ovem

ents

at

Schip

hol

•N

ext

ste

p t

ow

ard

s

SESAR c

oncept

ATM

syste

m d

evelo

pm

ent

•ATM

syste

m d

evelo

pm

ent

(Separa

te p

resenta

tion)

Imple

menta

tion E

U p

erf

orm

ance s

chem

e [

1/3

]

•Tra

ffic

volu

me r

isk a

nd c

ost

risk a

pplicable

fo

r th

e e

n-r

oute

charg

ing z

one 2

012-2

014.

•Tra

ffic

volu

me r

isk a

nd c

ost

risk n

ot

applicable

for

term

inal charg

ing z

one

2012-2

014.

Full c

ost

recovery

mechanis

m r

em

ain

s in p

lace.

•EU

perf

orm

ance s

chem

e n

ot

applicable

for

NSAA c

harg

ing

zone.

Imple

menta

tion E

U p

erf

orm

ance s

chem

e [

2/3

]Tra

ffic

ris

k m

echanis

m

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

fore

cas

t

Th

res

ho

ld

leve

l a

lert

ing

mec

ha

nis

m

[-2

% ;

+ 2

%]

10

0%

ris

kA

NS

P

Ac

tiva

teth

res

ho

ld

mec

ha

nis

m

30

%

risk

AN

SP

[+/2

%

; +

/-1

0%

]

Imple

menta

tion E

U p

erf

orm

ance s

chem

e [

3/3

]Im

ple

menta

tion e

ffect

•Tra

ffic

volu

me r

isk s

haring:

need f

or

risk m

itig

ating e

quity c

apital

•Cost

risk s

haring:

need f

or

risk m

itig

ating e

quity c

apital

•Additio

nal risk m

itig

ating m

easure

s a

t th

e s

tart

of

firs

t re

fere

nce p

eriod

•Equity c

apital to

be a

cquired d

uring f

irst

refe

rence p

eriod

Perf

orm

ance p

lan

KP

AFA

BEC

Nati

on

al

ATC

rela

ted a

ccid

ents

and

incid

ents

(type,

num

ber

and

severity

)

Tota

l avera

ge A

TFM

dela

y(t

erm

inal

and e

nro

ute

)

Susta

inability

of

decla

red c

apacity

infirs

t in

bound p

eak.

Nois

eabate

ment

rule

s r

ela

ted t

o

route

and r

unw

ay u

se o

n t

he b

asis

of

Dutc

h legis

lation.

Dete

rmin

ed u

nit r

ate

for

en r

oute

AN

S

1 m

inute

per

flig

ht

Capacity

Avera

ge e

n-r

oute

ATFM

dela

y

Targ

et

Eff

ectiveness o

fsafe

tym

anagem

ent

Application o

f severity

cla

ssific

ation o

f RAT t

ool

Safe

ty

Report

ing o

f ju

st

culture

85%

No t

arg

et

Envir

onm

ent

Horizonta

l flig

ht

eff

icie

ncy

Within

legal lim

its

(Dutc

h law

)

Cost

effic

iency

-3,5

%

Safe

ty

•N

ational KPA:

Tota

l num

ber

of

report

ed A

TC r

ela

ted a

ccid

ents

and

incid

ents

(ty

pe,

num

ber

and s

everity

)

•N

um

ber

of

report

ed a

ccid

ents

and incid

ents

is n

ot

a g

ood b

asis

for

targ

et

sett

ing

•Sta

tistics a

re g

ath

ere

d t

o a

naly

se

trends a

nd m

anage s

afe

ty e

ffectively

•M

onitoring m

echanis

m is b

ein

g d

evelo

ped f

or

tota

l num

ber

of

serious a

nd

majo

r in

cid

ents

Capacity

To

tal A

TF

M d

ela

y 2

009-2

010

Ave

rag

e p

er

mo

nth

an

d c

um

ula

tive a

vera

ge

over

the

year

0,3

0

0,9

4

0,0

0

0,5

0

1,0

0

1,5

0

2,0

0

2,5

0

Ja

nF

eb

Mrt

Ap

rM

ei

Ju

nJ

ul

Au

gS

ep

Okt

No

vD

ec

Tim

e (

mo

nth

)

Delay (min/flight)

AV

G 2

009

AV

G 2

010

Cu

mu

lati

ve 2

00

9C

um

ula

tive 2

01

0

Na

tio

nal

targ

et

for

ave

rag

e t

ota

lA

TF

Md

ela

yp

er

year

Capacity

Su

sta

ina

bilit

y 1

st i

nb

ou

nd

pe

ak

0%

10

%

20

%

30

%

40

%

50

%

60

%

70

%

80

%

90

%

10

0%

Janu

ary

Febru

ary

Mar

ch

April

May

June

July

Augus

t Septe

mbe

r

Oct

ober

N

ovem

ber

Dec

embe

r

20

10

Mo

thly

C

um

ula

tive

Environm

ent

Ru

les

for

ru

nw

ay

an

d r

ou

teu

sag

eLim

itR

ealisati

on

Fo

recast

1

Vert

ical devia

tions

of

corr

idor

from

appro

achin

g a

ircra

ft o

uts

ide t

he T

MA d

uring

daytim

e5%

0,8

0%

2

Vert

ical devia

tions

of

corr

idor

from

appro

achin

g a

ircra

ft w

ithin

the T

MA d

uring

daytim

e15%

3,7

5%

3H

orizonta

l devia

tions

of

corr

idor

from

appro

achin

g a

ircra

ft d

uring n

ight

tim

e0,0

5%

0,0

0%

4

Vert

ical devia

tions

of

corr

idor

from

appro

achin

g a

ircra

ft o

uts

ide t

he T

MA d

uring

nig

ht

tim

e0,0

5%

0,0

5%

5

Vert

ical devia

tions

of

corr

idor

from

appro

achin

g a

ircra

ft w

ithin

the T

MA d

uring

nig

ht

tim

e0,0

5%

0,0

5%

6H

orizonta

l devia

tions

of

corr

idor

from

depart

ing a

ircra

ft d

uring d

aytim

e3%

0,1

2%

7H

orizonta

l devia

tions

of

corr

idor

from

depart

ing a

ircra

ft d

uring n

ight

tim

e0,0

5%

0,0

0%

8Vert

ical devia

tions

of

corr

idor

from

depart

ing

aircra

ft w

ithin

the T

MA

0,0

5%

0,0

0%

9Vert

ical devia

tions

of

corr

idor

from

depart

ing

aircra

ft o

uts

ide t

he T

MA

10%

0,0

1%

10

Devia

tions

of

runw

ay u

sage b

y d

epart

ure

s0

0

11

Devia

tions

of

runw

ay u

sage b

y a

rriv

al

00

Cost

eff

icie

ncy

•M

eth

odolo

gy

•LVN

L d

ete

rmin

ed c

ost

(budget

2011-2

015)

•Pre

vie

w:

pre

lim

inary

LVN

L b

udget

2012-2

016

•LVN

L investm

ent

pla

n

•Sta

ff d

evelo

pm

ent

•Revie

w:

LVN

L indic

ative f

inancia

l re

sults 2

010

Cost

effic

iency,

meth

odolo

gy

[1/2

]

Definitio

ndete

rmin

ed c

osts

are

deem

ed

necessary

to b

e m

ade in a

ny o

f th

e y

ears

in t

he r

efe

rence p

eriod

to d

eliver

the f

ore

caste

d n

um

ber

of serv

ice u

nits,

giv

en t

he level of

the t

arg

ets

for

capacity a

nd

environm

ent

assum

ing t

he s

afe

tyle

vel w

ill re

main

unchanged.

Purp

ose

perf

orm

ance p

urp

oses o

nly

Scope

firs

t re

fere

nce p

eriod 2

012-2

014

charg

ing z

one e

n-r

oute

only

Chara

cte

rfixed f

or

each y

ear

in t

he

refe

rence p

eriod

Dete

rmin

ed c

osts

Definitio

ncosts

to b

e r

ecovere

d fro

m t

he

user

for

delivering a

ir n

avig

ation

serv

ice p

rovis

ion:

tota

l dete

rmin

ed

costs

(in

clu

din

g e

xceptional

item

s),

costs

of exem

pte

d flights

am

ounts

carr

ied o

ver

and incom

e

from

oth

er

sourc

es

Purp

ose

charg

ing p

urp

oses

Scope

all c

harg

ing z

ones involv

ed

Chara

cte

rLVN

L s

hare

in n

ational unit r

ate

is

sta

bilis

ed

for

the p

eriod

2010-2

014

Charg

eable

costs

EU

report

ing

table

s

LVN

LBudget

Definitio

ncosts

to b

e r

ecovere

d fro

m t

he

user

for

delivering a

ir n

avig

ation

serv

ice p

rovis

ion:

tota

l dete

rmin

ed

costs

(in

clu

din

g e

xceptional

item

s),

costs

of exem

pte

d flights

am

ounts

carr

ied o

ver

and incom

e

from

oth

er

sourc

es

Purp

ose

charg

ing p

urp

oses

Scope

all c

harg

ing z

ones involv

ed

Chara

cte

rLVN

L s

hare

in n

ational unit r

ate

is

sta

bilis

ed

for

the p

eriod

2010-2

014

Charg

eable

costs

EU

report

ing

table

s

LVN

LBudget

LVN

LBudget

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n T

he

Neth

erl

ands

Cost

effic

iency,

meth

odolo

gy

[2/2

]

Dete

rmin

ed c

osts

(nom

inal te

rms)

Budgete

d c

ost

base

LVN

L 2

011-2

015

Dete

rmin

ed u

nit r

ate

Budgete

d c

ost

base

LVN

L 2

011-2

015

Dete

rmin

ed c

osts

(re

al te

rms)

Budgete

d c

ost

base

LVN

L 2

011-2

015

LVN

LBudget

2011-2

015

Inflation r

ate

(price level 2009)

Tra

ffic

scenario

(base)

In

nom

inal

term

sIn

real

term

s

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

12

20

13

20

14

Sta

ff c

osts

Oth

er

opera

ting c

osts

Depre

cia

tion

Inte

rest

Exceptional item

s

To

tal

co

sts

in n

om

inal

term

s

Weig

hte

d a

verag

e i

nfl

ati

on

rate

To

tal

co

sts

in

real

term

s (

pric

es 2

00

9)

LVN

L d

ete

rmin

ed c

ost

en-r

oute

(budgete

d c

ost

base 2

011-2

015,

issued N

ovem

ber

2010)

20

11

forecast

20

12

forecast

20

13

forecast

20

14

forecast

Sta

ff c

osts

77.1

93

21.9

16

8.5

11

2.8

47

110.4

67

Cost

of

exem

pte

d f

lights

-416

-424

-433

-441

Dete

rm

ined

costs

in

no

min

al te

rm

s108.9

25

107.4

30

108.7

17

110.5

57

Weig

hte

d a

vera

ge inflation r

ate

2,0

%2,0

%2,0

%2,0

%

Incom

e f

rom

oth

er

sourc

es

-1.1

26

-1.1

62

-1.1

59

-1.1

54

106.0

18

76.2

85

77.2

11

79.3

26

Oth

er

opera

ting c

osts

22.1

51

22.1

26

22.3

78

Depre

cia

tion

7.8

80

8.6

11

8.4

78

Cost

of

capital

2.7

00

2.3

61

1.9

70

Exceptional item

s

To

tal costs

LV

NL

109.0

16

110.3

09

112.1

52

Dete

rm

ined

costs

in

real te

rm

s (

pric

es

20

09

)102.6

65

102.0

49

101.8

62

Tota

l K#

serv

ice u

nits (

base s

cenari

o,

Feb.

2011)

2.5

55

2.6

81

2.7

33

2.7

94

Bu

dg

ete

d d

ete

rm

ined

en

-ro

ute

un

itrate

41,4

938,2

937,3

436,4

6

(Based u

pon b

udgete

dcost

base 2

011-2

015 issued N

ovem

ber

2010.

Fig

ure

s a

re s

ubje

ct

of

recalibra

tion.

Update

dfigure

s w

ill be p

resente

d d

uring t

he S

CM

of M

ay 2

011)

Investm

ent

pla

n 2

012-2

016

Bu

dg

et

peri

od

2011 -

2015

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

+T

ota

l

Musta

ng (

CO

M)

0,5

2,9

0,2

3,6

Contingency

0,3

3,2

2,9

6,4

Repla

cem

ent LA

R H

erw

ijnen (

SU

R)

3,3

6,7

10,0

Repla

cem

ent T

AR

-4 (

SU

R)

8,0

8,0

Repla

cem

ent V

CS

(C

OM

)3,5

4,5

4,0

6,3

6,8

25,1

Fallb

ack a

ir-g

round | g

round-g

roun

d v

oic

e1,6

3,6

5,2

Repla

cem

ent A

AA

1,5

1,5

72,0

75,0

Repla

cem

ent IT

off

ice a

uto

mation

2,3

2,3

Oth

er

investm

ents

13,6

12,4

8,6

6,0

8,8

7,7

57,1

Tota

l19,7

27,0

26,6

15,9

15,8

7,7

80,0

192,7

Bu

dg

et

peri

od

2012-2

016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016+

Tota

l

Musta

ng (

CO

M)

0,6

3,0

3,6

Contingency

3,6

2,9

6,5

Repla

cem

ent T

AR

-4 (

SU

R)

8,0

8,0

Repla

cem

ent V

CS

(C

OM

)3,0

4,4

3,6

5,9

6,6

23,5

Fallb

ack a

ir-g

round | g

round-g

roun

d v

oic

e1,5

3,7

2,0

7,2

Repla

cem

ent A

AA

(F

DP

)2,4

0,6

pm

pm

pm

72,0

75,0

ReplacementITofficeautomation

0,5

1,7

2,2

Reserv

ation p

ossib

le a

cquis

itio

n T

WR

Sch

iphol

6,8

6,8

Prim

airy r

adar

covera

ge P

old

erb

aan (

18R

/36L)

1,5

1,5

3,0

Dig

ital str

ips T

WR

Schip

hol

2,1

2,1

Oth

er

investm

ents

6,6

11,1

6,9

6,0

6,2

4,5

5,9

47,2

Tota

l9,6

22,6

27,0

14,9

18,6

6,5

85,9

185,1

Diffe

rence b

udget 2011 v

s 2

012

-10,1

-4,4

0,4

-1,0

2,8

-1,2

5,9

-7,6

Develo

pm

ents

investm

ent

pla

n 2

012-2

016

•Contingency

•Civ

il a

nd m

ilitary

inte

gra

tion

•Repla

cem

ent

of AAA (

FD

P)

Depre

cia

tion c

osts

De

pre

cia

tio

n c

ost

s

0

2.0

00

4.0

00

6.0

00

8.0

00

10.0

00

12.0

00

14.0

00

16.0

00

18.0

00

20.0

00

Budget

2012

11.4

75

13.2

50

11.5

00

12.0

00

13.0

00

14.0

00

16.0

00

18.0

00

Budget

2011

11.4

75

13.2

50

12.3

00

13.4

00

13.2

00

16.6

00

Actu

als

11.9

87

12.1

79

11.4

75

2008

Actu

als

2009

Actu

als

2010

Actu

als

2011

Fore

cast

2012

Fore

cast

2013

Fore

cast

2014

Fore

cast

2015

Fore

cast

2016

Fore

cast

2017

Fore

cast

Sta

ff d

evelo

pm

ents D

eve

lop

me

nt

LV

NL

wo

rk f

orc

e

0

200

400

600

800

1.0

00

1.2

00

Early r

etire

ment

(Schip

hol)

39,6

35,8

33,0

31,0

39,8

48,6

52,2

53,8

Early r

etire

ment

(Regio

nal U

nit)

29,5

23,4

18,4

19,0

20,8

21,6

15,6

12,6

Tra

inin

g p

ool

50,0

43,0

53,0

53,0

53,0

53,0

53,0

53,0

Restr

uctu

ring p

ool

4,5

11,6

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

Active

sta

ff (o

pera

tional sta

ff)324,0

329,3

330,3

338,7

338,9

339,3

341,3

340,7

Active

sta

ff (s

upport

sta

ff)575,2

519,7

514,0

512,0

501,2

489,3

487,7

487,7

: Tota

l F

te1.0

22,8

962,8

948,7

953,7

953,7

951,8

949,8

947,8

2009

Actu

als

2010

Actu

als

2011

Fore

cast

2012

Fore

cast

2013

Fore

cast

2014

Fore

cast

2015

Fore

cast

2016

Fore

cast

Revie

w:

LVN

L indic

ative f

inancia

l re

sults 2

010

Key f

igure

s

Actu

als

2010

Budget

2010

Actu

als

2009

Opera

ting incom

e170.7

97

167.8

47

163.3

67

Pro

vis

ion r

edundancy p

aym

ents

2.3

50

21.1

56

6.4

05

-1.9

25

163.7

94

Opera

ting e

xpenses

154.8

18

160.2

56

Net

finance

cost

5.7

90

5.4

63

Result b

efo

re s

ett

lem

ent

7.8

39

-23.0

81

Meeting t

he t

arg

ets

safe

ty,

capacity a

nd e

nvironm

ent

KP

AFA

BEC

Nati

on

al

Targ

et

20

12

forecast

20

13

forecast

No

targ

et

No

targ

et

1 m

inute

per

flig

ht

No

targ

et

85%

Within

legal

lim

its

(Dutc

hla

w)

ATC

rela

ted a

ccid

ents

and

incid

ents

(ty

pe,

num

ber

and s

everity

)

Tota

l avera

ge A

TFM

dela

y(t

erm

inal and

en r

oute

)

Susta

inability o

f decla

red

capacity in fir

st

inbound

peak.

