Annex A: Public consultation material

2015-2019 South West FAB Performance Plan June 2014

Annex A: Public consultation material Four public consultation meetings have taken place during the elaboration of the RP2 South West FAB Performance Plan:

1. RP2 SW FAB Performance Plan Consultation, 20 May 2014. 2. Spanish Airport and ANSP National forum, 25 April 2014. 3. Spain RP2 cost-effectiveness stakeholder consultation, 24 April 2014. 4. Portugal RP2 cost-effectiveness stakeholder consultation, 10 April 2014.

Portugal and Spain NSAs arranged consultation meetings focused only on cost-efficiency and open to EU-wide airspace users. In addition, AESA (the Spanish NSA) presented the main elements of the operational part of the RP2 SOWEPP. Discussion focused on environment and capacity targets, and in particular Spain allocation. Comments circulated and views raised during these first three thematic consultation meetings, were taking into account when drafting the consultation document that was distributed among main stakeholders for the SW FAB consultation meeting held in Madrid on May the 20th. This Annex A to the RP2 SOWEPP provides relevant information regarding the SW FAB consultation meeting (meeting agenda, attendance list, slides, minutes, written comments, etc) is provided in Annex A to this RP2 SOWEPP document. Some more information on the consultation meetings is shown in section 1.3 of the RP2 SOWEPP template version (Annex E).


1. RP2 SW FAB Performance Plan Consultation, 20 May 2014

Meeting Agenda

RP2 SOWEPP - Consultation Meeting Agenda 20

th May 2014

2015-2019 South West FAB Performance Plan

Consultation Meeting Agenda

10:00 - 10:15 Introduction

10:15 – 11:00 Safety

Targets and plans associated to:

Level of EoSM

Application of the RAT methodology

Just Culture

11:00 - 11:45 Environment

Targets and plans associated to:

Horizontal en route flight efficiency (KEA)

11:45 - 12:30 En-route Capacity:

Traffic forecast At SW FAB, Portugal and Spain levels, targets, reference values and plans associated to:

En route ATFM delay per flight

Incentive Scheme

12:30 – 13:30 Break

13:30 – 14:15 Terminal Capacity

Traffic forecast Portugal and Spain targets and plans associated to:

Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight

14:15 – 15:00 En route Cost – Efficiency

Traffic forecast At National level, and for each accountable entity:

En route Determined costs

En route Determined Unit Costs

Investments

15:00 – 15:45 Terminal Cost – Efficiency

Traffic forecast At National level, and accountable entity:

Terminal Determined costs

Terminal Determined Unit Costs

Investments

15:45 – 16:00 Any other issues



Attendance List



Meeting Slides

Draft 2015-2019 South West FAB Performance Plan

RP2 SOWEPP SW FAB USERS’ CONSULTATION DAY

20th May 2014

AESA

2

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF THE MEETING To consult the relevant elements of the South West FAB Performance Plan for the 2015-2019 (RP2 SOWEPP): • With the main stakeholders • In the presence of the accountable entities

But… What is the RP2 SOWEPP?

3

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY (SES) – PERFORMANCE SCHEME The RP2 SOWEPP is encompassed within the framework of the Single European Sky Performance Scheme. This is an initiative aimed at improving the performance of the air navigation services in Europe through: → European-wide targets in four key performance areas: safety,

environment, capacity and cost-efficiency. → The elaboration of performance plans at FAB level, consistent with and

adequately contributing to the EU-wide targets. → Periodic monitoring, review and assessment of performance.

4

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

RP2 SOWEPP The RP2 SOWEPP is the SW FAB Performance for 2015-2019 (known as RP2 – Reference Period 2). This plan affects the Air Navigation Services provided in Portugal and Spain within the scope of: → SES Performance Regulation (390/2013)

→ Charging Regulation (391/2013) → COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 11 March 2014: setting

European-wide targets

5

BACKGROUND

RP1 NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLANS We are now in the midst of the fist reference period (2012-2014 – RP1) of the SES Performance Scheme. There are National Performance Plans in place for Portugal and Spain: → Portugal: National Performance Plan for Air Navigation Services, First

Reference Period 2012 – 2014

→ Spain: Spanish National Performance Plan (PNER) for RP1 2012-2014

6

South West FAB

SW FAB A FAB (Functional Airspace Block) is an airspace block based on operational requirements and established regardless of State boundaries.

The Performance Regulation requires Performance Plans for RP2 to be elaborated at FAB level. The SW FAB includes Spain, and Portugal (only Lisboa FIR)

7

SCOPE OF THE RP2 SOWEPP

SCOPE The RP2 SOWEPP covers: → En-route air navigation services provided in the Barcelona, Canarias,

Lisboa and Madrid FIR/UIRs.

→ Terminal air navigation services provided at airports in Portugal and Spain with more than 70,000 IFR movements per year.

→ All the entities accountable for determined costs of en route air navigation services that are financed by en route charges.

8

SOWEPP ELABORATION TIMELINE

April May June July

24/04/2014 Spanish User’s (IATA) consultation on COST - EFFICIENCY

25/04/2014 Spanish Air Navigation Users’ consultation on CAPACITY AND ENVIRONMENT

30/04/14 SOWEPP consultation document

20/05/2014 SW FAB Users’ Consultation

03/06/14 Deadline for comments on SOWEPP

27/06/14 SOWEPP Formal Adoption

10-16/06/14 SOWEPP final version

9/05/14 SOWEPP updated consultation version

10/04/2014 Portuguese User’s (IATA) consultation on COST - EFFICIENCY

9

CONSULTATION MEETING AGENDA

SAFETY

ENVIRONMENT

EN ROUTE CAPACITY

TERMINAL CAPACITY

COST-EFFICIENCY SPAIN

COST-EFFICIENCY PORTUGAL

10

SAFETY

SAFETY

ENVIRONMENT

EN ROUTE CAPACITY

TERMINAL CAPACITY



11

LEVEL OF EOSM

LEVEL OF EOSM The level of EoSM is a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) with two parts: → NSA part: evaluates the maturity of the State Safety Programme

→ ANSP part: evaluates de maturity of the air navigation services provider

Safety Management System

12

LEVEL OF EOSM

Safety KPI #1: Level of Effectiveness of Safety Management

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

NSAs

Union-wide Target - - - - C

SW FAB Target B B B B C

Spain - AESA B B B C C

Portugal - INAC B B B B C

ANSPs Union-wide Targets

For Safety Culture MO - - - - C

For all other MOs - - - - D

SW FAB Targets For all MOs C C C C D

AENA For Safety Culture MO C C C C D

For all other MOs D D D D D

NAV For Safety Culture MO D D D D E

For all other MOs C C C C D

LEVEL OF EOSM – PROPOSED TARGETS Proposed targets on the level of EoSM go beyond the European-wide targets:

13

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Level of EoSM - SOWEPP targets

Portugal - INAC Spain - AESA SW FAB Target Union-wide Target

E

D

C

B

A

LEVEL OF EOSM – NSA part AESA (Spanish NSA) and INAC (Portuguese NSA), shall focus on the areas in which they have lower performance levels, to reach level C of maturity by 2019.