Nois

e a

bate

ment

rule

sre

late

d t

o r

oute

and

runw

ay u

se o

n t

he b

asis

of

Dutc

h legis

lation.

Capacity

Avera

ge e

n-

route

ATFM

dela

y

20

14

forecast

Eff

ectiveness

of safe

tym

anagem

ent

Application o

f severi

tycla

ssific

ation

of RAT t

ool

Safe

tyN

ota

rget

Report

ing o

f ju

st

culture

Envir

onm

ent

Horizonta

lflig

ht

effic

iency

Meeting t

he t

arg

ets

cost

effic

iency

20

11

forecast

20

12

forecast

20

13

forecast

20

14

forecast

Sta

ff c

osts

77.1

93

21.9

16

8.5

11

2.8

47

110.4

67

Cost

of

exem

pte

d f

lights

-416

-424

-433

-441

Dete

rm

ined

costs

in

no

min

al te

rm

s108.9

25

107.4

30

108.7

17

110.5

57

Weig

hte

d a

vera

ge inflation r

ate

2,0

%2,0

%2,0

%2,0

%

Incom

e f

rom

oth

er

sourc

es

-1.1

26

-1.1

62

-1.1

59

-1.1

54

106.0

18

76.2

85

77.2

11

79.3

26

Oth

er

opera

ting c

osts

22.1

51

22.1

26

22.3

78

Depre

cia

tion

7.8

80

8.6

11

8.4

78

Cost

of

capital

2.7

00

2.3

61

1.9

70

Exceptional item

s

To

tal costs

LV

NL

109.0

16

110.3

09

112.1

52

Dete

rm

ined

costs

in

real te

rm

s (

pric

es

20

09

)102.6

65

102.0

49

101.8

62

Tota

l K#

serv

ice u

nits (

base s

cenari

o,

Feb.

2011)

2.5

55

2.6

81

2.7

33

2.7

94

Targ

ete

d d

ete

rm

ined

en

-ro

ute

un

itrate

(-3

,5%

)-

40,0

438,6

437,2

9

41,4

9B

ud

gete

d d

ete

rm

ined

en

-ro

ute

un

itrate

38,2

937,3

436,4

6

(Based u

pon b

udgete

dcost

base 2

011-2

015 issued N

ovem

ber

2010.

Fig

ure

s a

re s

ubje

ct

of

recalibra

tion.

Update

dfigure

s w

ill be p

resente

d d

uring t

he S

CM

of M

ay 2

011)

Questions

End o

f pre

senta

tion

AT

M S

ys

tem

Str

ate

gy

LV

NL

Sta

keh

old

er

Co

nsu

ltati

on

Meeti

ng

Ap

ril 1

2th

, 2

01

1

Str

ate

gic

develo

pm

en

tare

as

Cap

acit

yE

nvir

on

men

tC

ost

Eff

icie

ncy

Sa

fety

Su

sta

inab

leg

row

th

Pu

rsu

ing

the p

lan

Air

sp

ace

restr

uctu

rin

g

FA

BE

C c

en

tre

Sa

fety

firs

t

Co

nti

nu

ity

an

d c

ost

eff

icie

ncy

SS

E s

co

re

SP

L c

ap

ac

ity

,

Su

sta

ina

bil

ity

CD

A c

on

form

ity

.N

ois

e

tota

l, N

ois

en

igh

t,

Ru

nw

ay

& R

ou

teu

sag

e

AT

FM

de

lay

,D

ela

y,

Ta

xi

ou

t ti

me

,A

SM

A

tim

e

Ho

rizo

nta

l fl

igh

t

eff

icie

nc

y

SP

L c

ap

ac

ity

,S

ec

tor

ca

pa

cit

y

Us

eC

iv.-

Mil

. A

irs

pa

ce

,

Le

ss

fuel

bu

rnd

ue

to

dis

tan

ce

SM

S s

co

re,

Ju

st

Cu

ltu

re

Term

inal

ch

arg

e,

FA

BE

C u

nit

ra

te

ch

arg

e, F

lig

ht

h/A

TC

O

h, F

lig

ht

h/S

up

po

rth

Eco

no

mic

Co

st

/Fli

gh

th

Eco

no

mic

Co

st

/Fli

gh

t

h, F

lig

hy

h/A

TC

Oh

FA

BE

C u

nit

rate

En

-

rou

te, E

n-r

ou

teC

ost

/

Fli

gh

th

FA

BE

C u

nit

rate

En

-

rou

te, T

erm

inal

ch

arg

e

Sa

fety

firs

t2

01

12

01

22

01

32

01

42

01

52

01

62

01

72

01

82

01

92

02

0

Su

rveilla

nce c

ove

rag

e

AT

AS

No

rth

Sea

Ru

nw

ay S

afe

ty D

eve

lop

me

nt

iCA

S

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

taxiw

ay T

an

go

(S6½

)

ST

CA

AP

PG

rou

nd

ba

sed

Sa

fety

Nets

:

-AP

M L

eve

l-2

-MS

AW

Le

ve

l-2

-AP

W L

eve

l2

Ex

it S

4½

En

ha

nce

dM

od

e-S

No

cro

ss

ing

so

f

ac

tive

run

wa

ys

Runway

SafetyNorth SeaAirspace

Safety

OV

V r

ep

ort

Tu

rkis

h

Re

co

mm

en

dati

on

s

Lessons

learned

Ground

Safety

Pri

mary

Rad

ar

Su

rveilla

nce

Rw

y18R

/36L

Desig

n

taxiw

ay

Tan

go

(S6½

)

Pla

nn

ing

AA

S

Su

sta

ina

ble

gro

wth

Ma

nd

ate

A-R

NP

1M

an

date

P-R

NA

V

Sa

fety

Assessm

.

para

llel C

DO

’s

RN

AV

AR

TIP

-36

R

CD

O’s

24h

r

imp

rove

d d

elivery

(ex

peri

en

ce, to

ols

, 2n

drw

y, A

SA

S)

GA

C:

RN

AV

06,

(18R

) +

36R

No

ise

Ab

at.

Pro

c.

22:0

0 –

06:0

0

off

-peak,

24H

RS

IDs

RN

AV

18R

+18C

RN

AV

06

/36R

, 1

8R

/18

C

(Pe

ak)

SA

RA

Co

nce

pt

2S

peed

s/R

ou

tes

RNAV en CDO’s(ALDERS)

Flo

w e

xc

lus

ion

for

x-w

ind

Pa

rall

el

tak

e-o

ff

on

div

erg

ing

SID

s

En

vir

om

en

t

clu

ste

r

Safe

ty c

as

e

rwy

us

e 2

7/1

8R

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

24 H

RS

IDs

RN

AV

06,(1

8R

)

(24 H

R)

RW

Y c

om

bin

ati

on

27

/36

R g

oo

dvis

ibil

ity

Su

sta

ina

ble

gro

wth

Fleet changes

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

Cat

4

co

nve

rsio

n

D-p

ier

A3

80

Cat

4

co

nve

rsio

n

D-p

ier

GA

Term

inal

Pu

rsu

ing

the

pla

n

OL

DI:

RE

V,

MA

C,

AM

A

AMAN CDM

Basic

CD

M(T

OB

T,T

SA

T,

CP

DS

P)

SA

RA

Delt

a T

A

AA

*-T

P

SA

RA

Delt

a T

SA

RA

Sp

eed

SA

RA

Co

nce

pt

2

Sp

ee

ds/R

ou

tes

SA

RA

CO

NC

EP

T D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

AM

AN

PL

AT

FO

RM

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T

iCA

S

AA

A-r

ep

lac

em

en

t

pla

nn

ing

AF

MU

tac

tical

ASM/ATFCM

AF

MU

str

ate

gic

4D

TR

AJ

EC

TO

RIE

S

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

AIR

E T

ria

l

AS

M/A

TF

CM

tria

lF

AB

EC

in

teg

rate

d

AS

M/A

TF

CM

Dig

ita

l S

trip

s

TW

R

AM

AN

v1.0

AM

AN

Pla

tfo

rm

pu

rch

ase+

HM

I

deve

lop

men

t

AM

AN

v2.0

En

ha

nce

d C

DM

Air

sp

ac

e

Str

uctu

re

Inc

. L

ely

sta

d

4th

IA

F

Stu

dy

+ S

imu

lati

on

FA

BE

C C

BA

Lan

d/C

en

tral W

est

Desig

n

Cen

tra

l W

est

Sim

ula

tio

ns

Ce

ntr

al W

es

t +

CB

A la

nd

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Optimise Airspace use

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

Tra

nsit

ion

Alt

itu

de

18

,00

0 f

t ?

Air

sp

ac

ere

str

uc

turi

ng

FA

BE

C c

en

tre

iCAS

tran

sit

ion

fall b

ack f

acilit

yP

ho

en

ix

Last

Reso

rt

Co

nti

ng

en

cy

AC

C/A

PP

RK

P,

Ph

oe

nix

Civ-mil

Co

op

era

tio

n C

IV\M

IL

Contingency

Fallback

Fall

-back i

CA

S

Bre

men

iCA

S

Bre

me

n

VC

S

OP

S t

ran

sit

ion

iCA

SC

en

tre

Inte

gra

tio

n

iCA

SC

en

tre

iCA

S

Sp

ec

ific

ati

on

iCA

S

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Ph

oen

ix +

+

Fall-B

ack

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

VC

S

MU

ST

AN

G

Backu

p A

ir-G

rou

nd

/Gro

un

d-

Gro

un

d V

oic

e C

om

mu

nic

ati

on

sD

ata

lin

k

De

ve

lop

men

t

VH

F-C

om

Sta

tio

ns

RD

Communication Sur

TA

R 4

Rep

lacem

en

t

8,3

3 k

Hz

ch

an

ne

l

sp

ac

ing

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

ATS System

HA

RD

WA

RE

MA

INT

EN

AN

CE

OP

S t

ran

sit

ion

iCA

SC

en

tre

Inte

gra

tio

n

iCA

SC

en

tre

iCA

S

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

iCA

S

Sp

ecif

icati

on

Re

pla

cem

en

t V

oic

e L

og

gin

g S

yste

m

AD

S-B

Fli

gh

t P

lan

Fo

rmat

up

date

CC

IS r

ep

lace

men

t

Rep

lacem

en

t

RD

S R

D

Red

uce o

ve

rlo

ad

AC

C d

isp

lay

Co

nti

nu

ity

an

d c

ost

eff

icie

ncy

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

Co

nti

nu

ity

an

d c

ost

eff

icie

ncy

All r

ou

nd

AT

CO

Assis

ten

ts

Vu

lca

nic

Ash

Pro

ced

ure

s

Other items

New

GA

Term

inal

stu

dy i

mp

lP

BN

term

ina

l &

en

rou

te

Navigation

AP

V/b

aro

-VN

AV

pro

c S

PL

stu

dy i

mp

l

GB

AS

stu

dy P

BN

ap

pro

ach

lan

din

g

DM

E r

ep

lacem

en

ts (

tra

nsm

itte

rs)

ILS

18C

ILS

06

EA

D P

RO

Cam

era

Su

rveilla

nce

Rw

y18R

/36L

En

d

MU

AC

1

Investm

ents

MU

AC (

x €

1.0

00)

In

vestm

en

tsM

UA

C2

01

12

01

22

01

32

01

42

01

52

01

6To

tal

ATC

Syste

ms

EATM

Com

munic

ation

Gate

way

1.100

1.100

Voic

e s

yste

ms

2.500

3.340

3.640

1.445

650

1.760

13.335

New

genera

tion C

WP

325

2.625

10.975

7.650

750

22.325

ATFCM

/ASM

Tools

1.800

1.700

1.660

1.150

900

900

8.110

ATM

SESAR C

om

pliant

1.370

600

1.175

2.200

2.350

2.850

10.545

To

tal A

TC

syste

ms

6.770

5.965

9.100

15.770

11.550

6.260

55.415

Infr

astr

uctu

re6.120

5.550

5.150

2.800

19.620

Oth

er

investm

ents

5.854

5.794

7.181

5.032

6.699

5.977

36.537

To

tal

18.744

17.309

21.431

23.602

18.249

12.237

111.572

2

Cost

eff

icie

ncy:

MU

AC p

art

in N

L c

osts

and u

nit r

ate

Co

sts

x €

10

00

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

Sta

ff23.5

68

25.0

20

26.3

64

27.7

27

Oth

er

opera

ting c

osts

2.9

39

3.7

49

3.5

21

3.5

45

Depre

cia

tion

2.5

58

2.7

21

2.7

91

2.8

14

Inte

rest

301

353

383

419

Incom

e f

rom

oth

er

sourc

es

(excl.

incid

enta

l in

com

e f

rom

oth

er

sourc

es)

Inflation r

ate

2%

2%

2%

2%

Dete

rmin

ed c

osts

28.5

76

30.4

26

31.0

17

31.7

86

# s

erv

ice u

nits *

1.0

00

2.5

55

2.6

81

2.7

33

2.7

94

Dete

rmin

ed u

nit r

ate

MU

AC p

art

11,1

811,3

511,3

511,3

8

3

Cost

eff

icie

ncy:

MU

AC p

art

in N

L2

01

12

01

22

01

32

01

4

MU

AC

To

tal

Real cost

(€1.0

00)

146.9

21

142.3

40

145.4

73

149.4

26

Serv

ice u

nits (

# 1

.000)

Germ

any a

nd B

enelu

x17.7

42

18.3

65

18.8

78

19.4

64

Real unit r

ate

8,2

87,7

57,7

17,6

8

MU

AC

co

sts

in

FIR

Am

ste

rd

am

Real cost

(€1.0

00)

28.5

76

30.4

26

31.0

17

31.7

86

Serv

ice u

nits (

# 1

.000)

2.5

55

2.6

81

2.7

33

2.7

94

Real unit r

ate

11,1

811,3

511,3

511,3

8

4

MU

AC C

ost

Develo

pm

ent:

MU

AC

20

12

20

13

20

14

MU

AC

To

tal

(excl.

in

cid

en

tal in

co

me f

ro

m o

ther s

ou

rces)

Cost

(nom

inal)

-1

.3%

4.1

%4.6

%

Cost

in E

uro

s 2

009

-3.1

%2,2

%2,7

%

# S

erv

ice u

nits

(Germ

any a

nd B

enelu

x)

3,5

%2,8

%3,1

%

Unit R

ate

Real

-6.4

%-0

.6%

-0.4

%

MU

AC

co

sts

in

FIR

Am

ste

rd

am

Cost

(nom

inal)

8,4

%3,8

%4,4

%

Cost

in E

uro

s 2

009

6,5

%1,9

%2,5

%

# s

erv

ice u

nits

4,9

%1,9

%2,2

%

Unit R

ate

Real

1,5

%0%

0,2

%

5

Capacity

MU

AC t

arg

et

in F

ABEC

20

12

In

term

ed

iate

valu

e

20

13

In

term

ed

iate

Valu

e

20

14

Targ

et

Ale

rt

thresh

old

MU

AC

0.3

00.2

40.2

2tb

d

6

Sta

kehold

er

Consultation M

eeting 2

011 -

April 12th

Sta

kehold

er

Consultation M

eeting 2

011 -

April 12th

2Investm

ents

KN

MI

20

09

A2

01

0A

20

11

F2

01

2F

20

13

F2

01

4F

20

15

20

16

Tota

l

Syste

ms

and

hard

ware

0,5

00

00

11,5

Oth

er

0,2

0,1

0,1

0,9

0,6

0,3

2.3

Investmentsconcern

mainlysubstitutionofcurrentsystemsandmeteorological

observationequipment.