LEVEL OF EOSM

14

LEVEL OF EOSM – ANSP part According to the Safety Plans of AENA (Spanish ANSP) and NAV (Portuguese ANSP), it shall be possible to achieve level D in all management objectives by 2019

LEVEL OF EOSM

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Level of EoSM - ANSP targets Safety Culture MO

NAV (Portugal) AENA (Spain) SW FAB Targets Union-wide Targets

E

D

C

B

A

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Level of EoSM - ANSP targets All Other MOs

NAV (Portugal) AENA (Spain) SW FAB Targets Union-wide Targets

E

D

C

B

A

15

APPLICATION OF THE RAT METHODOLOGY

APPLICATION OF THE RAT This KPI considers the percentage of application of the severity classification based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology, both in terms of ground and overall score (including the airborne part), as a minimum to: → Separation minima infringements (SMIs)

→ Runway incursions (RIs)

→ ATM-specific occurrences (ATM-S)

16


APPLICATION OF THE RAT – PROPOSED TARGETS Targets proposed in the SOWEPP are consistent with EU-wide targets:

Safety KPI #2: Application of the severity classification

based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Ground Score

Union-wide Targets

SMIs - - 80% - 100%

RIs - - 80% - 100%

ATM-S - - 80% - 100%

SW FAB Targets

SMIs 90% 90% 90% 95% 100%

RIs 90% 90% 90% 95% 100%

ATM-S 90% 90% 90% 95% 100%

Spain

SMIs 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

RIs 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

ATM-S 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Portugal

SMIs 80% 80% 80% 90% 100%

RIs 80% 80% 80% 90% 100%

ATM-S 80% 80% 80% 90% 100%

17


APPLICATION OF THE RAT – PROPOSED TARGETS Targets proposed in the SOWEPP are consistent with EU-wide targets:

Safety KPI #2: Application of the severity classification

based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Overall Score

Union-wide Targets

SMIs - - 80% 80% 80%

RIs - - 80% 80% 80%

ATM-S - - 80% - 100%

SW FAB Targets

SMIs - - 80% 80% 80%

RIs - - 80% 80% 80%

ATM-S - - 80% 80% 100%

Spain

SMIs 60% 70% 80% 80% 80%

RIs 30% 55% 80% 80% 80%

ATM-S 25% 50% 80% 80% 100%

Portugal

SMIs - - 80% 80% 80%

RIs - - 80% 80% 80%

ATM-S - - 80% 80% 100%

18

JUST CULTURE

JUST CULTURE The aim is to increase the level of presence of a just culture: → AESA and INAC shall work together during RP2 in close cooperation, in

order to identify common areas for potential improvement towards the establishment of a common SW FAB just culture approach

→ AENA and NAV Portugal shall work together to find common areas of interest and development of Just Culture during RP2. The result is intended to be reflected in a common just culture policy and enhancement plan at SW FAB level, despite of the different maturity levels

19

SAFETY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

SAF Q #1: Do you agree with the proposed targets on the Level of Effectiveness of Safety Management (EoSM)? SAF Q #2: Do you agree with the proposed targets on ‘Application of the severity classification based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology’? SAF Q #3: Do you agree with the idea of setting a qualitative target on Just Culture (JC), like the proposed common plan and policy statement at SW FAB level? SAG Q#4: What are your views on the proposed actions and plans? SAF Q #5: Do you have any other views on the SOWEPP safety targets?

20

SAFETY

ENVIRONMENT

EN ROUTE CAPACITY

TERMINAL CAPACITY



ENVIRONMENT

21

HORIZONTAL EN ROUTE FLIGHT EFFICIENCY OF THE ACTUAL TRAJECTORY (KEA)

KEA The KEA is defined as the comparison between the length of the en route part of the actual trajectory and the achieved distance (great circle), summed over all IFR flights within or traversing the local airspace.

22

HORIZONTAL EN ROUTE FLIGHT EFFICIENCY OF THE ACTUAL TRAJECTORY (KEA)

Environment KPI #1: Horizontal en route flight efficiency (KEA) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Union-wide targets - - - - 2.60%

FAB reference values 3.85% 3.71% 3.57% 3.43% 3.28%

SW FAB Targets 3.85% 3.71% 3.57% 3.43% 3.28%

KEA – PROPOSED TARGETS The EU-wide target is to reach an average of horizontal en route flight efficiency of at least 2.6 % in 2019. Considering the EU-wide target, the Network Manager provided reference values for each FAB. The SW FAB targets for RP2 are fully consistent with this reference values. Flight efficiency plans of the ANSPs would allow to meet the targets.

23

Specific SOWEPP Environment presentation

24

ENVIRONMENT CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

ENV Q #1: Do you agree with the FAB level environment target on the KEA indicator, in particular considering the trade-offs with other KPAs? ENV Q #2: Do you have any other views on the SOWEPP environment targets and associated plans?

25

SAFETY

ENVIRONMENT

EN ROUTE CAPACITY

TERMINAL CAPACITY



EN ROUTE CAPACITY

26

INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS

RP2 SOWEPP Forecast

IFR Flights 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Spain Overall Flights (000) 1,618 1,622 1,648 1,656 1,671 1,691 1,711

Annual variation % 0.2% 1.6% 0.5% 0.9% 1.2% 1.2%

Portugal (Lisboa

FIR)

Flights (000) 449 469 480 481 482 485 488


SW FAB Flights (000) 1,661 1,671 1,694 1,703 1,718 1,739 1,758


TRAFFIC – FLIGHT FORECAST The SOWEPP flight forecast for RP2 is consistent with the low scenario of February 2014 STATFOR forecasts

0,0%

1,0%

2,0%

3,0%

4,0%

5,0%

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

IFR flights - Annual variation

Portugal (*) Spain (**) SW FAB

(*) Lisboa FIR only (**) Spain Overall: Canarias + Continental Airspace

27

EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY

EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY The Performance Regulation requires targets to be set at FAB level on the average minutes of en route ATFM delay per IFR flight. The targets are broken down at National level for reasons of transparency. The ANSPs are responsible for meeting the targets: → AENA in the case of Spain

→ NAV in the case of Portugal The en route ATFM delay is defined as the difference between the estimated take-off time requested by the aircraft operator in the last submitted flight plan and the calculated take-off time allocated by the central unit of ATFM.

28

Capacity KPI #1: En route ATFM delay per flight 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Union-wide targets 0.50 0.50 0.05 0.50 0.50

FAB reference values 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.30

SW FAB Target 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

AENA (Spain) 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48

NAV Portugal (Portugal) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY

EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY – PROPOSED TARGETS The EU-wide target for RP2 is an average en route ATFM delay per flight of no more than 0.50 minutes per flight, to be reached for each calendar year. Considering the EU-wide target, the Network Manager provided reference values for each FAB.