2

Sta

kehold

er

Consultation M

eeting 2

011 -

April 12th

3

KN

MI

Cost

develo

pm

ent

OverallMETANSPcost(Term

inalandEnRoute)inEuro

fortheperiod20012015

Realisationof2010:€10.008.Thisexceedsthebudgetof€9.796withk€212.

Thisismainlydueto

thedata

communicationtransitionto

VPN(app.k€100)and

additionalstaffcost(app.k€100)relatedto

thedelayedintroductionofAUTOMETARat

Rotterdam

TheHagueAirport.

3

Sta

kehold

er

Consultation M

eeting 2

011 -

April 12th

4

KN

MI

Cost

develo

pm

ent

OverallMETANSPcost

andEnRoute

allocationinEuro

fortheperiod20012015

Year

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

201

22013

2014

2015

To

tal

ME

TC

osts

€9.5

24

10.1

76

10.0

23

9.6

19

9.1

65

9.2

71

9.4

82

9.6

02

9.9

11

10.0

08

9.6

00

9.4

00

9.2

00

9.2

00

9.0

00

All

ocati

on

En

Ro

ute

%100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

91

82

82

82

82

82

82

En

Ro

ute

Co

sts

€9.5

24

10.1

76

10.0

23

9.6

19

9.1

65

9.2

71

9.4

82

9.6

02

9.0

19

8.2

07

7.8

72

7.7

08

7.5

44

7.5

44

7.3

80

Numbersingreenare

basedonrealisation,numbersfrom

2011andonwardsare

basedonforecast.

4

Sta

kehold

er

Consultation M

eeting 2

011 -

April 12th

5

KN

MI

Sta

ffdevelo

pm

ent

AviationStaffdevelopmentofMETANSPinftefortheperiod20072014

Year

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Sta

ff81,1

78,5

74,3

66,9

60,6

55,4

55,4

55,9

Expecte

dSta

ffre

ductions

00

00

6,5

6,3

5,8

4,8

Tota

lSta

ff81,1

78,5

74,3

66,9

67,1

61,7

61,2

60,7

5

Sta

kehold

er

Consultation M

eeting 2

011 -

April 12th

6

KN

MI

FABEC S

ynerg

y

METAlliance

•Harm

onisedTAFverificationscheme

•FABECservices:Roadmapinplace

•2physicalredundantservers

(Offenbach

andToulouse)in2012

•Windaloftdata

•Radardata

•Trainingworkshops

•Coordinationofregulationpolicy

Objective:

•Internationaloperationalcollaboration

•Increase

efficiency

•Rationalisation

•Harm

onisation

•“A

ctasifwewere

one”withinFABECinitiative

6

Sta

kehold

er

Consultation M

eeting 2

011 -

April 12th

7

KN

MI

Futu

redevelo

pm

ents

AUTOMETARim

plementedatRotterdam

asof15th

March2011.Further

optimisationofAUTOMETARconceptwillcontinue.Share

bestpracticewithin

EuropeviaICAOInform

ationPaper.

Improveharm

onisationandefficiency

ofFABECMeteorologicalServicesviaMET

Alliance.

InsertDutchmeteorologicalbestpracticesinSESARWP11.2:

•Centralizedweatherroom

•WeatherdependentdeploymentofMeteorologicalAdvisorSchiphol(M

AS)

•AUTOMETAR

•Probabilityforecasting

•RunwayVisualRange(RVR)forecasting

•DerivationofWindandTemperature

from

ModeSdata

•ContributioninMainportSchipholCDM

•

7

NS

A(in

cl.

Eu

ro

co

ntr

ol

HQ

)

1

Cost

develo

pm

ents

NSA

•Fix

ed p

rice f

or

2011:

1,4

M€

for

NSA-N

L a

ctivitie

s.

•For

2012-2

014 t

he a

mount

will be 1

,8 M

€each y

ear

for

NSA-N

L a

ctivitie

s.

•ATCO

lic

ensin

g a

nd S

ERA a

ctivitie

s b

y t

he N

SA-N

L a

re n

ot

inclu

ded in t

his

price;

At

the m

om

ent

not

possib

le t

o m

ake a

reliable

fore

cast

of

the n

ecessary

num

ber

of hours

and t

he c

osts

.

2

Cost

develo

pm

ents

NSA

1.

NSA p

ers

onnel continue t

o u

se t

he A

ll S

olu

tions s

yste

m for

regis

tration o

f hours

spent

per

activity.

Als

o t

here

is a

re

gis

tration o

f costs

for

inte

rnational N

SA t

rips a

nd t

rain

ing.

2.

This

info

rmation is u

sed t

o v

erify

the a

ssum

ptions u

sed a

nd

will be u

sed f

or

RP2.

3.

Aft

er

each 3

month

s a

check is p

erf

orm

ed,

to s

ee w

heth

er

the a

ssum

ptions u

sed a

re s

till v

alid.

So f

ar,

the e

arly

indic

ation is t

hey a

re.

3

Cost

develo

pm

ents

Euro

contr

ol

•Euro

contr

ol Agency

Busin

ess P

lannin

g h

as t

o b

eaccele

rate

d

•Fin

alfigure

sw

illbe

delivere

daro

und

April, 1

5th

•O

cto

ber

2010 E

uro

contr

ol figure

sin

clu

ded

in t

he c

alc

ula

tions

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

Nom

inalcosts

14.5

53

16.2

65

16.2

65

16.2

65

Costs

in E

uro

s2009

14.1

19

15.4

65

15.1

55

14.8

52

Euro

contr

ol part

of

unit r

ate

5,5

35,7

75,5

55,3

2

4

�

�

�

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

!"�� #��$�� %&'()�

*"�� +��,�� %�-.�)�

(� �/��0��

&�10�%�)��0�/2��

�#"�� #��"�� 3�� "

��

�

� �4��5�� &� ��67&�6�6��5��

-��#��#�� 8#� ��,��

��"��"0��

�� &�"�+��%+�&)��

&�"�� #��$��8#� �%+�&)9��

&�"�':(��%;!(!)9��

&�"�� '��%;�!'�!)9��

&�"�6��%!'�!)9��

&�"�4��%;!7!9��

&�"�#� �4�� %+.&;)9�

&�"�6� #�8�%+.&;)9��

&�"��%�-.�)9��

&�"��%�-.�)9��

&�"�� 6��<�%�-.�)9��

&�"�=�� <�%�-.�)9��

&�"�� +��,�� %�-.�)9��

&�"�-��8�%�-.�)9��

&�"�$�� <�%.6!)9�

&�"�+��%&>!7)9��

&�"�-� �?@��%&>!7)9��

&�"�� #��&��%6��,��)9��

&�"�� %&�(9�7�� 5�� )9��

&�"�� #��$�� %&�()�

&�"�4��%&�()�

� ��

�� /�

�

!,,� #�A��

�

�

�

�

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

!"�� #��$�� %&'()�

*"�� +��,�� %�-.�)�

(� �/��0��

&�10�%�)��0�/2��

�#"�� #��"�� 3�� "

��

�

� �4��5�� &� ��67&�6�6��5��

-��#��#�� 8#� ��,��

��"��"0��

�� &�"�+��%+�&)��

&�"�� #��$��8#� �%+�&)9��

&�"�':(��%;!(!)9��

&�"�� '��%;�!'�!)9��

&�"�6��%!'�!)9��

&�"�4��%;!7!9��

&�"�#� �4�� %+.&;)9�

&�"�6� #�8�%+.&;)9��

&�"��%�-.�)9��

&�"��%�-.�)9��

&�"�� 6��<�%�-.�)9��

&�"�=�� <�%�-.�)9��

&�"�� +��,�� %�-.�)9��

&�"�-��8�%�-.�)9��

&�"�$�� <�%.6!)9�

&�"�+��%&>!7)9��

&�"�-� �?@��%&>!7)9��

&�"�� #��&��%6��,��)9��

&�"�� %&�(9�7�� 5�� )9��

&�"�� #��$�� %&�()�

&�"�4��%&�()�

� ��

�� /�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

(��9�&�"�� 9��,� �� "��!&�� #��67&�

,��,� ��"�(��5��6��<��#��7� �� &�� 6�6�

,��5�� ,�� "�;��5��&>!7��,�� "�(��5��5�

�� #"�(�� <��-.��5�� "��

�

��

��,� �� !�� #�"�

�

��

&��$�� <�� #�� 5��>7&��5�6�,��9��

.6!��#��.6!��5�A�#�,��#��"�(��

�

�� 0�� 0�� /�

�

@�� 9��.6!��<� �� 5�A�#�,��#��"�!��5��9�

��.6!��#�� 5�A�#�,��#��"��

�

��

� !�� "��#�$�#��

&��-� �#��$�� ,�� 5��6�6�� A�� #��

�� A�� =��"�!�B!4�7�,��5�� ,�� #��5��#�5��,��@9�

� �� 9��5��@�� #��@�� 55�� "�� 5��

�� C� �� #�� B!4�7��55�� @��#��

�� "��9�� 5�� 55�� @�

��B!4�7�� #�#�� ,�� "��

�

&��+�� #��<��5�� 5��B!4�7��#� ��,��

�� 5��55�� @��B!4�7��"�(��B!4�7�&��6��

��#�� "�&��-� �#��$�� ,��5��5��

� ��,��#�� @�� ,��5�� #�� #�&6��@�

�� "��

�

$��#�� A�9��<�5��$�� ,��,��

�� 5��5��,�"�' �� #��,�� 5��,��

%��#��D�� !,��)"�! ��,�� #��

�� ,�� 55��"�&��-� �#��$��8#� ��<��#��

,�� 5�� 5��B!4�7�&69��

,��<��,�� "�(�� 5�� ,��#�#��5��

,#��#��#��"�%��%� ��&��'��)"��

�

(� !��&)��*��

&�"��5�� ,#��5�� 5��-.�9��

��,��#"�(�� 5�� #�� 5��,,��559��7B'�

�� ,,�� #�5�� 9�� ,��,� �#��,��

��"�7�� @��,�� "�!��

��5��#� ��#�� "�(��5�� <��#��

!(7'�� "�(��#�� #�5�� 9��55��5��

�� @�� #�� ,��"�(��

�� 5� �� 9�� ,��%�"�"��

,��9�#��,�� &�##��)"��-.�� @� #��<� ��

�5�,��8��9�� B!4�7�%74!�� #)�� #�� %5�� 5��

��!�#��!�� )��#�� ,�� #��

��,,��5�6��,�� #��,��55��

� �,��5�� %��,��@9�� @�� #� �� )"�

�

.�A��,�� @�&�� -.�E��!(&��@��#��,�

�� F��@��,��,��5�� 8��"�(��,��

�� 5�� #�,��8��-.��@� ��

�� @��"��

�

&��4�� #��A,� ��5�� @�� #��

� ��5�� ,��5�� 5��,��@�%��G��,��2�� #�

5��5��#��5��!7��,��)"�(��,�� #��5�

� �� A,� ��9�� @�� <�#��55�� @�

��,��5�� 9� ��;�� #�!(&�&��,�� "�;��#��,��,��

� �� ,��,��5�� #��55�� @�� #��,��#�,��5��

� ��"��

�

�

�� /�

�

&��'E(��<��&��4��"��-.��#�

��,��,�� 5�� @��"�&��!.6�E�� ,�� #F��6��

�� #�; �� ,�� 9�� #��,�,��5��

�� 9�� @�� 9��

#�55�� ,�� #�� #��@��@�� #"�(��

� ��.6!��<��,��,�� "��

�

&��,��,�� ,��,��5��#"�; ��

��#�� 5�� #��A,��#�� 5��#��"��

; �� -.�� 5�� @�� #��5��

,�� #"�(��,��55�� #�,�� "��

&��4��#��&�� 5��#�,�� "�

�-.�� 5�� ,��#��5�� 9�� #��

�� 5��5�� "�&��,��

�� ,��#��,�� 5��

�� @�� #��,�� 5�!!!��@��#�� #�

�5��5��@��"�4��@��55�� ,,�� 5��-.�"��

�

&�� ,�� 5��,��5�� "�(��

��55��<�� #��<9��-.�� #�� G��@��,��"�&��4��

� #�� #�� 55��<"�;�� #��#��

5��!.6��9��<�� "�;5��<��A��#��H��

��<"�4�� H�� #��H�� @�0�H��5��<�� @��!.6��"��

�5��,� �� 8��5�� 5��G��@��,�� <��

�� #�� @��5��,��"�!.6��#��

�� <��,�� ,�@"��

&��+��#��<��< ��@��G��@��,�� #�#��<�9�

�� #��@�,��,�� "�&��,��

�� #��@��-.�"�&��-� �6��<��##��G��@��,��

�� #�#�� @�� "��

�

.�A��&��A,�� ##�� <,�E�� #��5��5��@9��

,��@9�� "�&�� #��$�@#� ��@�� 5��

!(B&�#��@�%� �� #�� )�� #�� ,��

5�� 5��-.�"�; ��,��5�� "��#��,��55��5��

�� #�� #��@�� "�(��5��

�� @"�(��-.��,��5�� 5�2�H"�

4��#��9��#@�� 5��5�� ,��

��#"�; ��+�&��G�� 5�� @��H�� @��

@�� #"��

�

&��,��#��55�� ,��@�� #��

��@F#��@9��-.�9��+�&�� #��?�&9��<�� ,��

��@��5��"��

�

.�A��#�� #��#��"�&�� #�� #�67&�

��5�� ,#��#"�&��4��@�#��,,�� #��@��5��

��"�(��!(7'�� #��@��H�� 9�@��,��#��@�

�� @�� #��@�2H�%��G�� 5��#��5��!7��,��)"��-.��

�� 5��A,� ��!.6�� B!4�7"�7� ��#�� #� �9�

��#��A,��#�� ,��#��@9�@��5��

,�� 5�,��5�� "��

�

�

�

�� /�

�

( !��+) $��,��

&��6� #�8��,�� 5��,�� "�

(�� ,�� 5�+.&;�� @��,�� @�� #��

�� G�,�� "�(��+.&;��#��,�� 9��55�

#��,�� #�� #�� #�� 5��5�� ,��#"�!��+.&;��

�� @9�� #��<�� @�,��5�� #�� @��#��G��@"�7��

�� "G"��#�� 5��@��,�� "��

(��,��55�� @�� #��,�� #��

��,��!(&��,��5�� 9�+.&;��@�� #�� B!4�7��&�(�

!�� "�;��#�55��,��55�� @�� B!4�7��@�#�55��

��@��55�� 55�� ?�� @�� #�B�� "�(��,�� (��

.�� #�� #��A,�� 5��5��,�� 5�!>('�&�(!=�

��,�� .�� #�"�!��,�� ,��#@�� #�� 5�!>('�

&�(!=��6��,��!��,�� @��5�� 5�� @��

��"��

�

-� !�� . /��,��

&��-� �?@��,�� &>!7"�!��5��&>!7�

��,�� 67&9�&��-� �?@��,�� <�@�5��

� #�5�� &>!7E��,��5�� "��5�� 5��@9��,��@�� #��

�� #��B!4�7�� #��#��@��B!4�7�,��5��

� ��,�� "�7��55�� @��,��5�� ,��5�� ,�� 5��

B��6��"�7��#� �� #��B��6��%4#��@�� #�B� � �

��$��<� ��?��,�� #�&��7��#� �� ?��,)"��

�

4��#��6�6��9�&>!7�� 5��5��@9��,��

��@�� #��55�� @"�; �� ,��5�� 9�&>!7��,��#�

��,�� 5�B��=��!��,��%B=!&)��5��&��9��

��<��,�� 5�%��)�#��"�; ��5��

� �@��H��5��5��#��#�� 5��,�� "�&>!7��

��<� �� ,��A�� #�� ,��.��!�� "�(�@��

#�� B6�%+��)�� #��.��#��6��"�&>!7E��,�5��

��5�� 9�+�&9�=@� �!��9�4��!��@�� #�4�� !��"�&��'��

��#��<��< ��?!�� #�"�&��+��,�� A��5��

�� @�� #�/H��5�&>!7E��55��"��

,��#�� 5�� G��#��@�&�"�'��"��

�

(��5��&��-� �?@��A,�� &>!7�� ,�� "�&� @��5��

��,�� "�!� �� @��,��#�

��6.!�� #��#�� B!4�7��,��5�� "�(��

�� #��@"�'�� #��@�I.��

7� ��$��<� �� %7$�)J9�I!(B7&F!6&�� I�� #�

I6�6!=�7��,�� !(&J"�(��5��,��8��,��@�� ,��

8��9��@�� ,��,�� #��,�� 5�6�6!=�

#��"��

�

6��55�� @�� 5��5�� ,��#��5�� 5�

��55�� 55"�6,,��55��@�� "�!��5��

��55�� @��9�� 5�� ,��#��"�

; ��#�� 5��"0H��5�� #��

��,��#��0��"�

�

&��4��#��,,�� #�� &>!7E��,��5�� "�(��5��,�� #��

��#�� 5�,��5�� ,��@��#��55�� @"�!��

�

�� /�

�

�� #�� 55�� @"�(�� ,��

��,��@9�@��&>!7�� @��"��

�

&��-� �?@��,��&>!7�,��5�� #��#��

��@�� #��#� ��<� �#�� ,��6��"�� =��9�&>!7��

��@��.�� #��5��&>!7��

�,�� #��@��H��,��#��"�(�� @�#�� @�

�� <�@�� #�#�55�� 6��5��55��5��5��

��5��B��6��"�(�� @�&>!7��#��<��

��#�#�� !.6�"�;��&>!7E�� 55�� 55��

��@��&>!7�� #�55�� #��8�� 5��

�� ,�� "�(��,��5��&>!7��,��"��

�

0� !��)1��,��

&�"�$�� <��,�� .6!��"�; ��,��

&��$�� <�� 5��#��.6!��<� �� 5�A�#�,��#��"�(��

�� ,�� #�� %.6!��"��&)"�(��.6!��5��,��#�

��K��92&�,�� 9� �� #� ��!(7'�� #�6�=!��

��"�(��@��#�� @��"�

&�"�� #��$�� A,�� 5�� #�� L�

��"�(��#�5� �� L��#��#�� #�!,��"��

�

2��#��

&�"�-� �#��$�� @��5�� ,��5��

��5�� 55�� @"�(��6��5��#��

��#�5��!��#��B;="�(��55��<�� @��,,��-.�� 5��5��

� ��,��#"�4��&>!7�� #��-.��#�,��G��@��,�� 5��

��5�� ,��#�� #��5��5�� 5� � ��

��#��55�� #��<�"�B� � �� ,,��"�> ��

��*� ��@�� #��55��<�� ,,��

�� C� �"�' ��5�� 5��9��,#��#�5��

� #�67&9��#�� M�0"�H�,�� 9��A��,��5��"��

�

&��4�� #��5��#��,,�� #��

�� 5�� <� �� "�&��-� �#��$�� #��-.��

��#@��<� �� #��,��,�� #��

�� #�,��"��

�

&��-� �#��$�� A,�� #�� #��,��

5��5�� ,��#"��,� #� �� <,�F,��,�� @��

� ��G��@��"��

�

&�� #��$�@#� �� #��5�&��-� �#��$�� #�� A��,��5��

�� "�&��-� �#��$�� A,�� 5�5��A��,��9��,��@��

�� 9��-.�� #��&� ��@��5�;�� &��#��,��@��

� �� <� "��

�

3��./��4��

�' ��5��5��,�� 5�� #�� &�"�'E(��

�� <��&� ��@9��!.6�� #��.6!�5��

� #�� 5�� ,��#�#"��

�

• ��9�� 55�� #�� 5�� #�,�"�

• ;��#��,,�� ,�� #�� .��

�

�� /�� /�� /�

�

5��"��• (��,��5�� 9��@�#��,,�� #��

��>��#��#�#�� @��8��&6"��

• (��5��5�,��5�� #�� 55�� @�� #��,��@�

• !��5��0"�H�,�� 5�� #��55��

��<��@�� "�6��@��A,��&6��

��"��

• &�� 5�� G��#�� ,�� "�B��5��

,�� #�� 5�� @��#��"�!�� 6�� #�

; �� #�� 5�� 9�� @��

�� #��,�� #��#�� #�

��8��#�� #��@"��

• (�� 8��5�� 5��#� ��,��5��G��@��,��,��#�5��@��

�� #�� <��5�� #��5��55��<�

5��-.�� #�&>!7�� @��#"��A�� 55�� "�

• &>!7�� 5��5��#� ��@��,�� ,��"�

�

&��4�� #�� 5��#��,��,��#��"�!�,��

#��5�� #�#9�@��-.�� #�&>!7�#��

�� "��@�� #��5��#�� ,��5�� "�

!�� #�,��5�� ,�� 9�� 5�� #�

� #�� ,�� @��"��

�

&��+��,,��<��#��@�&��'E(��"��##��6�� #�

!.6��@��,,��5��,��5�� ,�� 9��

��@�� "�;�� ,��#��

��<F��9�� ,,�� @"�6��#��,��5��

� �� #��

��55��!.6��"��

�

&�� ,��@��A,��.�� #��@��#��

�� #��G��5��,��5�� ,�� "�(��

��<��#��G��@��,��<� �� 5�� A��67&"�

;�� #�#��+.&;�#�� @��#�� #�� #�67&�� &�@�

��"��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !�� "�

�#� $� ��

��

% �&"'(��

)*��

)��+�� ,�� -� ��.�

% �&'�(�

)��/��

% 0&��(�

)12�1(��+��

��#

% 0& '(�

% 0& '(�

)�3��(��+��

��#

% 0&0�(�

)4��(��#�

% 0&0'(�

)��5��(��67(��#�

% 0&"�(�

)��#

/#��#��

% 0&'�(

)3��5��

% "&��(�

)��+��

% "&"'(�

)��

�

��

%��+�� #��

��+��(�

)��+��

��

)��

)��

)��

��

)�8��#��

0

��

��

%��+��

��

��,�� &�

��

%��

��

��!��9��:��/��+��

&�&&�&�

"

��/��

%��(�

)��/��

)�;��#�-��.��9��

��12�1��3��

�+��

��

��#

��

��

+��

��

��

+�� 0�

;��

�� "�

%�� (�

);��;��#�-��

��.�

)��/��#�

12�1�

�&��

�&��

�& <

�3��

�&0�

�&�"

�&��

4��

��

��

�� =� =��

�;��#

�

��

-#��.�

�

��

-#��.�

��/��#

<'>�

$�&'>

'

��!��?��

��(

%�?�� : ��

��

��:��/��&

%��+��/��+��8��+��

�(�

)�� +�� +��@!

��/�#��+�=�� &�

��/�#��+�=�� &�

)�3��1(��;�;�*��

��

��,�/��A��+��

)*��/��(��;�;�*��/��:��B� ��B� '��/��&

)��=��#�:��#�� +��(� CD�B� ,0'�) ,"�&

%�1(��

��(��9��#��#��

E

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

!��

�

"�#��$%!!&�'

��!!(

��)

�

��#��%

!�%

%�

"��

��

��

��

)��

�

*��

��

+�

��

��

12�1��+��

��

��

F

��#�

��

*��

��#�

��

12�1

!��/#��

��<��

-D� '>

��.�� A�

!��(��>�� ,��

��A

��A

!G��/#��&�

4��

!��(�!"&'��A�

!*��#��

�3��

!��:2��:�� G��A�

!��3��

<

12�1��#

��

��

��

��

G��

��

��

��-H�4C.

�&"EF�

�<&F�E�

�&�F��

0&'E<�

>�=�!

! ,E>

,0>

0,�>

G��

��

��

��+��$

$

��

��+��$

�E&� ��

��&� <�

� &"'0�

��&<'$�

>�=�!

!0,<>

!�,E>

,">

;��4I��+��

-�;�;�*��

��

��,�/��,�

��/��#�� .

�&'''�

�&E< �

�&F00�

�&F$"�

G��

��

" ,"$

0<,�'

0F, �

0E,<

>�=�!

!<,0>

!�,">

!�,<>

��+��

$ ,F>

<$,'>

<<,F>

�3�:��

"�,�"

0<,E"

0F,�$

0<,��

0$,��

"�,��

" ,��

"�,��

�"&��

�E&��

�<&��

�&��

�&��

"&��

��

��

��

��

�� 0

�� "

G��

��

�<&$�'�

�E&F'$�

�<& 0F�

&EE'�

G��

��

��

��+��$

�E&� ��

��&� <�

� &"'0�

��&<'$�

G��

��12�1

" ,"$

0<,�'

0F, �

0E,<

�3!:

��

"�,�"

0<,E"

0F,�$

0",��

0',��

0E,��

0F,��

$E&��

$<&��

��&��

��&��

�"&��

�3��+��

��

��

��

�3��#

��

��

��

��

G��

��

��

��

��-H�4C.

�$&0EE�

0 &0FF�

0�&'$0�

0"&'�'�

>�=�!

E,<>

0,$>

',$>

G��

��

��

��

��+��

��$

�<&'E<�

�$&$E"�

0�&'''�

0 &FE��

��$

�<&'E<�

�$&$E"�

0�&'''�

0 &FE��

>�=�!

",$>

�,�>

0,$>

;��4I��+��

��-�;�;�*��

��

��,�/��

��,�

��/��#�� .

�&'''�

�&E< �

�&F00�

�&F$"�

G��

��

��

, <

, <

, <

,0F

>�=�!

�,�>

�,�>

,F>

��+��

� ��

��,�>

��,�>

� ,F>

�3�:��

�,F$

�,"

�&�'

�

10,5

0

11,0

0

11,5

0

20.0

00

25.0

00

30.0

00

35.0

00

40.0

00

MU

AC

co

sts

an

d u

nit

ra

te

NL

Pa

rt o

f M

UA

C c

osts

De

term

ine

d c

osts

in

re

al te

rms P

rice

le

ve

l 20

09

De

term

ine

d M

UA

C N

L r

ate

2011

2012

2013

2014

NL P

art

of M

UA

C c

osts

29.3

66

31.3

77

32.5

93

34.5

05

Dete

rmin

ed c

osts

in r

eal te

rms P

rice

level 2009

28.5

68

29.9

64

30.5

55

31.7

60

Dete

rmin

ed M

UA

C N

L r

ate

11,1

811,1

811,1

811,3

7

EU

-wid

e t

arg

et

10,7

910,4

110,0

5

9,0

0

9,5

0

10,0

0

-

5.0

00

10.0

00

15.0

00

EU

-wid

e ta

rge

t

4��#

��

��

��

��

G��

��

��

��-H�4C.

F&<F��

F&F�<�

F&'""�

F&'""�

>�=�!

!�, >

!�, >

�,�>

G��

��

��

��+��$

F&E" �

F&00"�

F&�0F�

E&<$<�

>�=�!

>�=�!

!",�>

!", >

!�,�>

;��4I��+��

-�;�;�*��

��

��,�/��,�

��/��#�� .

�&'''�

�&E< �

�&F00�

�&F$"�

G��

��

�,$$

�,F"

�,'F

�,"F

>�=�!

$ ,'>

$", >

$',$>

��+��

$ ,'>

<E, >

<�,E>

�3�:��

�,<$

�,F<

�,E$

"

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

F&��

F&"��

F&E��

F&<��

<&��

Co

st

K€

��

2011

2012

2013

2014

Tota

l cost K

NM

I nom

inal

7.8

72

7.7

08

7.5

44

7.5

44

Dete

rmin

ed c

osts

in r

eal te

rms P

rice level

2009

7.6

41

7.3

34

7.0

37

6.8

98

Dete

rmin

ed u

nit r

ate

KN

MI

2,9

92,7

42,5

72,4

7

EU

wid

e t

arg

et

2,8

92,7

82,6

9

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

E&"��

E&E��

E&<��

F&��

��-��,��G��67.

��

��

��

��

G��

��

��

��-H�4C.

F&'"'�

<& �F�

<& �F�

<& �F�

>�=�!

0,0>

�,�>

�,�>

G��

��

��

��+��$

F&��

F&�0'�

E&<$��

E&''0�

>�=�!

,0>

!�,�>

!�,�>

>�=�!

,0>

!�,�>

!�,�>

;��4I��+��

-�;�;�*��

��

��,�/��,�

��/��#�� .

�'''

�E<

�F00

�F$"

G��

��

E,EE�

E,"0�

E, <�

',$��

>�=�!

!0,'>

!0,$>

!", >

��+��

$E,'>

$�,<>

<<,$>

�3�:��

E,"0�

E,��

',$$�

E

E,��

E,"��

E,E��

E,<��

F&��

F&'��

<&��

<&'��

��

��

��

��

�� 0

�� "

G��

��J��

F&'"'�

<& �F�

<& �F�

<& �F�

��J��

F&��

F&�0'�

E&<$��

E&''0�

G��

��J��

E,EE�

E,"0�

E, <�

',$��

�3!:

��

E,"0�

E,��

',$$�

',"��

',E��

',<��

E,��

'&'��

E&��

E&'��

��#��#

��

��

��

��

G��

��

��

��

��-H�4C.

E0&F�<�

E0&$F��

EE&"� �

F &<" �

>�=�!

�, E>

,"<>

0,�F>

G��

��

��

��

��-��

��+��$.

'$&�0<�

'E&'"$�

''&$0��

'<&�E��

<

>�=�!

! ,F>

!�,">

,">

;��4I��+��

��-�;�;�*��

��

��,�/��

��,�

��/��#�� .

�&'''�

�&E< �

�&F00�

�&F$"�

G��

��

��

E�,0�

'<,0$

'F,�'

'E,'F

>�=�!

!E,0>

!�,0>

!�,<>

��+��

� ��

$0,F>

$ ,'>

$�,<>

�3�:��

E�, "

'E,0'

'',�E

58,0

0

59,0

0

60,0

0

61,0

0

62,0

0

63,0

0

160.0

00

165.0

00

170.0

00

175.0

00

��

��

2011

2012

2013

2014

Dete

rmin

ed c

osts

nom

inal

163.7

08

163.9

70

166.4

01

171.8

41

Dete

rmin

ed c

osts

in r

eal te

rms P

rice

level 2009

159.2

38

156.5

49

155.9

30

158.0

60

Dete

rmin

ed u

nit r

ate

FIR

Am

ste

rdam

62,3

258,3

957,0

556,5

7

EU

-wid

e t

arg

et

60,1

458,0

456,0

1

52,0

0

53,0

0

54,0

0

55,0

0

56,0

0

57,0

0

145.0

00

150.0

00

155.0

00

160.0

00

�8��#��12�1

%@��

�� ?��/��

��-�� (��!��#.

%��

��#��/��-�3��-�3�

�� $F=�� .(��#��8��#��

��

��.