29

EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY

EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY – PROPOSED TARGETS The capacity plans included in the Network Operations Plan (2014-2019) would allow to meet the target.

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

SW FAB ATFM Delay targets

NAV (Portugal) AENA (Spain)SW FAB Target FAB reference valuesEU-wide targets

30

EN ROUTE CAPACITY INCENTIVES

INCENTIVE SCHEME The SOWEPP incentive mechanism for en-route capacity is applied at FAB level. The amount of the incentive is calculated at FAB level on the basis of the achievement of the SOWEPP FAB target for a given year. Incentives shall be calculated on a calendar year basis and be paid in year n+2. The incentive formula is a symmetrical linear function with a dead-band. Therefore, bonuses are awarded for achievement of performance which goes beyond the target. Only the ANSPs that have achieved their individual reference value are awarded a bonus, and only the ANSPs that have not met their reference value are penalised.

31

EN ROUTE CAPACITY INCENTIVES

INCENTIVE SCHEME FAB AENA NAV Result

Both ANSPs receive a bonus, calculated according to the FAB common function

Only AENA receives a bonus, NAV is not penalised as the FAB target has been met

Only NAV receives a bonus, AENA is not penalised as the FAB target has been met

Both ANSPs pay a penalty, calculated according to the FAB common function

Only NAV pays a penalty, AENA is not penalised as Spain value has been met

Only AENA pays a penalty, NAV is not penalised as Portugal value has been met

Target T

-max

Dead band

max

Bonus Penalty

T+X T -Y T-X T+Y

32

Time for the Capacity Experts

33

EN ROUTE CAPACITY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

CAP Q #1: Do you consider the en route capacity targets at SW FAB level are an adequate contribution to the EU-wide targets? If not, why? CAP Q #2: Do you agree with the values established as the contribution of AENA to the SW FAB targets? If not, why? CAP Q #3: Do you agree with the values established as the contribution of NAV to the SW FAB targets? If not, why? CAP Q#4: Do you have any other views on the SOWEPP en route capacity targets, ANSPs contribution and associated plans?

34

EN ROUTE CAPACITY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

CAP Q #8: Do you agree with the incentive mechanism established for the en route capacity? If not, please explain. CAP Q #9: What parameters (see table 4.2) do you think are the most appropriate for the incentive mechanism, in particular for the “maximum value” (0.75% to 1%) and the width of the “transition area” (0.06 to 0.14 minutes/flight)? CAP Q #10: What option (out of the three described in paragraph 4.46) do you think the most appropriate in the calculation of the bonus/penalties, regarding the delay causes? CAP Q #11: Do you have any other views on the SOWEPP en route capacity incentive mechanism?

35

SAFETY

ENVIRONMENT

EN ROUTE CAPACITY

TERMINAL CAPACITY



TERMINAL CAPACITY

36

TERMINAL AND AIRPORT ANS AFTM ARRIVAL DELAY PER FLIGHT The Performance Regulation requires that terminal and airport capacity targets are set at national level with a breakdown at airport level for monitoring purposes. The KPI is the average minutes of arrival ATFM delay per flight attributable to terminal and airport air navigation services and caused by landing restrictions at the destination airport. There is no EU-wide target on terminal and airport capacity, or any other external reference:

TERMINAL CAPACITY

37

Capacity KPI #2: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Spain (*) 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80

TERMINAL AND AIRPORT ANS ATFM ARRIVAL DELAY PER FLIGHT – PROPOSED TARGETS There is no EU-wide target on terminal and airport capacity, or any other external reference. The SOWEPP terminal and airport ANS capacity targets, and reference values per airport are set out below:

TERMINAL CAPACITY

Capacity KPI #2: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight

– Breakdown at airport level 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

GCLP – Gran Canaria 0,32 0,32 0,32 0,32 0,32

LEBL – Barcelona 0,91 0,91 0,91 0,91 0,91

LEMD – Madrid-Barajas 0,83 0,83 0,83 0,83 0,83

LEMG – Málaga 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11

LEPA – Palma de Mallorca 1,29 1,29 1,29 1,29 1,29

38

Specific Terminal Capacity presentation

39

TERMINAL CAPACITY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

CAP Q #5: Considering there is no EU-wide reference, do you agree with the terminal capacity target established for Spain, encompassing GCLP, LEBL, LEMD, LEMG and LEPA? If not, why? CAP Q #7: Do you have any other views on the SOWEPP terminal capacity targets and associated plans?

40

SAFETY

ENVIRONMENT

EN ROUTE CAPACITY

TERMINAL CAPACITY



COST-EFFICIENCY

41

EN ROUTE COST EFFICIENCY

ERT-CZ 3:Spain Continental

ERT-CZ 2:Spain Canarias

ERT-CZ 1:PortugalLisboa

EN ROUTE COST-EFFICIENCY The Performance Regulation requires a target for en route cost-efficiency for en route service to be expressed in terms of the determined unit costs (DUCs) at charging zone level and in local currency. There are three en-route charging zones within the SW FAB: • Portugal Lisboa • Spain Canarias • Spain Continental Consequently there are three targets.

42

Union-wide En-route Cost-Efficiency Targets 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cost efficiency KPI #1.1:

En-route DUC

Total en-route determined costs (MEUR Real

EUR 2009)

6,147.905 6,055.686 5,904,294

5,756.687

5,612.769

Total en route Service Units (000) 108,541 110,196 111,436 112,884 114,305

Real (EUR 2009) en-route DUC 56.64 54.95 52.98 51.00 49.10

EN ROUTE COST EFFICIENCY

EU-WIDE ROUTE COST-EFFICIENCY TARGETS EU-wide en route cost-efficiency targets are set to provide for a reduction in determined unit costs by 3.3 % per year over RP2.

43

INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS

TRAFFIC – EN ROUTE SERVICE UNITS FORECAST The SOWEPP en route service unit forecast for RP2 is consistent with the low scenario of February 2014 STATFOR forecasts, except for Spain Canarias forecast, which is below STATFOR low scenario. (*) Lisboa FIR only

-2,0%

0,0%

2,0%

4,0%

6,0%

8,0%

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

En route service units - Annual variation

Portugal (*) Spain Canaries Spain Continental

RP2 SOWEPP Forecast

Total en- route service units 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Spain - Continental SUs (000) 8,447 8,669 8,880 8,936 9,018 9,128 9,238

Annual variation % 0.0% 2.6% 2.4% 0.6% 0.9% 1.2% 1.2%

Spain - Canarias SUs (000) 1,516 1,516 1,531 1,528 1,531 1,537 1,543

Annual variation % -5.2% 0.0% 1.0% -0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4%

Portugal – Lisboa FIR SUs (000) 2,877 3,072 3,190 3,202 3,219 3,245 3,269

Annual variation % 3.4% 6.8% 3.8% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 0.8%