%9��(�

)��12�1��

)��/��12�1��

%G��/��:��#��K��12�1��#�� ,��(

)��

�� ,��

)��8��8��#��

)�� 8��#��

��

@��

%��+��

��

)��

)1�� ,�/��

%��#(

)�3��: ��/��#��3):��#��,�

�/�� "A

�/�� "A

)� ��1��3��5�� #��-��.��+��

�1��/��

)G��12�15��$��

��+��

)��3!:��

%�8��#��(

)��#�

)G��/��

�

��

� ��!��"��

12�1

! ,0>

4��

! F&">

�3��

L &F>

��5��

! & >

;��

!$&�>

�3!:��

! �& >

Sta

keh

old

er C

on

su

ltati

on

Meeti

ng

LV

NL p

resen

tati

on

May 1

9th

, 2

01

1

Conte

nt

•Follow

up c

onsultation A

pril 12

th,

2011

•In

vestm

ent

pla

n 2

012 –

2016

•Perf

orm

ance

•Eff

ect

on s

afe

ty,

eff

icie

ncy a

nd e

nvironm

ent

perf

orm

ance

•Cost

eff

icie

ncy

•LVN

L b

udget

2012-2

016

•D

ete

rmin

ed c

osts

en-r

oute

Pre

senta

tion o

f Apri

l 12th

, 2011

Follow

up c

onsultation A

pril 12

th,

2011

•U

pdate

of

financia

l figure

s is r

equired

•Cla

rify

perf

orm

ance e

ffect

of

investm

ent

pla

n

•ATFM

dela

y a

nd s

usta

inability t

arg

ets

not

am

bitio

us e

nough (

KLM

)

•Rem

ark

ACE r

eport

2010:

•in

vestm

ents

are

very

hig

h c

onsid

eri

ng t

he fact

that

no p

roble

ms a

re f

ore

seen f

or

capacity

•ATCO

cost

incre

ased 4

4%

betw

een 2

005-2

010,

yet

pro

ductivity h

as o

nly

incre

ased b

y 8

%

Rem

ark

ACE r

eport

Movem

ents

vs

TW

R/A

PP

ATC

Os

370.0

00

380.0

00

390.0

00

400.0

00

410.0

00

420.0

00

430.0

00

440.0

00

450.0

00

460.0

00

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

020

40

60

80

100

120

140

Movem

ents

TW

R/A

PP

# A

TCO

sTW

R/A

PP M

ovem

ents

vs A

CC

ATC

Os

440.0

00

460.0

00

480.0

00

500.0

00

520.0

00

540.0

00

560.0

00

580.0

00

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Movem

ents

ACC

# A

TCO

s A

CC

Investm

ent

pla

n 2

012-2

016 [

1|2

]

Bu

dg

et

peri

od

2011 -

2015

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

+T

ota

l

Musta

ng (

CO

M)

0,5

2,9

0,2

3,6

Contingency

0,3

3,2

2,9

6,4

Repla

cem

ent T

AR

-4 (

SU

R)

8,0

8,0

Repla

cem

ent V

CS

(C

OM

)3,5

4,5

4,0

6,3

6,8

25,1

Fallb

ack a

ir-g

round | g

round-g

round v

oic

e1,6

3,6

5,2

Repla

cem

ent A

AA

1,5

1,5

72,0

75,0

Repla

cem

ent IT

off

ice a

uto

mation

2,3

2,3

Repla

cem

ent LA

R H

erw

ijnen (

SU

R)

3,3

6,7

10,0

Oth

er

investm

en

ts13,6

12,4

8,6

6,0

8,8

7,7

57

,1

Tota

l19,7

27,0

26,6

15,9

15,8

7,7

80,0

192,7

Bu

dg

et

peri

od

2012-2

016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016+

Tota

l

Musta

ng (

CO

M)

0,6

2,0

2,6

Contingency

3,6

2,9

6,5

Repla

cem

ent T

AR

-4 (

SU

R)

8,0

8,0

Repla

cem

ent V

CS

(C

OM

)3,1

4,4

3,6

5,9

6,6

23,6

Fallb

ack a

ir-g

round | g

round-g

round v

oic

e1

,53,7

2,0

7,2

Repla

cem

ent A

AA

(F

DP

)3,2

2,9

21,3

31,5

11,7

4,4

75,0

ReplacementITofficeautomation

0,5

1,7

2,2

Reserv

ation p

ossib

le a

cquis

itio

n T

WR

Schip

hol

6,8

6,8

Prim

ary

radar

covera

ge P

old

erb

aan (

18R

/36L)

1,5

1,5

3,0

Dig

ital str

ips T

WR

Schip

hol

2,1

2,1

Adju

stm

ent

facili

ties

25,0

25,0

50,0

Oth

er

inve

stm

en

ts6,5

11,2

6,9

6,0

6,2

4,5

5,8

47

,1

Tota

l9,6

23,5

28,3

36

,250

,143

,243

,2234,1

Diffe

rence b

udget 2011 v

s 2

012

-10,1

-3,5

1,7

20,3

34,3

35,5

-36,8

41,4

Investm

ent

pla

n 2

012-2

016 [

2|2

]Facts

heets

investm

ents

•M

usta

ng (

CO

M)

•Contingency (

fall b

ack f

acility A

PP a

nd A

CC)

•Repla

cem

ent

term

inal appro

ach r

adar

(SU

R)

•Repla

cem

ent

voic

e c

om

munic

ation s

yste

m (

CO

M)

•Fallback a

ir-g

round |

gro

und-g

round v

oic

e

•Repla

cem

ent

AAA (

FD

P)

•Repla

cem

ent

IT o

ffic

e a

uto

mation

•Reserv

ation p

ossib

le a

cquis

itio

n T

WR S

chip

hol

•Prim

ary

radar

covera

ge P

old

erb

aan

(18R/3

6L)

•D

igital str

ips T

WR S

chip

hol

•Adju

stm

ent

facilitie

s

Musta

ng (

CO

M)

Descrip

tio

n

Hig

h b

and s

ignal netw

ork

hard

ware

and

application

Req

uir

em

en

t

The d

em

and f

or

transport

capacity o

f hig

h-b

and

sig

nals

is incre

asin

g.

To a

ccom

modate

these h

igh-

band s

ignals

, specific

hard

ware

needs t

o b

e

incorp

ora

ted in t

he e

xis

ting n

etw

ork

.

This

pro

ject

is a

pre

-requis

ite f

or

the

imple

menta

tion o

f th

e n

ew

voic

e c

om

munic

ation

syste

m (

VCS).

Perfo

rm

an

ce t

arg

ets

Cost

eff

icie

ncy:

realisation o

f cost

(rent

of

com

munic

ation lin

es)

savin

gs

Capacity:

enable

r fo

r fu

ture

gro

wth

and

imple

menta

tion o

f SESAR c

oncept

ATM

Maste

r p

lan

op

erati

on

al

imp

ro

vem

en

ts

n/a

Pla

nn

ed

op

erati

on

al in

use d

ate

June 2

012

Fin

an

cia

l d

ata

Capex:

€2.6

00.0

00

Sta

tus:

part

ly c

ontr

acte

d

Allocation t

o e

n-r

oute

charg

ing z

one:

54,5

%

Usefu

l life

: 15 y

ears

Contingency (

fall b

ack f

acility A

PP a

nd A

CC)

Descrip

tio

n

Mediu

m t

erm

fall b

ack a

ppro

ach a

nd a

rea c

ontr

ol

at

Rie

kerp

old

er

location (

exis

ting L

VN

L location)

Req

uir

em

en

t

Realise f

all b

ack f

acility f

or

appro

ach a

nd a

rea

contr

ol

Perfo

rm

an

ce t

arg

ets

Capacity t

arg

et:

within

48 h

ours

level of

serv

ice

pro

vis

ion is r

esto

red a

t 70%

-100%

of

curr

ent

peak h

our

capacity

ATM

Maste

r p

lan

op

erati

on

al

imp

ro

vem

en

ts

Contingency f

acility c

om

plies w

ith S

ES,

SESAR

and is r

ealised in b

ilate

ral FABEC c

oopera

tion.

Pla

nn

ed

op

erati

on

al in

use d

ate

2012

Fin

an

cia

l d

ata

Capex:

€6.5

00.0

00

Sta

tus:

not

contr

acte

d

Allocation t

o e

n-r

oute

charg

ing z

one:

100%

Usefu

l life

: 15 y

ears

Repla

cem

ent

term

inal appro

ach r

adar

(SU

R)

Descrip

tio

nRepla

cem

ent

of

term

inal appro

ach r

adar

Schip

hol

(TAR-4

)

Req

uir

em

en

t

Main

tain

the n

ecessary

level of situational

aw

are

ness in t

he t

erm

inal m

anoeuvring a

rea

Schip

hol. O

ne o

f th

e t

erm

inal appro

ach r

adars

Schip

holis

end o

f life

and n

eeds t

o b

e r

epla

ced.

Euro

contr

olguid

elines (

Radar

Surv

eilla

nce in E

n-

Route

Airspace a

nd m

ajo

r te

rmin

al are

as)

com

mis

sio

n p

rim

ary

radar

covera

ge in h

igh

density T

MAs

Perfo

rm

an

ce t

arg

ets

N/a

. N

ecessary

repla

cem

ent.

Ultim

ate

ly

pre

venting d

ecline in c

apacity d

ue t

o s

yste

m

failure

s.

ATM

Maste

r p

lan

op

erati

on

al

imp

ro

vem

en

tsn/a

Pla

nn

ed

op

erati

on

al in

use d

ate

2016

Fin

an

cia

l d

ata

Capex:

€8.0

00.0

00

Sta

tus:

not

contr

acte

d

Allocation t

o e

n-r

oute

charg

ing z

one:

90%

Usefu

l life

: 15 y

ears

Repla

cem

ent

voic

e c

om

munic

ation s

yste

m (

CO

M)

Descrip

tio

n

Repla

cem

ent

of

voic

e c

om

munic

ation s

yste

m

(VCS)

inclu

din

g t

ransm

itte

rs,

receiv

ers

, m

onitoring a

nd c

ontr

ol syste

ms,

etc

.

Req

uir

em

en

t

Safe

guard

com

munic

ation lin

k w

ith p

ilot

and

oth

er

ATCO

s.

Curr

ent

VCS is e

nd o

f life

and is n

ot

able

to a

ccom

modate

futu

re g

row

th (

more

fr

equencie

s)

Perfo

rm

an

ce t

arg

ets

Necessary

repla

cem

ent.

Ultim

ate

ly p

reventing

decline in c

apacity d

ue t

o s

yste

m failure

s.

Capacity:

accom

modate

s f

utu

re g

row

th

ATM

Maste

r p

lan

op

erati

on

al

imp

ro

vem

en

ts

Necessary

repla

cem

ent

date

is t

oo e

arly f

or

FABEC c

oord

ination

Pla

nn

ed

op

erati

on

al in

use d

ate

2014

Fin

an

cia

l d

ata

Capex:

€23.6

00.0

00

Sta

tus:

contr

act

Allocation t

o e

n-r

oute

charg

ing z

one:

54,5

%

Usefu

l life

: 15 y

ears

Fallback a

ir-g

round |

gro

und-g

round V

CS

Descrip

tio

n

Repla

cem

ent

of

fall b

ack n

ew

voic

ecom

munic

ation s

yste

m (

VCS)

Req

uir

em

en

t

Safe

guard

fall b

ack o

ption o

f com

munic

ation lin

k

with p

ilot

and o

ther

ATC

Os.

Curr

ent

fall b

ack

option o

f VCS is e

nd o

f life

Perfo

rm

an

ce t

arg

ets

Necessary

repla

cem

ent.

Ultim

ate

ly p

reventing

decline in c

apacity d

ue t

o s

yste

m failure

s.

Capacity:

incre

ased c

apacity d

uring d

egra

dation

mode

ATM

Maste

r p

lan

op

erati

on

al

imp

ro

vem

en

ts

Syste

m r

equirem

ents

were

develo

ped in b

ilate

ral

FABEC c

oopera

tion (

DFS)

Pla

nn

ed

op

erati

on

al in

use d

ate

2014

Fin

an

cia

l d

ata

Capex:

€7.2

00.0

00

Sta

tus:

not

contr

acte

d

Allocation t

o e

n-r

oute

charg

ing z

one:

54,5

%

Usefu

l life

: 15 y

ears

Repla

cem

ent

AAA (

FD

P)

Descrip

tio

n

Repla

cem

ent

of

AAA (

flig

ht

data

pro

cessin

g

syste

m)

with iTEC

Centr

e A

uto

mation S

yste

m

(iCAS)

Req

uir

em

en

t

Hard

ware

AAA e

nd

of

life

by 2

014-2

018

Accom

modate

the im

ple

menta

tion o

f SESAR

concept

Esta

blish inte

ropera

bility o

f syste

ms w

ithin

FABEC

to a

chie

ve F

ABEC

perf

orm

ance t

arg

ets

Pre

vent

costly a

dapta

tions a

nd r

ehosting

Perfo

rm

an

ce t

arg

ets

Necessary

repla

cem

ent.

Ultim

ate

ly p

reventing

decline in c

apacity d

ue t

o s

yste

m f

ailure

s a

nd

incre

ased m

ain

tenance c

osts

.

Enable

r fo

r im

ple

menting S

ESAR c

oncept

(e.g

. 4D

traje

cto

ry b

ased o

pera

tions,

impro

ved

inte

ropera

bility)

and m

eeting t

he F

ABEC

perf

orm

ance t

arg

ets

.

ATM

Maste

r p

lan

op

erati

on

al

imp

ro

vem

en

ts

Facilitate

s m

ultip

le o

pera

tional im

pro

vem

ents

Pla

nn

ed

op

erati

on

al in

use d

ate

2017

Fin

an

cia

l d

ata

Capex:

€75.0

00.0

00

Sta

tus:

join

ed iCAS

consort

ium

Allocation t

o e

n-r

oute

charg

ing z

one:

100%

Usefu

l life

: 15 y

ears

Repla

cem

ent

IT o

ffic

e a

uto

mation

Descrip

tio

n

Repla

cem

ent

of IC

T infr

astr

uctu

re,

deskto

ps,

lapto

ps,

soft

ware

lic

ences,

etc

.

Req

uir

em

en

t

ICT e

quip

ment

is e

nd o

f life

and f

ailure

rate

exceeds 1

0%

. Pro

fessio

nalise I

CT s

upport

function

Perfo

rm

an

ce t

arg

ets

N/a

. N

ecessary

repla

cem

ent.

ATM

Maste

r p

lan

op

erati

on

al

imp

ro

vem

en

ts

N/a

.

Pla

nn

ed

op

erati

on

al in

use d

ate

2012

Fin

an

cia

l d

ata

Capex:

€2.2

00.0

00

Sta

tus:

pre

paring E

uro

pean t

endering

Allocation t

o e

n-r

oute

charg

ing z

one:

90%

Usefu

l life

: 3 y

ears

Reserv

ation p

ossib

le a

cquis

itio

n T

WR S

chip

hol

Descrip

tio

n

Contr

actu

ally a

gre

ed d

ecis

ion w

heth

er

to r

ent

or

buy t

he c

ontr

ol to

wer

Schip

hol.

Req

uir

em

en

t

LVN

L h

as a

lease c

ontr

act

for

the c

ontr

ol to

wer

at

Schip

hol. T

his

contr

act

inclu

des a

decis

ion

wheth

er

to r

ent

or

buy t

he c

ontr

ol to

wer.

A c

ost

benefit

analy

sis

is r

equired t

o s

upport

this

decis

ion.

Perfo

rm

an

ce t

arg

ets

Cost

eff

icie

ncy:

realisation o

f cost

savin

gs

ATM

Maste

r p

lan

op

erati

on

al

imp

ro

vem

en

ts

N/a

.

Pla

nn

ed

op

erati

on

al in

use d

ate

August

2011 (

decis

ion d

ate

)

Fin

an

cia

l d

ata

Capex:

€6.8

00.0

00

Sta

tus:

option in e

xis

ting c

ontr

act

Allocation t

o e

n-r

oute

charg

ing z

one:

0%

Usefu

l life

: 20-3

0 y

ears

Prim

ary

radar

covera

ge P

old

erb

aan

(18R/3

6L)

Descrip

tio

n

Imple

ment

a s

urf

ace m

ovem

ent

radar

at

runw

ay

18R/3

6L

Req

uir

em

en

t

Impro

ved p

rim

ary

radar

covera

ge r

unw

ay

18R/3

6L

Perfo

rm

an

ce t

arg

ets

Safe

ty:

main

tain

level of

safe

ty

Capacity:

incre

ased a

vailability o

f Schip

holm

ain

runw

ay 1

8R/3

6L

ATM

Maste

r p

lan

op

erati

on

al

imp

ro

vem

en

ts

N/a

.

Pla

nn

ed

op

erati

on

al in

use d

ate

2013

Fin

an

cia

l d

ata

Capex:

€3.0

00.0

00

Sta

tus:

not

contr

acte

d

Allocation t

o e

n-r

oute

charg

ing z

one:

0%

Usefu

l life

: 15 y

ears

Dig

ital str

ips T

WR S

chip

hol

Descrip

tio

n

Imple

ment

a s

yste

m w

ith d

igital str

ips a

t all

tow

ers

at

Schip

holairport

Req

uir

em

en

t

Dig

itis

ing o

f flig

ht

pla

n info

rmation s

upport

scollabora

tive p

lannin

g a

nd d

ecis

ion m

akin

g a

nd

enable

s a

more

eff

icie

nt

work

flow

Perfo

rm

an

ce t

arg

ets

Safe

ty:

impro

ves w

ith b

ett

er

unam

big

uous d

ata

dis

trib

ution

Capacity:

info

rmation s

haring s

upport

scollabora

tive d

ecis

ion m

akin

g a

nd im

pro

ves

pla

nnin

g

ATM

Maste

r p

lan

op

erati

on

al

imp

ro

vem

en

ts

N/a

.

Pla

nn

ed

op

erati

on

al in

use d

ate

2014

Fin

an

cia

l d

ata

Capex:

€2.1

00.0

00

Sta

tus:

not

contr

acte

d

Allocation t

o e

n-r

oute

charg

ing z

one:

0%

Usefu

l life

: 10 y

ears

Adju

stm

ent

facilitie

s

Descrip

tio

n

Stu

dy t

he n

ecessary

adju

stm

ent

to f

acilitie

s

Req

uir

em

en

t

Facilitie

s m

ust

be a

ble

to a

ccom

modate

:

-th

e t

ransitio

n o

f AAA t

o iCAS

-fa

ll b

ack o

ption (

contingency a

ppro

ach a

nd

are

a c

ontr

ol)

-possib

le c

onsequences o

f civ

il|m

ilitary

inte

gra

tion

Perfo

rm

an

ce t

arg

ets

Guara

nte

es s

erv

ice p

rovis

ion d

uring t

ransitio

n

phases,

hosts

new

functionalities a

nd

org

anis

ational changes.

ATM

Maste

r p

lan

op

erati

on

al

imp

ro

vem

en

ts

N/a

.

Pla

nn

ed

op

erati

on

al in

use d

ate

2017

Fin

an

cia

l d

ata

Capex:

€50.0

00.0

00 (

early e

stim

ate

)

Sta

tus:

not

contr

acte

d

Allocation t

o e

n-r

oute

charg

ing z

one:

90%

Usefu

l life

: 30 y

ears

Perf

orm

ance

safe

ty,

capacity a

nd e

nvironm

ent

KP

AFA

BEC

Nati

on

al

Targ

et

20

12

forecast

20

13

forecast

No

targ

et

No

targ

et

Tota

lavera

ge

ATFM

dela

yen-r

oute

0,7

0,5

min

ute

per

flig

ht

1m

inute

per

flig

ht

No

targ

et

92,5

%

Within

legallim

its

(Dutc

hla

w)

ATC

rela

ted

accid

ents

and

incid

ents

(type,

num

ber

and

severity

)

Tota

lavera

ge

ATFM

dela

y(t

erm

inaland

en

route

)

Susta

inability

of

decla

red

capacity

infirs

tin

bound

peak

Nois

eabate

ment

rule

sre

late

dto

route

and

runw

ay

use

on

the

basis

of

Dutc

hle

gis

lation

Capacity

Avera

ge

en-

route

ATFM

dela

y

20

14

forecast

Eff

ectiveness

ofsafe

tym

anagem

ent

Application

of

severi

tycla

ssific

ation

ofRAT

tool

Safe

tyN

ota

rget

Report

ing

of

just

culture

Envir

onm

ent

Horizonta

lflig

ht

effic

iency

Cost

eff

icie

ncy:

tota

l costs

LVN

L b

udget

2012-2

016

0

20.0

00.0

00

40.0

00.0

00

60.0

00.0

00

80.0

00.0

00

100.0

00.0

00

120.0

00.0

00

140.0

00.0

00

160.0

00.0

00

180.0

00.0

00

200.0

00.0

00

Budget

2011-2

015

167.9

13.3

00

165.7

30.3

00

167.5

28.7

00

170.1

21.8

00

176.9

56.6

00

Budget

2012-2

016

167.9

13.3

00

164.8

03.3

35

166.5

32.2

04

171.6

19.7

53

176.0

55.7

88

177.9

27.3

73

Actu

als

186.8

75.0

00

162.9

58.0

00

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Som

van A

mount

Restr

uctu

ring c

osts

€21,2

mio

Cost

eff

icie

ncy:

Sta

ff c

osts

LVN

L b

udget

2012-2

016

0

20.0

00.0

00

40.0

00.0

00

60.0

00.0

00

80.0

00.0

00

100.0

00.0

00

120.0

00.0

00

140.0

00.0

00

160.0

00.0

00

180.0

00.0

00

200.0

00.0

00

Budget

2011-2

015

116.2

21.8

00

114.9

26.3

00

116.3

38.7

00

119.5

31.3

00

121.6

05.6

00

Budget

2012-2

016

116.2

21.8

00

115.1

78.4

02

117.9

89.8

59

121.7

71.6

08

125.9

47.2

72

129.0

87.1

49

Actu

als

138.7

09.0

00

116.9

52.0

00

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Som

van A

mount

Sta

ff c

osts

•2009 –

2012

effect

of

FTE r

eduction

•2010-2

011 a

gre

em

ent

no incre

ase in

wages

•In

cre

ase in p

ensio

n p

rem

ium

s

•Sta

rtin

g in 2

013 inflation c

orr

ection o

f

1,5

% p

er

year

•In

cre

ased

need f

or

ATCO

s(t

raff

ic

outlook)

Restr

uctu

ring c

osts

€21,2

mio

Cost

eff

icie

ncy:

depre

cia

tion c

osts

LVN

L b

udget

2012-2

016

0

20.0

00.0

00

40.0

00.0

00

60.0

00.0

00

80.0

00.0

00

100.0

00.0

00

120.0

00.0

00

140.0

00.0

00

160.0

00.0

00

180.0

00.0

00

200.0

00.0

00

Budget

2011-2

015

13.2

50.0

00

12.3

00.0

00

13.4

00.0

00

13.2

00.0

00

16.6

00.0

00

Budget

2012-2

016

13.2

50.0

00

11.4

00.0

00

12.0

00.0

00

12.8

00.0

00

13.9

00.0

00

13.9

00.0

00

Actu

als

12.1

79.0

00

11.4

75.0

00

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Som

van A

mount

Dep

recia

tio

n c

osts

•Reduction d

ue t

o p

ostp

onin

g

investm

ents

•Reduction

resultin

g f

rom

incre

ased c

ost

contr

ol (s

tandard

isation)

•Aft

er

2016 incre

ase in d

epre

cia

tion

costs

due t

ola

rge

investm

ents

(repla

cem

ent

AAA)

Cost

eff

icie

ncy:

opera

ting c

osts

LVN

L b

udget

2012-2

016

0

20.0

00.0

00

40.0

00.0

00

60.0

00.0

00

80.0

00.0

00

100.0

00.0

00

120.0

00.0

00

140.0

00.0

00

160.0

00.0

00

180.0

00.0

00

200.0

00.0

00

Budget

2011-2

015

32.8

20.5

00

33.1

76.0

00

33.1

37.0

00

33.5

15.5

00

34.2

31.0

00

Budget

2012-2

016

32.8

20.5

00

33.3

06.9

33

32.8

28.3

45

33.4

97.1

45

33.3

89.5

16

33.6

96.2

24

Actu

als

30.5

24.0

00

28.7

41.0

00

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Som

van A

mount

Op

erati

ng

co

sts

•2009

and

2010 w

ere

subje

ct

of

majo

r

cost

reductions

•In

2011 m

ore

activitie

sw

ill be initia

ted

but

costs

are

budgete

d s

till b

elo

w2008

levels

(€

43,5

million)

•N

ew

activitie

s n

ot

directly

rela

ted t

o

opera

tions w

ill, if

possib

le,

be funded

exte

rnally

Cost

eff

icie

ncy

Dete

rmin

ed c

osts

en-r

oute

LV

NL

dete

rmin

ed

co

sts

en

-ro

ute

ch

arg

ing

zo

ne

2009

2010

20

11

2012

2013

20

14

Sta

ff c

osts

78.1

72

.745

77.6

16.6

28

77.1

93.3

98

76.5

93

.177

78.4

92.2

80

81.0

98.7

82

Restr

uctu

ring c

osts

14.3

95

.533

Oth

er

opera

ting c

osts

20.2

98

.460

19.0

84.0

24

21.9

15.6

33

22.2

05

.804

21.8

88.0

21

22.3

32.1

04

Depre

cia

tion c

osts

7.9

27

.235

7.6

19.4

00

8.5

11.2

50

7.3

93

.600

7.7

92.0

00

8.3

23.2

00

Cost o

f capital

2.7

42

.000

2.9

59.9

90

2.8

46.7

42

2.5

13

.098

1.8

97.8

54

1.8

14.5

61

Tota

l costs

LV

NL

123.5

35

.973

107.2

80.0

42

110.4

67.0

23

108.7

05

.679

110.0

70.1

55

113.5

68.6

48

Cost o

f exem

pte

d V

FR

flig

hts

322

.000-

407.2

20-

416.0

00-

406

.478-

397.0

88-

372.6

95-

Incom

e f

rom

oth

er

sourc

es

1.7

71

.000-

1.7

81.0

00-

1.1

26.4

56-

1.5

40

.957-

1.5

36.3

04-

1.5

30.6

17-

Dete

rmin

ed c

osts

in n

om

inal te

rms

121.4

42

.973

105.0

91.8

22

108.9

24.5

67

106.7

58

.244

108.1

36.7

63

111.6

65.3

35

Inflation r

ate

0,0

%1,0

%2,0

%2,0

%2,0

%2,0

%

Weig

hte

d a

vera

ge inflation r

ate

0,0

0%

0,9

0%

1,7

9%

1,8

1%

1,8

2%

1,8

2%

Accum

ula

ted inflation c

orr

ection f

acto

r base

d o

n t

he

weig

hte

d inflation r

ate

100

,00%

99,1

0%

98,2

1%

98

,19%

98,1

8%

98,1

8%

Dete

rmin

ed c

osts

in r

eal te

rms (

prices 2

00

9)

121.4

42

.973

104.1

46.6

98

106.0

11.1

91

102.0

17

.588

101.4

53.3

87

102.8

58.8

23

Tota

l serv

ice u

nits (

base s

cenario: F

eb. 2011)

2.4

26

.000

2.4

59.0

00

2.5

55.0

00

2.6

81

.000

2.7

33.0

00

2.7

94.0

00

Bu

dgete

d d

ete

rmin

ed e

n-r

oute

unit r

ate

41,4

9

38,0

5

37,1

2

36,8

1

Targ

ete

d d

ete

rmin

ed e

n-r

oute

unit r

ate

-

40,0

4

38,6

4

37,2

9

Develo

pm

ent

dete

rmin

ed e

n-r

oute

un

it r

ate

50,0

6

42,3

5

41,4

9

38,0

5

37,1

2

36,8

1

% c

ha

ng

e-1

8,2

%-2

,1%

-9,0

%-2

,5%

-0,8

%

Dete

rmin

ed c

osts

in r

eal te

rms (

prices 2

009)

Dete

rmin

ed c

osts

in r

eal te

rms (

pri

ces

20

09

)

50.0

00.0

00

60.0

00.0

00

70.0

00.0

00

80.0

00.0

00

90.0

00.0

00

100.0

00.0

00

110.0

00.0

00

120.0

00.0

00

130.0

00.0

00

Dete

rmin

ed c

osts

in r

eal te

rms

(pri

ces 2

009)

121.4

42.9

73

104.1

46.6

98

106.0

11.1

91

102.0

17.5

88

101.4

53.3

87

102.8

58.8

23

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Restr

uctu

ring c

osts

€14,4

mio

Dete

rmin

ed e

n-r

oute

unit r

ate

Develo

pm

ent

dete

rmin

ed e

n-r

oute

unit

rate

-

10,0

0

20,0

0

30,0

0

40,0

0

50,0

0

60,0

0

70,0

0

80,0

0

Develo

pm

ent

dete

rmin

ed

en-r

oute

unit r

ate

50,0

642,3

541,4

938,0

537,1

236,8

1

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Questions

End o

f pre

senta

tion

Sta

keh

old

er

Co

nsu

ltati

on

Ste

en

okkerz

eel -

May 1

9, 2011

The E

uro

pean O

rganis

ation

for

the S

afe

ty o

f A

ir N

avig

ation

Maastr

ich

t U

pp

er

Are

a C

on

tro

l C

en

tre

MU

AC

an

d F

AB

EC

MU

AC

dele

gate

d a

irspace

covers

260,0

00 k

m2 (

above

DF

L 2

45)

exte

ndin

g o

ver

Belg

ium

, th

e N

eth

erlands,

Luxem

bourg

and N

ort

h-W

est

Germ

any

In 2

010,

1,4

47,8

72 I

FR

flig

hts

Maastr

ich

t U

pp

er

Are

a C

on

tro

l C

en

tre

In 2

010,

1,4

47,8

72 I

FR

flig

hts

contr

olle

d e

quating t

o 5

37,9

07

flig

ht-

hours

and

5,8

22,5

23 s

erv

ice u

nits

Annual costs

(2010):

€139 M

io.

Route

charg

es g

enera

ted

(2010):

€402 M

io.

MU

AC

an

d S

ES

II

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E S

CH

EM

EM

UA

C p

erf

orm

an

ce

•S

afe

ty, C

ap

acity a

nd

En

vir

on

me

nt a

re p

art

of F

AB

EC

Pe

rfo

rma

nce

Pla

n

•C

ost e

ffe

ctive

ne

ss is p

art

of in

div

idu

al F

ou

r S

tate

s’ N

atio

na

l P

lan

s

•M

UA

C id

en

tifie

s a

dd

itio

na

l in

tern

al in

dic

ato

rs a

nd

ta

rge

ts

Maastr

ich

t U

pp

er

Are

a C

on

tro

l C

en

tre

MU

AC

Bu

sin

es

s P

lan

an

d A

nn

ua

l P

lan

•C

on

so

lida

te M

UA

C o

bje

ctive

s a

nd

im

pro

ve

me

nt p

lan

s

•C

om

plia

nt w

ith

SE

S I

I C

om

mo

n R

eq

uir

em

en

ts

MU

AC

is

co

mm

itte

d t

o

•sa

feg

ua

rdin

g it

s o

uts

tan

din

g o

pe

ratio

na

l p

erf

orm

an

ce

•e

nsu

rin

g tra

nsp

are

ncy in

Fo

ur

Sta

tes’ N

atio

na

l P

lan

s

ST

AF

F D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

Maastr

ich

t U

pp

er

Are

a C

on

tro

l C

en

tre

Inclu

din

g 1

1 A

TC

O‘s

whic

h a

re leased t

o A

ustr

o C

ontr

ol until 2013

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

ST

AF

F D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

Inta

ke

pla

nn

ing

468

10

12

14

16

Number of AI

Maastr

ich

t U

pp

er

Are

a C

on

tro

l C

en

tre

024

AI

53

AI

54

AI

55

AI

56

AI

57

AI

58

AI

59

AI

60

AI

61

AI

62

AI

63

AI

64

AI

65

AI

66

AI

67

2010

2010

2010

2011

2011

2011

2012

2012

2012

2013

2013

2013

2014

2014

2014

Number of AI

Pla

nn

ed

in

take

Re

du

ctio

n S

ep

t. 2

01

0R

ed

uctio

n M

arc

h 2

01

0R

ed

uctio

n N

ov.