44

TOTAL COSTS EVOLUTION

45

-10,2% -12,3% -13,2% -6,2%

PNER1CON 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Forecast SU (NPP) 8.320 9.110 9.401 9.626 9.857

Actual SU 8.642 9.099 8.444 8.447

Actual / forecast SU (in %) 103,9% 99,9% 89,8% 87,7%

CAN 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Forecast SU (NPP) 1.515 1.618 1.705 1.746 1.795

Actual SU 1.540 1.666 1.599 1.516

Actual / forecast SU (in %) 101,7% 103,0% 93,8% 86,8%

SERVICE UNITS EVOLUTION

46

SPAIN COST-EFFICIENCY POLICY

- STABILITY ON DETERMINED COSTS

- STABILITY ON UNIT RATE

ALL RP1 & RP2:

CONTINENT UNIT RATE: 71,69 €/US

CANARY ISLAND UNIT RATE : 58,36 €/US

47

TOTAL COSTS EVOLUTION RP2

48

SPAIN CONTINENT EN ROUTE COSTS & DUC RP2 (2015 - 2019)

CONTINENT: COSTS & DUC 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total Determined Costs (€ 2009) 631.750 564.288 559.873 553.989 551.088 546.650

Cost Target EU Comision (€ 2009) 633.410 627.406 614.069 601.015 588.238 575.734

DUC (Determined Costs / Traffic Statfor LOW) 76,22 63,55 62,65 61,43 60,37 59,17

DUC target for Spain (EU Comision) 76,42 75,28 72,77 70,48 68,06 65,79

Traffic STATRFOR LOW (Feb 2014) 8.288 8.880 8.936 9.018 9.128 9.238

CONTINENT: ANUAL COST REDUCTION 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total Determined Costs (€ 2009) -10,68% -0,78% -1,05% -0,52% -0,81%

Cost Target EU Comision (€ 2009) -0,95% -2,13% -2,13% -2,13% -2,13%

DUC (Determined Costs / Traffic Statfor LOW) -16,63% -1,40% -1,95% -1,72% -1,99%

DUC target for Spain (EU Comision) -1,49% -3,33% -3,16% -3,43% -3,33%

Traffic STATRFOR LOW (Feb 2014) 7,14% 0,63% 0,92% 1,22% 1,21%

RP2 Cost Reduction over EU target

-232.234

Anual Reduction

-2,8%

-1,9%

-4,7%

-2,9%

49

CANARY ISLANDS EN ROUTE COSTS & DUC RP2 (2015 - 2019)

CANARY ISLANDS: COSTS & DUC 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total Determined Costs (€ 2009) 97.873 90.049 89.443 88.794 87.486 86.406

Cost Target EU Comision (€ 2009) 98.130 95.915 93.751 91.635 89.567 87.546

DUC (Determined Costs / AENA forecast April 2014) 64,56 58,82 58,54 58,00 56,92 56,00

DUC target for Spain (EU Comision) 64,60 62,56 63,56 62,00 60,57 58,96

Traffic AENA forecast April 2014 1.516 1.531 1.528 1.531 1.537 1.543

62,56 63,56 62,00 60,57 58,96

CANARY ISLANDS: ANUAL COST REDUCTION 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total Determined Costs (€ 2009) -7,99% -0,67% -0,73% -1,47% -1,23%

Cost Target EU Comision (€ 2009) -2,26% -2,26% -2,26% -2,26% -2,26%

DUC (Determined Costs / AENA forecast April 2014) -8,90% -0,48% -0,92% -1,86% -1,62%

DUC target for Spain (EU Comision) -3,16% 1,60% -2,45% -2,31% -2,66%

Traffic AENA forecast April 2014 0,99% -0,20% 0,20% 0,39% 0,39%


-16.494

Anual Reduction

-2,4%

-2,3%

-2,8%

-1,8%

50

EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS - SPAIN

EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS – SPAIN CANARIAS TARGETS Real en-route DUC experiences an average yearly improvement of -3.7% (more than a -31% aggregated improvement) in the two reference periods (2019 vs 2009). Such improvement is aligned with the proposed reduction of the cost-efficiency Union-wide target for the determined unit costs (3.3% per year over RP2).

Spain Canarias En-route Cost-Efficiency Targets 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Spain Canarias En-route DUC

Total en-route determined costs (MEUR

Nominal)

98.673 98.864 99.098 98.577 98.396

Inflation index (base 2012) 102.63 103.55 104.63 105.70 106.81


EUR 2012)

96.146 95.475 94.713 93.262 92.121



51

EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS - SPAIN

EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS – SPAIN CONTINENTAL TARGETS Real en-route DUC experiences an average yearly reduction of -4.5% (a total -37% aggregated improvement) since the introduction of the Performance Scheme (2019 vs 2009). Such improvement goes beyond the proposed EU-wide targets: annual reduction of en route unit costs of 3.3% per year over RP2.

Spain Continental En-route Cost-Efficiency Targets 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Spain Continental En-route

DUC


Nominal)

624.712 625.430 625.078 628.052 629.878



EUR 2012)

608.715 603.991 597.414 594.190 589.708



52

INVESTMENTS - SPAIN

INVESTMENTS - AENA AENA’s (Spanish ANSP) CAPEX Plan for RP2 is set out below:

Name of investment Planned Amount of Capital Expenditures

(in MEUR)

Total

CAPEX for

RP2 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS - Airport Collaborative Decision

Processes (A-CDM), Arrival and Departure Manager

(AMAN/DMAN), Electronic Flight Strips (EFS), DATALINK

Communications and Functional Configuration 2 (CF2).

6.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2

SURVEILLANCE EVOLUTION – ModeS, ADSB 2.6 3.8 3.5 3.8 4.1 17.8

REDAN – Data Network 5.5 4.6 4.7 0.8 0.6 16.1

833 – Communication Channels 1.8 3.2 3.5 2.9 0.0 11.4

COMETA – Voice over Internet Protocol 4.8 10.7 9.3 9.1 8.8 42.8

iTEC – Flight Data Processing 4.4 8.0 10.6 13.7 14.1 50.8

SAFETY NETS – STCA, APW, MSAW 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4

PBN PLAN – Performance Navigation 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 4.3

CWP – Controller Working Position 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.5

ÍCARO – Aeronautical information 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.8 5.3

PROJECT FACILITATORS 21.8 16.5 15.8 17.3 20.1 91.6

Sub-total of main CAPEX above (1) 49.8 49.8 49.6 50.0 50.0 249.2

Sub-total other Capex (2) 25.8 25.7 25.5 25.4 25.2 127.5

Total CAPEX (1) + (2) 75.5 75.5 75.1 75.3 75.2 376.6

53

INVESTMENTS - SPAIN

INVESTMENTS - AENA In global terms, contribution of CAPEX to the European ATM Master Plan deployment corresponds to a 66.2% of the total investment planned for RP2 (249,2 MEUR out from 376,6 MEUR in nominal terms). All relevant information on every investment project is included in Appendix A of the consultation document. Every view is welcomed.