20

09

Decis

ions t

o r

educe inta

kes o

f A

b I

nitio

stu

dents

were

taken

dynam

ically

sin

ce N

ovem

ber

2009. T

his

evalu

ation p

rocess w

ill

be c

ontinued d

uring R

P1.

INV

ES

TM

EN

T P

RO

GR

AM

ME

Inv

estm

en

ts M

UA

C2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

To

tal

AT

C S

yste

ms

EA

TM

Com

munic

ation G

ate

way

��

��

Maastr

ich

t U

pp

er

Are

a C

on

tro

l C

en

tre

Voic

e s

yste

ms

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

New

genera

tion C

WP

��

��

��

��

��

��

AT

FC

M/A

SM

Tools

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

SE

SA

R C

om

plia

nt A

TM

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

To

tal A

TC

syste

ms

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Infr

astr

uctu

re��

��

��

��

��

Oth

er

investm

ents

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

To

tal

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

AT

C S

ys

tem

s

Imp

ac

t a

ss

es

sm

en

t o

n R

P1

20

112

012

20

132

014

20

152

016

Mai

n d

rive

rIm

ple

men

tati

on

Imp

ac

t R

P1

Vo

ice

Sys

tem

s

Ne

w V

oic

e C

om

mu

nic

atio

n S

yste

mR

ep

lac

em

ent

201

4L

ow

Vo

IP R

adio

sR

ep

lac

em

ent

201

4L

ow

Ne

w T

ow

erC

on

tin

ge

nc

y2

015

No

ne

New

gen

era

tio

n C

WP

Pro

du

cti

vity

201

5N

on

e

Maastr

ich

t U

pp

er

Are

a C

on

tro

l C

en

tre

New

gen

era

tio

n C

WP

Pro

du

cti

vity

201

5N

on

e

AT

FC

M /

AS

M T

oo

lsC

apac

ity

201

2-2

016

Lo

w

SE

SA

R C

om

pli

ant

AT

M

Up

gra

de

Fli

gh

t D

ata

pro

ce

ssin

g2

014

Lo

w

DL

-FE

P (

Da

ta l

ink

Fro

nt

En

d P

roc

ess

or)

201

6N

on

e

IOP

(In

tero

per

ab

ilit

y G

rou

nd

-Gro

un

d)

201

6N

on

e

i4D

(in

tero

pe

rab

ilit

y A

ir-G

rou

nd

)2

016

No

ne

* A

ll p

roje

cts

10

0% a

llo

ca

ted

to

En

Ro

ute

* D

eta

ile

d j

ust

ific

ati

on

s a

va

ila

ble

Ca

pa

city

&

Saf

ety

CO

ST

EF

FIC

IEN

CY

ME

AS

UR

ES

DU

RIN

G R

P1

Co

st

cate

go

ryM

easu

res

Sta

ff c

osts

Optim

isation o

f A

TC

O d

eplo

ym

ent

•R

oste

r optim

isation

•C

entr

al S

uperv

isory

Suite

•C

ross t

rain

ing A

TC

O’s

Revie

w r

ecru

itm

ent

pro

gra

mm

e A

b I

nitio

’s

Maastr

ich

t U

pp

er

Are

a C

on

tro

l C

en

tre

Revie

w r

ecru

itm

ent

pro

gra

mm

e A

b I

nitio

’s

Outs

ourc

ed A

b I

nitio

tra

inin

g (

to F

AB

EC

part

ners

)

AT

CO

lease t

o A

ustr

ocontr

ol (2

011-2

013)

Reduce s

upport

cost

ratio

Opera

ting c

osts

Renegotiation o

f ru

nnin

g c

ontr

acts

(perm

anent)

Depre

cia

tion /

investm

ents

Com

mon p

rocure

ment

of

a F

AB

EC

com

plia

nt

New

Voic

e C

om

munic

ation S

yste

m w

ith D

SN

A

CO

ST

EF

FIC

IEN

CY

SU

MM

AR

YC

osts

x €

1000

(in

no

min

al valu

e)

2011

Baseli

ne

2012

2013

2014

Sta

ff117.2

12

115.2

41

1

21.4

33

127.7

09

Oth

er

opera

ting c

osts

16.8

40

17.2

69

16.2

20

16.3

27

Maastr

ich

t U

pp

er

Are

a C

on

tro

l C

en

tre

Oth

er

opera

ting c

osts

16.8

40

17.2

69

16.2

20

16.3

27

Depre

cia

tion

12.7

28

12.5

31

12.8

57

12.9

61

Inte

rest

1.5

00

1.6

28

1.7

62

1.9

32

Exceptional item

s (

incl.

incid

enta

l in

com

e f

rom

oth

er

sourc

es)

-2.1

53

-2.1

48

-2.1

48

0

Tota

l M

UA

C146.1

27

144.5

21

150.1

24

158.9

29

-1.1

%+

3.9

%+

5.9

%

CO

ST

EF

FIC

IEN

CY

SU

MM

AR

Y

MU

AC

Co

sts

RP

1 V

s. N

ov

. 2

01

0 (

no

min

al va

lue

)

160.0

00

170.0

00

Maastr

ich

t U

pp

er

Are

a C

on

tro

l C

en

tre

120.0

00

130.0

00

140.0

00

150.0

00

Gra

nd

To

tal

RP

11

38

.76

21

46

.12

71

44

.52

21

50

.12

41

58

.92

8

Pla

n N

ov

. 2

01

01

38

.76

21

46

.12

71

51

.91

11

58

.58

11

63

.86

6

20

10

A2

01

1 B

20

12

P2

01

3 P

20

14

P

CO

ST

EF

FIC

IEN

CY

SU

MM

AR

Y

Co

sts

x €

1000

20

11

Ba

se

lin

e

20

12

20

13

20

14

MU

AC

To

tal

Nom

inal C

osts

146.1

27

144.5

21

150.1

24

158.9

29

Dete

rmin

ed C

ost

Maastr

ich

t U

pp

er

Are

a C

on

tro

l C

en

tre

Dete

rmin

ed C

ost

(Real te

rms

EU

R 2

009)

141.4

94

137.4

23

140.1

20

145.5

69

Serv

ice u

nits (

# 1

.000)

(in M

UA

C A

rea o

f R

esponsib

ility

)6.1

18

6.3

26

6.4

94

6.6

86

Dete

rmin

ed M

UA

C U

nit R

ate

(E

UR

2009)

23.1

321.7

221.5

821.7

7

-6.1

%-

0.7

%0.9

%

MU

AC

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

NL

Co

sts

x €

1000

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

MU

AC

Co

st

Sh

are

fo

r F

IR A

MS

20

.09

63

%2

1.7

10

7 %

21

.71

07

%2

1.7

10

7 %

Dete

rmin

ed C

ost

MU

AC

NL

(Real te

rms E

UR

2009)

28.5

68

29.9

64

30.5

55

31.7

60

Maastr

ich

t U

pp

er

Are

a C

on

tro

l C

en

tre

Serv

ice u

nits (

# 1

.000)

(In tota

l D

utc

h a

irspace)

2.5

55

2.6

81

2.7

33

2.7

94

Dete

rmin

ed M

UA

C N

L r

ate

11,1

8 €

11,1

8 €

11,1

8 €

11,3

7 €

De

lta

0.0

%0

.0 %

1.7

%

Th

e c

on

trib

utio

n o

f M

UA

C’s

pe

rfo

rma

nce

to

th

e D

utc

h A

irsp

ace

is

ne

ga

tive

ly in

flu

en

ce

d b

y a

n in

cre

ase

d c

ost-

sh

arin

g k

ey fo

r th

e

Ne

the

rla

nd

s a

nd

by S

TA

TF

OR

tra

ffic

fo

reca

st w

hic

h is lo

we

r th

an

MU

AC

ave

rag

e.

EN

D

The E

uro

pean O

rganis

ation

for

the S

afe

ty o

f A

ir N

avig

ation

Maastr

ich

t U

pp

er

Are

a C

on

tro

l C

en

tre

- 1 -

MAASTRICHT UAC - INVESTMENT PLAN 2012 - 2016

Following document is providing with a description and a performance assessment of the major investment projects as contained in the Financial Plan 2012-2016.

Table 1In ‘000 EUR

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

P P P P P

Infrastructure 5.550 5.150 2.800 0 0

ATC Systems

Voice Systems 3.340 3.640 1.445 650 1.760New Generation CWP 325 2.625 10.975 7.650 750ATFCM / ASM Tools 1.700 1.660 1.150 900 900Sesar Compliant ATM 600 1.175 2.200 2.350 2.850

Total ATC Systems 5.965 9.100 15.770 11.550 6.260

Other investments 5.794 7.181 5.032 6.699 5.977

Total 17.309 21.431 23.602 18.249 12.237

1. DESCRIPTIONS

1.1. VOICE SYSTEMS

Voice systems include the procurement of a new VCS system, of VoIP compatible radios and the construction of a new tower at MUAC premises.

2.1.1. N-VCS

The current primary Voice Communication System (VCS) came into operation at Maastricht UAC (MUAC) in 1996, almost 15 years ago. The standards and communication protocols in the area of voice communications have undergone significant changes over the last years and will continue to evolve. The current VCS will not be able to support these new protocols and standards. The VCS hardware in service at MUAC is also obsolete and the costs of maintenance are expected to increase in the coming years.

This project consists of the development and commissioning of a new Voice Communication System at MUAC, compliant with the FABEC CONOPS.

MUAC and DSNA decided to launch a common procurement procedure in August 2009. MCG authorisation has been received. Contract signature is planned mid-April 2011 and commissioning expected in January 2014. Economic lifetime is 15 years.

- 2 -

Performance assessment:

cost-savings through partnership in procurement and maintenance; ensure continuation of service, at least at current capacity levels (Primary VCS

failure leads to 50% Capacity reduction); safety will increase because of the improved reliability of the VCS system; cost efficiency will be improved by enhanced functionalities.

2.1.2. VoIP compatible radios

The current air-to-ground radios were procured and installed from 1995 to 1997. For reasons of obsolescence their replacement is planned after about 15 years of service. The evolutions in communication standards and protocols in the area of voice communications are equally applicable to the air-to-ground radio.


The advanced functions offered by N-VCS will only be fully capitalised upon when all elements in the voice architecture chain will have been harmonised.

2.1.3. Antenna tower

The building of an additional transmitter antenna tower is planned in 2014-2015. In 2016, the existing antenna and transmitter infrastructure on the roof of the main building will be renewed.


solve the vulnerability issue currently existing in the Brussels sector Group (the main VCS radio transmitters of all Brussels sector frequencies are in one single location);

enhance flexibility by allowing maintenance activities on the transmitter antennas without the mandatory switching to Backup VCS operations during the maintenance activity;

implement a local contingency.

1.2. NEW GENERATION CWP

The New Generation Controller Working Position (CWP) is required to increase flexibility and capacity in the present OPS Room and Training and Testing Room (TTR) at MUAC, as well as to reduce the maintenance costs.

The New Generation CWP project includes development of a modern software environment for the HMI, design of a new small-size console and the deployment in the OPS Room and in the Training and Test Rooms (TTR).

Commissioning is planned in 2014-2015; economic lifetime is 15 years for the furniture, the cooling and the electrical distribution, and 12 years for the development environment (software).

- 3 -


The New Generation console:

facilitates an extension of the number of controller working positions in the OPS Room;

reduces the costs linked to physical re-deployments in the OPS room; allows to re-group equipment in dedicated areas (equipment rooms) and results

in optimal cooling (reduction of costs and positive impact on the environment); provides an efficient and ergonomic working environment, conducive of increased

safety and productivity.

The new development environment:

solves the limitations of the current development tools; allows the development of new operational functionalities taking advantage of

state of the art graphical features; reduces the maintenance costs; increases the reliability and the safety of the HMI.

The deployment in the OPS room:

allows a more ergonomic data-management at the controller working position, which in turn will enable introduction of new tools and concepts for the controller conducive of increased safety and productivity;

includes noise reduction measures and a better spreading of light than today, both conducive of increased safety and productivity;

allows a more efficient overall OPS room lay-out, conducive of increased safety and productivity.

1.3. ATFCM / ASM TOOLS

Introduction of ATFCM (Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management)/ASM (Airspace Management) tools.

The objectives are to:

improve the effectiveness of the TCM (Tactical Capacity Management) process with on-line decision making support tools capable of predicting sector workloads, simulating effects on workload distribution in scenarios of expected traffic demand within the context of ATC constraints, airspace, weather and staffing conditions, and capable of determining optimum sectorisation configurations, using an efficient and ergonomic HMI;

support the further developments of the TCM process, by establishing best practices and identifying the most beneficial improvements in terms of data, tool, support and procedures, including interactions with the ATC, Strategic and Pre-tactical ATFCM, CRM (Customer Relationship Management), ASM (Airspace Management) and HRM (Human Resource Management) processes.

Commissioning is planned in 2012-2016 and the expected economic lifetime is 12 years (software).

- 4 -


the ASM Tool will further foster application of FUA Levels 1, 2 and 3, tool-support being a pre-requisite for the Military Partners;

improved flight safety due to system support for sharing data between all involved partners (e.g. Activation Status of Military Areas);

improvements in efficiency and capacity through better planning of the resources needed to cope with the evolution of the traffic demand over the day of operation;

an integrated set of tools, making full use of the N-FDPS functionalities and Network Manager’s (NM) inputs.

1.4. SESAR COMPLIANT ATM

The N-FDPS and its Advanced HMI were put into service in MUAC on 12 December 2008. The system is compliant with the eFDP specifications of April 2000 which also served as inputs to systems being currently developed, like iTEC and Co-flight. It was the first eFDP compliant Trajectory-based system fielded in the Core area of Europe.

Like the other ANSPs operating in the FABEC area, MUAC needs to evolve its ATM systems (MADAP) in order to deploy the operational concepts and technology being validated during the SESAR Development Phase, and enforced in the Deployment Phase by the emerging SES II requirements (European ATM Master Plan and related Operational Improvements).

To facilitate the transition and reduce overall costs MUAC is participating to the pre-operational validations conducted as part of the SESAR development phase in 4 areas which were carefully selected because of the added value to the MUAC Operations Room and globally to the European network:

i4D to full 4D (interoperability air-ground): exchange of trajectories with the aircraft FMS (Flight Management System) will

increase safety levels within the MUAC OPS Room, while enabling capacity growth at Network Level;

IOP (interoperability ground-ground): exchange of trajectories with neighbouring Centres and the Network Manager will

create both capacity and increase safety levels in MUAC at the extremities of the MUAC AoR, while enabling global capacity growth at Network Level;

Complexity Management: Meta Sector Planner and Traffic Management System will increase efficiency of

the MUAC OPS Room by better matching of ATCOs to the traffic patterns.

Network related activities: AFUA, Enhanced Demand/Capacity Balancing and dynamic DCB processes, and

User Preferred Routings have a direct impact on the operating costs of the Aircraft Operators.

MUAC has budgeted to field the Operational Improvement in the start of the Deployment Phase window identified in the ATM Master Plan (IOC, Initial Operational Capability).

This will start already in 2012 (AFUA) and extend in the following years in accordance with the European ATM MP.

- 5 -


The performance objectives were documented in the deliverables of the SESAR Definition Phase.