54

EN-ROUTE COST-EFFICIENCY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

CEF Q #1: Do you consider the en-route cost-efficiency targets for the Spain Canarias charging zone are an adequate contribution to the EU-wide targets? If not, why? CEF Q #2: Do you consider the en-route cost-efficiency targets for the Spain Continental charging zone are an adequate contribution to the EU-wide targets? If not, why? CEF Q #4: Is there any additional information you expect to see regarding the Spanish en-route cost-efficiency targets and figures? CEF Q #5: Do you have any other views on the Spanish en-route cost-efficiency targets?

55

Spain cost-efficiency targets have many accountable entities, and many variables

must be considered

I leave you with the Cost-Efficiency experts

56

SAFETY

ENVIRONMENT

EN ROUTE CAPACITY

TERMINAL CAPACITY



COST-EFFICIENCY

57

EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS - PORTUGAL

EN ROUTE DETERMINED UNIT COSTS – PORTUGAL TARGETS En-route cost-efficiency targets for Portugal are set out in the table below. Real en route unit costs (in €2009 prices) are expected to decrease at a pace of 3.8% over the period between 2009 and 2019, meaning a global reduction of more than 32% over the 10 year horizon. Such decrease is aligned with the proposed reduction of the EU-wide target for the en route determined unit costs (3.3% per year over RP2).

Portugal En-route Cost-Efficiency Targets 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Portugal Lisboa En-route

DUC


Nominal)

111.986 117.619 121.538 124.787 128.169



EUR 2012)

109.452 113.258 115.302 116.635 118.025



58

INVESTMENTS - PORTUGAL

INVESTMENTS – NAV PORTUGAL

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sub-total of main CAPEX below (1) 8,7 16,3 9,9 7 11,8 53,7

1) LISATM V9.2 0,6 0,2 0,8

2) Lisbon ACC New System 7,4 4,5 1,7 6,5 20,1

3) Comunication systems 2,1 1,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 4,6

4) Navigation systems 1,6 1,4 1,9 3,6 8,5

5) NORMAW - Norte e Madeira WAM 2,6 2,6

6) Lisbon Terminal approach Radar replacement 0,5 2 2,4 4,9

7) SSR Mode S 0,4 3,8 0,3 2,7 1 8,2

8) Buildings and electromechanical systems 0,9 1,7 0,6 0,4 0,4 4

Sub-total other Capex (2) 0,1 0,3 0 0 0,1 0,5

Total CAPEX (1) + (2) 8,8 16,6 9,9 7 11,9 54,2

Name of Investment CAPEX Planned Amount of Capital Expenditures (in MEUR)

Total

CAPEX for

RP2

59

TERMINAL COST EFFICIENCY - PORTUGAL

TERMINAL COST-EFFICIENCY Portugal terminal cost-efficiency targets are set for the determined unit costs of the following airports: Portugal

Lisboa (LPPT)

Porto (LPPR)

Faro (LPFR)

Madeira (LPMA)

Porto Santo (LPPS)

Ponta Delgada (LPPD)

Santa Maria (LPAZ)

Horta (LPHR)

Flores (LPFL)

60

TERMINAL DETERMINED UNIT COSTS - PORTUGAL

TERMINAL DETERMINED UNIT COSTS – PORTUGAL TARGETS Terminal cost-efficiency targets for Portugal are set out in the table below. Real terminal unit costs (in €2009 prices) are expected to decrease 1.6% over the period between 2009 and 2019, meaning a global reduction of about 15% over the horizon.

Portugal Terminal Cost-Efficiency Targets 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Portugal Terminal DUC

Total terminal determined costs (MEUR

Nominal)

27.415 28.435 29.565 30.376 32.254

Inflation index (base EUR 2012) 102.32 103.85 105.41 106.99 108.59

Total terminal determined costs (MEUR Real

2012)

26.795 27.381 28.048 28.392 29.702

Total terminal Service Units (000) 187 187 188 190 192

Real (EUR 2012) terminal DUC 143.55 146.24 149.17 149.64 154.63

61

I leave you with the Portuguese Cost-Efficiency experts

62

EN-ROUTE COST-EFFICIENCY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

CEF Q #7: Do you consider the en-route cost-efficiency targets for the Portugal Lisboa charging zone are an adequate contribution to the EU-wide targets? If not, why? CEF Q #8: Is there any additional information you expect to see regarding the Portugal en-route cost-efficiency targets and figures? CEF Q #9: Do you have any other views on the Portugal Lisboa en-route cost-efficiency targets?

63

TERMINAL CAPACITY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

CEF Q #10: What is your opinion on the terminal cost-efficiency targets for Portugal? CEF Q #11: Is there any additional information you expect to see regarding the Portuguese terminal cost-efficiency targets and figures? CEF Q #12: Do you have any other views on the Portuguese terminal cost-efficiency targets?

Thanks for your attention

Written comments are welcomed until the

3rd of June

[email protected]

64

mailto:[email protected]


RP2 SOWEPP - ENVIRONMENT SW FAB USERS’ CONSULTATION DAY

20th May 2014

AESA

2

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION This presentation is divided in four sections:

ENVIRONMENT KPI: KEA

PERFORMANCE AND TARGETS

FLIGHT EFFICIENCY PLAN

INTERDEPENDENCIES

3





INTERDEPENDENCIES

4

KEA

SCOPE The Performance Regulation establishes two environment KPIs:

→ the horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory (KEA), applicable at FAB-level

→ and horizontal en route flight efficiency of the last filed flight plan (KEP), applicable to the Network Manager

5

CONCEPTS – RP2 vs RP1

RP1

→ Defined as the actual trajectory vs the great circle distance

→ Actual trajectory is calculated on the basis of the Filed Tactical Flight Model (FTFM) which corresponds to the last filed flight plan

KPI - average horizontal en route flight efficiency

Target

→ European Network level only

6


RP2

→ Defined as the actual trajectory vs the great circle distance

→ Actual trajectory is calculated on the basis of radar data

KPI - average en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory

Target

→ European wide level

→ FAB level

Some changes have been introduced in the calculation of the KPI…

7


RP2 vs RP1

RP2 (2015-2019)

KEP: based on flight plan trajectories Network Manager

RP1 (2012-2014)

KEA: based on actual trajectories FAB

Average horizontal en route flight efficiency: based on flight plan trajectories EU-wide level

8

KPI DEFINITION

KEA - Definition The KEA is defined as the comparison between the length of the en route part of the actual trajectory and the achieved distance (great circle), summed over all IFR flights within or traversing the local airspace.

What exactly does this mean?

9

KPI DEFINITION

KEA – the basics As illustrated in the figure, the calculation of the KEA is based on the difference between: → (L) the length of the flight’s trajectory (blue line) between the Origin (O)

and Destination (D) points, and

→ (G) the Great Circle Distance between the Origin and Destination (green line)

Within the EU-wide area

FAB 2 FAB 3 FAB 1

10

KPI DEFINITION

KEA – breakdown at FAB level A logical way to proceed would be to calculate FAB KEA figures as the difference between: → L1, L2, L3: the length of the trajectory from entry to exit (blue lines), and → G1, G2, G3: the great circle distances between entry and exit (dotted

grey lines).

FAB 2 FAB 3 FAB 1

11

KPI DEFINITION

KEA – breakdown at FAB level → This way, the sum of the FAB actual trajectories (L1, L2, L3) is equal to

the total actual trajectory (L), but

→ The sum of the FAB great circle distances (G1, G2, G3) is greater than the total origin-destination great circle distance (G)

FAB 2 FAB 3 FAB 1

12

KPI DEFINITION

KEA – breakdown at FAB level: Methodology Actual trajectory at FAB level is compared against the achieved distance: The achieved distance (H1, H2, H3) is proportion of the great circle distance between Origin (O) and Destination (D) points, related to the entry and the exit points of the FAB airspace.

FAB 2 FAB 3 FAB 1

13

KPI DEFINITION

KEA – breakdown at FAB level: Methodology KEA = length of the actual trajectory (Li) – Achieved distance (Hi) KEA = FAB route extension (Li - Gi) + Network Interface component (Gi - Hi) KEA at EU Network level (L – G) is the sum of KEAs at FAB level (Σ (Li – Hi))

14

KPI DEFINITION

KEA - Definition In the measurement of the KEA, the 40 NM circles around the departure and arrival airports of the flight are excluded.

15





INTERDEPENDENCIES

16

EU-WIDE TARGETS

EU-wide target The EU-wide target is to reach an average of horizontal en route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory (KEA) at least 2.6 % in 2019. → All FABs have to contribute to the achievement of this target.

→ This target can be broken down per FAB.

According to regulation, FAB targets shall be assessed against a reference value provided by the Network Manager

17

PERFORMANCE PROFILE

Performance Profile The SW FAB is currently the most inefficient FAB in all Europe, regarding en route horizontal flight efficiency of the actual trajectory (KEA) 0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

KEA - 2012 actual figures

0,0%

0,2%

0,4%

0,6%

0,8%

1,0%

1,2%

KEA: 2012-2019 required improvement

18

EU-WIDE TARGET BREAKDOWN

EU-wide target breakdown Consequently, according to the reference values estimated by the Network Manager, the SW FAB is the on that has to improve the most during RP2

19

PROPOSED TARGETS

KEA: Network Manager Reference Values - Targets SW FAB reference values proposed by the NM represent a KEA improvement of 0.99 points from 2012 to 2019 (23% inefficiency decrease) → SW FAB Targets are the values proposed by the Network Manager

3,85% 3,71%

3,57% 3,43%

3,28%

4,27%

3,0%

3,2%

3,4%

3,6%

3,8%

4,0%

4,2%

4,4%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

KEA - SW FAB targets

20

PROPOSED TARGETS

KEA: SW FAB Targets SW FAB targets are challenging but acceptable in view of current performance (improvements in 2013) and the action plans in place. Targets are a consequence of: → Portugal: sustainment of the performance levels in Portugal, where free

route airspace (FRA) is currently implemented above FL245

→ Spain: gradual improvement of the flight efficiency in the Spanish airspace by means of the actions planned at FAB level

21





INTERDEPENDENCIES

22

STARTING POINT

STARTING POINT Free Route Airspace Lisboa (FRAL): implemented since 2009 above FL245. Portugal – Spain Cross border boundary limit definition irrespective of national borders since 2012.

23

SW FAB FLIGHT EFFICIENCY PLAN

Flight efficiency improvement action plan – SW FAB The SW FAB flight efficiency improvement plan consists of several projects ranging from minor ATS route alignments to a large scale reorganization They are grouped in three main areas:

Free Route Airspace

Network Improvement

Civil Military Coordination

Lisboa – Madrid – Brest The aim is to extend Free Route Airspace from Lisboa FIR to North West Spain, towards the French coast to accommodate main traffic flows into the West Airspace Operational Block of the SW FAB airspace, creating one of the biggest Free Route Airspaces in the ECAC area

24

FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE

Free Route Airspace

25

FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE

FRA: Lisboa – Madrid - Brest → Step 1: improvement of the interface between Madrid and Brest FIRs

26

FREE ROUTE AIRSPACE

FRA: Lisboa – Madrid - Brest → Step 2: implementation of H24 Free Route Airspace in Santiago (SAN)

and Asturias (ASI) sectors, from FL245 to UNL (known as FRASAI)

→ Step 3: Free Route operations in Brest airspace as continuation of Free Route Airspace in SW FAB

27

NETWORK IMPROVEMENT

Several projects planned regarding SW FAB ATS route network redesign The route network improvements within the SOWEPP deal with lateral and vertical interconnectivity, including interconnectivity with SW FAB adjacent areas. There is a direct link with “European Network Improvement Plan”

Network Improvement

28

NETWORK IMPROVEMENT

Canarias TMA project Implementation of a new P‐RNAV based TMA in Canarias FIR TMA design will enhance current SID/STAR structure, enabling flights to operate close to user preferred trajectories

29

NETWORK IMPROVEMENT

SW FAB / Marseille FIR interface project Restructuration of this interface to allow a better flow organisation and transfer of traffic between the eastern part of the SW FAB airspace and FABEC

30

NETWORK IMPROVEMENT

SW FAB / Bordeaux interface project Restructuration of the interface between the Barcelona, Madrid and Bordeaux FIR/UIRs. Segregating major traffic flows and creating specialised ATC sectors, considering both civil and military airspace needs.

31

NETWORK IMPROVEMENT

Casablanca Dualisation project Split of ATS airways in the Lisboa‐Casablanca‐Canarias interface to accommodate main traffic flows between Europe and South Atlantic Region, including the Canary Islands.

32

NETWORK IMPROVEMENT

Madrid TMA project (OPTIMA) Design and implementation of a new P‐RNAV structure for Madrid TMA. Re‐organisation of Madrid approach sectors and implementation of independent parallel approaches.

Barcelona TMA project New P‐RNAV structure for Barcelona TMA including a re‐organisation of ATC sectors. New SID/STARs will be introduced in the Barcelona airport (LEBL) prior to the implementation of the P-RNAV structure.

33

NETWORK IMPROVEMENT

ATS Network improvements projects Implementation of short‐term improvements agreed by the Route Network Development Sub‐Group (RNDSG) which affect to SW FAB.

Faro TMA New CNS infrastructure to develop P-RNAV procedures Lisboa TMA Terminal area will be restructured taking advantage of P‐RNAV

34

CIVIL MILITARY COORDINATION

Includes a FUA optimisation projects Flight efficiency projects previously listed require civil-military coordination enhancements as already explained in their description. Consequently, civil-military coordination must not be seen in isolation, but as a fundamental part in the implementation of broader initiatives.

Civil Military Coordination

35

INTERDEPENDENCIES




INTERDEPENDENCIES

36

INTERDEPENDENCIES

Holdings Some inefficiency caused by the holdings in the terminal areas is currently being computed as en-route inefficiency.

40 NM

37

INTERDEPENDENCIES

Flight Efficiency vs Capacity → Actual trajectory modifications with respect to the filed flight plan,

(such as direct routing, etc) may cause overload in other sectors → It is considered as a good practice (to perform the actual trajectories as

adherent as possible to the last filed flight plan. This recommended practices are followed, in particular in Spain where there is a very similar level of inefficiency contribution to the KEA and KEP indicators

38

INTERDEPENDENCIES

Business choices Trade-offs between environment and cost-efficiency, are in many ways trade-offs made by the airspace users when looking for their better balance between the extra cost of fuel burnt, and the cost of route charges The consequences of this balance made by airlines for business strategic reasons, has an impact on the air navigation services provision

39

INTERDEPENDENCIES

Business choices – Example Traffic going from Europe to South America: recent traffic analysis reveals a decrease in the number of overflights in the Canary Islands airspace partly due to a deviation of the flights from the shortest routes between Europe and South America

Shortest routes Actual routes

40

INTERDEPENDENCIES

Economic benefits of flight efficiency Flight efficiency improvements, represent shorter flights and less fuel burnt. Consequently: cost savings for the airspace users. → Free Route Airspace Lisboa (FRAL) above flight level 245, implemented

since 7 May 2009, has enabled an annual reduction of 1,300,000 NM (miles), representing:

→ Fuel savings of more than 8,783 tons

→ An emission reduction of about 27 Kton of CO2

→ An estimated save of over 12 million Euros per year, for the airspace

users

41

Thank you very much!

1

Draft RP2 South West FAB Performance Plan

2015-2019 SOWEPP

(CONSULTATION DOCUMENT)

CAPACITY AENA

CONSULTATION MEETING 20 MAY 2014

2

CAPACITY. En-route ATFM delay per flight

RP1 RP2

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Capacity targets AENA

Spanish NPP RP1

NOP 2014-2018/19

SW FAB RP2

Spanish achievements in the performance area of capacity have been very significant during the first two years of RP1, with a 74% improvement in the en-route ATFM delay indicator in 2013 compared with 2011 values.

3

CAPACITY. Efforts carried out in SPAIN

This reduction in delays has been achieved together with other improvements obtained in additional indicators equally associated to quality of service, such as ASMA, which was reduced in 2013 by an average of 4% in the five main TMAs (10% in Madrid) and TAXI-OUT, which was reduced in 2013 by an average of 14% in the five airports with more traffic (30% in Palma).

ASMA (min/flight)

Airport 2012 2013 %

Madrid 0,82 0,74 -9,8%

Barcelona 1,44 1,29 -10,4%

Palma Mallorca 1,6 1,42 -11,3%

Málaga 0,72 0,74 2,8%

Gran Canaria 1,15 1,23 7,0%

TAXI-OUT (min/flight)

Airport 2012 2013 %

Madrid 4,37 3,85 -11,9%

Barcelona 4,67 4,36 -6,6%

Palma Mallorca 4,22 2,95 -30,1%

Málaga 2,26 2,31 2,2%

Gran Canaria 1,99 1,48 -25,6%

DATA PRB DATA PRB

4

CAPACITY. ACCs capacity plan

Next table shows the information extracted from the draft NOP 2014-2018/19 which is still in approval process.

5

Full

Im

ple

men

tati

on

SA

CTA

CF2

SAC

TA 3

.z5

.60

(A

GD

L)

SAC

TA 4

.1 (

ITEC

)

SWFA

B/F

AB

EDC

M

arse

lla In

terf

ace

, in

clu

din

g LU

MA

S

SWFA

B7

FAB

EC

Bo

rdea

ux

Inte

rfac

e

Inte

rfaz

Sev

illa/

C

asab

lan

ca

Safe

ty N

ets

A-C

DM

PR

NA

V T

MA

Barcelona ACC 2015 2016 2017

2014-2017

2014-2017

2014-2016

2016 2016-2019

Canarias ACC 2016 2017

2014-2016

2015-2017

Madrid ACC 2015 2016 2017

2014-2016

2014 2016

Palma ACC 2015 2016 2017

2014-2016

2015

Sevilla ACC 2015 2016 2017 2017

2014-2016

CAPACITY. ACCs capacity plan

DATA NOP

6

Lack of experience in this KPI target setting.

Issues with historic evolution recommend not to use it as the only reference. Need of deeper analysis at individual airport level.

The accomplishment of the target requires success in various areas through the participation of the different stakeholders involved.

Global target set as a function of the traffic forecast and the specific analyses carried out for each airport.

Target is aligned with other FAB plans.

CAPACITY. Terminal and Airport Targets

Capacidad ATC32%

Meteorologia33%

Capacidad Aeródromo

25%Resto ATC

3%

Resto Otras7%

MET 33%

ATC CAPACITY 32%

AERODROME CAPACITY

25% ATC OTHER

OTHER

7

Gran Canaria (GCLP): The number of approach sectors to be used will continue to be just one, with the possibility to use two sectors when necessary.

Barcelona (LEBL): The main capacity constraint is due to environmental issues, the structural and operational capacity of the airport has reached its limit with the current use of runways (parallel and segregated).

Flow Control measures will be taken in order to better balance traffic between two TMA sectors: T1 which is currently overloaded and T2, which has available capacity. Additionally, a new sector in Barcelona TMA will increase capacity to/from Barcelona (LEBL) by handling some of its flows and mainly by managing traffic to/from Girona (LEGE). ACDM (from 2016) will contribute to improving performance.

Madrid-Barajas (LEMD): The main project planned for the future is the implementation of independent simultaneous approaches to parallel runways.

Málaga (LEMG): The second runway will be used to satisfy demand when needed. Current approach sectors configurations are considered adequate.

Palma de Mallorca (LEPA): Current runway lay out is a major constraint to improvement. Nevertheless, several developments in the ATC system will contribute to better performance: 2015- DMAN & ACDM; 2016- AMAN.

CAPACITY. Terminal and airport ANS ATFM delay per flight


RP2 SOWEPP SW FAB USERS’ CONSULTATION DAY

20th May 2014

INAC

2

Portuguese Proposal for Cost-Efficiency – Lisbon FIR

3

CONTENT

• COST-EFFICIENCY TARGETS´S PROPOSAL • INVESTMENTS • COST OF CAPITAL • INTERDEPENDENCES – CAPACITY AND COST-EFFICIENCY • MAIN REMARKS • Q&A

4

COST-EFFICIENCY RP2

Portugal En-route Cost-Efficiency Targets 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Portugal Lisboa En-route

DUC


Nominal)

111.986 117.619 121.538 124.787 128.169



Real EUR 2012)

109.452 113.258 115.302 116.635 118.025



Portuguese proposal

5

Costs in EUR '000

Determined costs by nature

Cost details 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Detail by nature (in nominal terms)

Staff 80.546 83.448 86.515 88.957 90.445

Other operating costs (1) 23.429 23.702 23.985 24,.276 24.571

Depreciation 5.317 7.199 7.787 8.344 9.769

Cost of capital 2.694 3.271 3.251 3.211 3.384

Total costs 111.986 117.619 121.538 124.787 128.169

Total % n/n-1 5,0,% 3,3% 2,7% 2,7%

Staff % n/n-1 3,6% 3,7% 2,8% 1,7%

Other op. % n/n-1 1,2% 1,2% 1,2% 1,2%

Cost-efficiency KPI - Determined Unit Rate/Actual Unit Cost (in real terms)

Inflation % 1,20% 1,50% 1,50% 1,50% 1,50%

Price index 102,3 103,9 105,4 107,0 108,6

Total costs real terms 109.452 113.258 115.302 116.635 118.025

Total % n/n-1 3,5% 1,8% 1,2% 1,2% (1) Including EUROCONTROL costs

COST-EFFICIENCY RP2

6

COST-EFFICIENCY RP2

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Air Traffic Managment 67.835 70.694 73.740 73.793 75.389

Communication 8.630 10.517 10.560 10.065 10.216

Navigation 5.511 6.053 6.230 7.601 7.890

Surveillance 5.933 5.734 5.812 7.582 8.368

Search and Rescue 4.612 4.680 4.747 4.816 4.885

Aeronautical Information 5.017 5.180 5.350 5.486 5.568

Meteorological services 5.959 6.087 6.226 6.372 6.576

Supervision costs (NSA) 791 802 814 827 839

Other State Costs (EUROCONTROL) 7.699 7.872 8.057 8.246 8.438

Total costs 111.987 117.619 121.536 124.788 128.169

Total %n/n-1 5,03% 3,33% 2,68% 2,71%

ATM %n/n-1 4,21% 4,31% 0,07% 2,16%

CNS %n/n-1 11,1% 1,3% 11,7% 4,9%

Determined costs by service

(000’ euros)

7

Portuguese proposal vs EU wide targets

COST-EFFICIENCY RP2

49,26

32% over the period

33,57

63,71

23% over the period

49,10

25,00

35,00

45,00

55,00

65,00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

EUR

20

09

Lisboa DUC (low scenario) Union-wide DUC (low scenario)

8

INVESTMENTS

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sub-total of main CAPEX below (1) 8,7 16,3 9,9 7 11,8 53,7

1) LISATM V9.2 0,6 0,2 0,8

2) Lisbon ACC New System 7,4 4,5 1,7 6,5 20,1

3) Comunication systems 2,1 1,4 0,5 0,3 0,3 4,6

4) Navigation systems 1,6 1,4 1,9 3,6 8,5

5) NORMAW - Norte e Madeira WAM 2,6 2,6

6) Lisbon Terminal approach Radar replacement 0,5 2 2,4 4,9

7) SSR Mode S 0,4 3,8 0,3 2,7 1 8,2

8) Buildings and electromechanical systems 0,9 1,7 0,6 0,4 0,4 4

Sub-total other Capex (2) 0,1 0,3 0 0 0,1 0,5

Total CAPEX (1) + (2) 8,8 16,6 9,9 7 11,9 54,2

Name of Investment CAPEX Planned Amount of Capital Expenditures (in MEUR)

Total

CAPEX for

RP2

9

COST OF CAPITAL

Cost of Capital considered in Effective rates

2011 & 2012-2014 2015-2019 2011 2012 2013

re Return on Equity 7,56% 6,44% 15,33% 9,50% 8,29%

rd Average interest on debts 1,88% 0,45% 1,45% 0,94% 0,34%

L Financial leverage 14,1% 1,7% 15,1% 12,6% 10,1%

t Tax rate 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

WACC 6,76% 6,34% 13,24% 8,42% 7,49%

10

INTERDEPENDENCES – CAPACITY AND COST-EFFICIENCY

• The “capacity” and “cost-efficiency” KPI’s are closely related. • The recent changes in traffic flows have required the adoption of a “New

Capacity Plan”, whose main objectives are to meet the traffic demand and increase 3 movements per hour, avoiding a huge cost increase for airspace users;

• The “status quo” would lead to delays higher than 0,40 minutes per flight;

• According to the above mentioned plan, it will be possible to keep the delays at

0,20 minutes per flight, through the implementation of new operational procedures;

• A better capacity performance would require the opening of the 2 new sectors,

as well as hire new ATCO (more 28 hours per day).

11

MAIN REMARKS

• The Lisbon FIR en-route charges will remain lower than the average of European Union;

• Notwithstanding the recent changes in traffic flows, with implications in the

quality of services (delay), all efforts will be done in order to meet the demand without increasing costs and delays;

• Since 2009, the ANSP has been develloping all efforts in order to create more competitive advantages for its users. Until 2019, it is estimated that the costs will decrease by 32%, while the European average is 23%.

12

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.



Meeting Minutes

RP2 SOWEPP Consultation Process – Minutes of the meeting June 2014

Page 1

2015-2019 South West FAB Performance Plan Consultation Process

Minutes of the meeting

1 MEETING ARRANGEMENTS

Headquarters of the Spanish “Ministerio de Fomento” (Paseo de la Castellana, 67, Madrid, 3rd Floor,

Auditorium), Tuesday 20th of May of 2014, 10:00-16:00.

2 ATTENDANCE LIST

NAME ORGANIZATION

Paco J. Fernández APROCTA

Estrella Gutiérrez ANSMET/NSA-MET SPAIN

Antonio Corpa IBERIA

Ramón Montero ACETA

Ángeles Pozo IBERIA

Laurie O’Toole IATA

Pete Curran IATA

Javier Valdés IATA

Pilar Zuloaga IATA

Luis Castillo DGAC

Javier Martínez AENA

Jesús Romero AENA

Santi Cortés-Burns AENA

Elena Vega AENA

Afola Miranda NAV Portugal

Nuno Simoes NAV Portugal

Marifé Antón Spanish Air Force (support)

Francisco J. Moreno Spanish Air Force, Operations Division

Esperanza Herráiz AESA-DSATI

Raquel Sanz AESA-DSATI

María Da Luz Antonio INAC Portugal

Pablo Hernández-Coronado AESA-DSATI

Ana Gómez-Pineda AESA-DSANA

David Nieto AESA-DSANA

Juan Roca Ryanair

Eduardo Abia AESA-DSANA (SENASA)

Mª Isabel Izquierdo AESA-DSANA (SENASA)

Pablo Olmeda ALA

Cristina Montero AENA AEROPUERTOS

Ricardo López AESA

Emiliano C. Morona AENA


Page 2

NAME ORGANIZATION

Carmen Ferreirós AENA

Carlos Oliver AESA (ISDEFE)

Mª Victoria Arin AESA

Leandro Calvo AESA

Paloma Arriaga AEMET

Sergio García AEMET

José Antonio Fernández AEMET