��

�

�

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��

��

"#��$��%��&��'(�

)#*��&��'(��

'� �+��,��

��-,�&�(��,�+.��

�$#��$�#��/��#

��

�

� �*��0�� $�)1��) )��0��

2��$�$��3$� ��

�,#,��#��

�� #�4#�"��&)��"�(��

�#�5#�*��&6"1"7�

��#�)#�*��&��'(�

�#�'#�*��&*�� "��8�(��

�#�9#�*��&*��"��(��

�#�:#��&�24�(7�

�#�2#�$��2��8�&" "(��

�#�:#�9��;�&��0� ��(��

��:#�:��&)")(��

�#�)#�<�� =0��&��0� ��(�

�#� #�<��&<��(��

�#�<��#�<��&�>"1(7�

�#�)#��&'�$��>��>"1(�

�#��#��8�&6"'"(7�

��#�:#��&��'7�1 ��0�� (7�

�#�?#�@��&�>"1(7�

�#�*#�@��A�&�24�(7�

�#��#�?B'��&6"'"(7��

�#�*#��$��%��3$��&<��(7�

�#�9#��58��&�>"1(7�

�#�"#��$��%��&��'(�

�

� ��

��

�

�

��

�

�

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��

��

"#��$��%��&��'(�

)#*��&��'(��

'� �+��,��

��-,�&�(��,�+.��

�$#��$�#��/��#

��

�

� �*��0�� $�)1��) )��0��

2��$�$��3$� ��

�,#,��#��

�� #�4#�"��&)��"�(��

�#�5#�*��&6"1"7�

��#�)#�*��&��'(�

�#�'#�*��&*�� "��8�(��

�#�9#�*��&*��"��(��

�#�:#��&�24�(7�

�#�2#�$��2��8�&" "(��

�#�:#�9��;�&��0� ��(��

��:#�:��&)")(��

�#�)#�<�� =0��&��0� ��(�

�#� #�<��&<��(��

�#�<��#�<��&�>"1(7�

�#�)#��&'�$��>��>"1(�

�#��#��8�&6"'"(7�

��#�:#��&��'7�1 ��0�� (7�

�#�?#�@��&�>"1(7�

�#�*#�@��A�&�24�(7�

�#��#�?B'��&6"'"(7��

�#�*#��$��%��3$��&<��(7�

�#�9#��58��&�>"1(7�

�#�"#��$��%��&��'(�

�

� ��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

' �� 7��#��7��C�� ,#,��$��)1��

C��C�� 0�� *��$�5��#�

' �� $�� )��A� ��$��1�� ) )�C�0��

��C�� 0��00��87��$��D��8��C��$��

�C#�' �� A��*��0�� #��

�

��

��C�� "��$�#�

�

�

�

�� ,��

�

�

�

��

��#��$�� 0�� 0��)1��0�"C�� 0��$�

�8��#�&4*E��

��

�

��

� !�� "��#�$�#��

�#��$��%�� C�� 0�� 0��)1��

� �� A��0��$�8F��#�' ��0��00��

��8�0��24��$��>"1��<4�6��$�4)"�� $�� 0��

��8�� 0��)1�#�' �� $�� $#��

�

% !��&'��

�#��$�� C��$�8��$�� )1�#�' ��

0��0��C$��$G��8�� C�0��00��0��

��7�� 8�� $3��$��#�H��$��24��

�� 0��H�� $��C��#�9��

� ��A��0��*�� $�� $�� $�0��"1 �

�C�� 0�"'1?��0��7��

�IC�� 24��$�� 0�"'1?��0��00��

��$�$��#��24�� C��8�� 0�"'�

1?��&��8(7��$��$3��0��00��$�

� ��0��7��$�� "'1?��I��$�8��00�

� ��00��$��$��8��A�� $�8�� 00��#��

�

�#�� C�� 24��&"""��C��7�5"@ !�

��$��8(�� 0��0��C��$#�6�0��C�C�� 0��

�� C��0�� 0��0�� )1�#�"��$��

��$�� )1��C��#�"��C ��

� �� $��8��$��8��8��0�� C��

8��#��C�� D��0�� 8��0�� $��8��

��$�8�� 87�� ,��$��#�6��

��8��C��0�� 8�$��C��0��

�8��#��

�

�#�*��$�� C��$�� C��)1�� 0��

�� $�� $� ��$��A��IC��#��

�

�#��IC�� 24�� C��0��C�� """�

� �� $��0��..#�6��$��$�� 7��8��#�' �� $��

�� $��0��0��8��$��$��C��$#�1��C��0��

�� 0��$�C��$�� $��0��7�� $��

��$��C��$��#�6��$$�� 8��$��) )"@��C��

��$��C��9"* 1#�"�� $��8��E�1�0�� $�

6��#�' �� C��0��24�#��

�

�#�*��8��8�� $�� C��

9��8��.� ��7�� )4"� �� $�00��8��#�' ��

�� $�� 24��$�)4"��9"* 1�C��

��#�' ��$��8��00��$��0��

�� #��

�

�

��

�

�#��$��$��#�*��F��C��7��$�� 24��

��8��C��$�$�#�' ��0�$�00��

$�00��"4)�� 8�"'��$��#��24��$�� C�C��C�7�

�� $��24��$�$��A7��

��I��C��CC��00�0�� $�� C�#��IC��

��,��8��"'�� $��$��$�$��$#��

9�� 7�� $�00��8��C��#�?��C��0�� 7��C��

��0��IC��$��

��#��

�

�#�9��;��$��A��IC��0�� $�00�� 0��$��

��IC��$��0��24��&J�+��(��$�9)�&�J��(#�' ��$��

��A��$��9)�� 24�#��

�

�#��8�� C�� F��0��0��

��$��C��#�)�� 0��0��$��#�6��$��

� ��C��0�"""#�' ��8��$��C�$��8K0��" 4"7�

9)7�4"')��$��24�7��$�0�� C��8��$�#�60��C��

��$��C�$�0��C��7�� $��$�$�� C��#�

?��8�� C��0��C��$��C�$�0��C��C��87�� C��8�

��H��0�� #��

�

�#�<��$�� $��A��A��0��$� �� 00��

��A�� $��#��

�

�#��IC�� C��8��0�� *��$��0��24�#�

' ��C��D��A��C��0�� 7�

� ��D�� $��7�� 0�� K��$��

��0��8��$��7��$��C��A�$��$�

��C��7��$��A��7��C#��

�

�#�$��2��8��$��A�� 0��

��$�� 9"* 1#��

�

�#��IC�� 24��C�� 9)#�6�' 1��C��0��$��

0��87��8�61")#�9)� �� $��C�� 8��#�"�$��0�

C��4"')��$�" 4"��$#�� 6�' 1�C��0�� ) )"@�C��

��#�' ��$�� 0��C��$#�?��8�� $�$�

��8�0��)� �C ��24��$��$��8�� 0��#��

�

�#�@��A��C�� 3��C�0��$7��

��$��$��A��C��#�?��8�� 8� ��A��C��

�� C��0�� $�$�C��A��

C��#��

�

�#�<��$��A��A�� 24��$��$��$�C��$��

��8��I��C��8�� 0��0��

��C�� 9)7�� A��$�4��8� ��$��#��

�

�#��$�� """��C��3��C�3��0��24��$�

� �� 8��$��$�� I��IC��$�� A��$��I�

C��#��7��24��0��0� �$�� $��$��C��

� ��8��K��C��0�� IC��K$��$��

��IC��$#��

�

��

�

�

�#�9��;��$�� 0�� 00�� C��

��$�� C�� H#�6��$$��7��$3��0��IC��$��

��#��

�

�#��IC�� IC��$��$�� $��0�

��A�� 8��$�� C��0��24��

� ��8�C��$�� $��$��$��$��

��#��

�

�#�*��$�� 8��8��C��$��

)1��0��"C��#�?��8�+��<��0��#�' ��3��$��

�CC��#��$�� 24�� C��

�� 8��$�� 0�� C��C�� #��

�

�#��8�C�� 00��$��C��0��

��#��

)��00�� ,�$��0��7�C��

0��$��$��$��$�0��"'1?�#��C��8��$��

0�� """� ��$�C��$��C��8#��7�$�C��

�� 8�� C��$#��

�

�#�?F'��$�� $8�D��0��00��$�� A��

C��#��

�

�#��IC�� 00��$��$��8��.�9' �� $��0��#��

�� 0��CC��00��0�� $��$��8��$�

��7�� 8��#�' ��.�9' ��0��$�� 7�

� ��C��0�� $��7��8��A��8�� A��C��

��@��#��

�

' ��#��C�� $��$��#�' ��0��

��$�� >��$��#��

�

"��0�� 24��C��0�� #��A�� E��

• ��$G��

• � ��00��0�� $�$G��

• � ��$��C��0��D��8��C��$��$��8��8��'�&5��(��$�

�24�G��

• � ��$�0��0��.�&��(��$��&�+#+��(� ��

��$E��

�

"��$�� 0��24�� H��$��

�$�� 24�� 8��H�� C��$�

��&��$��0�� $��C��0�-�H(��H��

��C��#�6�� 8��,��$�� A�C��

��#�' �� $�C��$��00��$��C��#�6��0��

��$��0�� 00�� $��$�

��#��

�

�#��8��$��A��A�� 0��C��$#��@��A�

�IC�� 0��0�� #��

�

�

��

�

�#�9��;�C�� 24��C��8�$��0��$��

��8��$�� $��$�0�� 0��#�' ��

$�� C��#��

"��24��$�� 8��D��8��C��7�� 8��$��

��$�#��24��$�� &�� 0��

��A��$�� 8��0�9��(��#��

�

�#�*��$��A��A��0�� 4)"K�?'��0�� C��

C��$�0�� 4�� $�� $��$��

�� $�� )1��0�� "C��#�' ��4)"�� $�C��

�$$��A��#��

�

�#��$��%��C�� $��$��$��#�6��

��$��&��00��$�� C��IC��(� ��A��#�

9�� 0�� CC��$��$��#�)��

��0��0��C��$#��

�

�#�?F'��$�� $�� $�0��$��C��D��8�

��C�� 0�� C�� $��00��8��$��

C��8#��

�

�#��$��%��C�� 0��D��8��C��I��#�' ��1 ��

��00�� C��8�0��;��A��24�#� ��

��$��"4)�� A�C�0��D��0��

� ��#��

�

�#��8�C�� D��8��C��$��C�0�� $�00��

�� $�� $��$��#��

�

( !�� )��

�

�#�2��58��C��>"1F��00��8�C��#��9��

� ��A$��0�� 00��8�0��C��)��C��

��$�� 0�� )��F�)1��#��

�

6�� @�0��$7��00�C��C��$�� 8�� 0�

"'1?��C��$�� C��$��#�' ��C��

�� $�� )1��0�"C�� #�6��0��$�� IC��$��

��0��$��8��A�� $�� 0��

��#�6�� $�� 8��C��#�'��7�

� ��8��C��$�� )4"#��

�

��IC�� 0��C�0��7�� 0��I�

�� I��C��$��0�� C��0��

��$��;��0�0�I�$��#�"��$��0��#��J��

��$�� $��$��00��00��$��

��$�$�� #�' ��00��8�0��>"1��#�H�

��C��$��0��0�4��#��

�

�#�*��0�� $�0��"1 ��C��#�' ��$�00��

�� $�� C��$��8��>"1#�% ��$��

��L�' ��C��C��0��>"1�� $��#�6��$��0�

�>"1��$��$��8�&��0��C��$�(#�' �� 0�

�>"1��$� ��$��$#�"��C�� >"1��

�

�� +��

�

��$��CC��#�6��C��$��$�C��3��C�$�;��>"1F��

0��#��

�

�#�2��58��IC�� 8��$��CC�� >"1��C��

�� CC��C�� #�6��0��7�� $�0�

0�� 0��C�� $8�0��CC��

��C��#�

�

�#�<��$�� 7��$�� "��7��>"1��

��0��$��0��0�� 0�� >"1��&14)7�

"6)7�� '(#��>"1��C��0�� 8��7�� 0��>"1��C��0�� 8��

��#��

�

�#�*��$�� 7�� C��#�

"�$�� 0��>"1��0��

��$�$#��

�

�#�?F'�� C��4��

��$��C��8��$�C�$��87�� $��00��8#��24�7�

4)"��$�<4�6��8�� 7��>"1#��

�

�#��$��%��C�� D��0�� A�8�

� �� $��$��$��#�' ��

� 8��>"1��$��$�� $��

$��$��C�� 4�� $�#�60�� 00��$� ��

��A��7�� C��$��$� �� #��

�

�#�9��;��$�� $��0��>"1��7��

��C�� $��$�� #�6��8��

� �� >"1��8��$��$� �� $��$��$�$�

�� #��

�

�#�:��C�� $��0�) )��00��C��#�*��

��0��8�� $��0�� 0��>"1�"'1?��8�

��@��#��$��A��A�� >"1� ��8;�$� ��8�

"'1?��$� ��$��0��>"1��$�C��$��

��CC��C��$��0��CC��C��#��

�

�#�<�� 8�� $��#�*��

$��$�� 8��;��00��0��$�00��

��C��&��$�� C��(��$��C��$��

��$��0��$�� $�� C�$��8��$��0�

��#�' ��C�� >)"��7��I��C��0�� $��7�

� �� C��8�$�00��#��

�

�#�9��;�C�� $��H��$��#�

)��00��$��8��H#�� 0��00�$�$��

��C��8#�)��0�� 8�� 0��#��

�

�#��58��IC�� C��C��0�� 8��

��#�H��8��@�� 7�H��0��0��$#�)�7��

��#�H��8#��7��00��$��8��

��0��00�9' �� C��$#�

�

�

�� .��

�

�#��8�C�� 24��$��>"1��$��C��D��8#��

�

�#��C�� D��8��C��$��C�� I��0E��

� @�$��0��G��

� '�00��$��C��&��C��(G��

� @�$��0�� G�

� "��$�� 00��$��;�$��$��

��00��$��H�� 8��G��

� 6��$��24��C�C��$�� 00�� H��$��

��00�� H�0�� 0��8��@��$�� 0��#��

�

�#��8�C�� $��C��D��8��C��

� ��7�� 0��$��$#��$�� 6"'"�� A�

�� 1�� 0��D��8#��

�

�#��IC�� 24��$��'��8��$�

��8�.� #�6��C��$�� )1�#�9�� $��

�� :�� $��7�� 00��#��

�

�#��8��$�� $��$�� $�

��C��0��D��8��C��#�*�� '��$�"4)�F��$��C��

��#��

�

�#�*��$�� C�� $��D��8��

�� $�� C�� 4)"�� #�' ��

C��#�' ��C�� $��0��$#��

�

�#��C�� $�$�� C��

��0�� 1��:��7��$�� $�� #��

�

�#��$��%��$$�� )1��0��C�0��7��

��$��C��0��D��8��$�� $��

�� 8��#�%��C��$�� $#��

�

��$�� 8��0��8��00��8#��

�

• �24�E��24�F��$�C�0�� C��8��$��00��8�0��

� ��@�0��C��$��$#��7�� D�� $��

� ��0��#��C��8��$�$��

�� 0�� $��C��0�� D��8��C��#�>��$�

��$�� 7�� 8��C�8�0��#��

• ��>"1E�1��C��$�� 4��$��7��C�� A��

C�� $��C��8��$�C�$��87�� $��

�00��87�� 24�7�<4�6��$�4)"�� >��$��

��#�6�� A��$��$�� 0�� CC��0�

� �� A�8�� C�$�� 00��$��8��>"1#�

��C��8��$�$�� >"1��&��$�� 0��

14)��0��0�� "4)��$��8��>"1�0��0�� (7�� $��

��0�� >"1�� )��$��>"1F��

&��$�C��)��0��(#��

�

• <4�6��$�4)"�� $��$�� 8��$�� 0��

��8�$�� 0��)1�#�<4�6��$��I��C��0�� '�C��$�

��8��$�� +H��#��

�

��

�

• ��'�� A� �� D��8�� $��

��$��A�� C��#��

�

'*+��

�� !�� "�� !��#�$#��%

��&�� !��!��'��

&��(��

�

�� )��$��*��*��(��

&��+��!��,�-&(�*��*��

�

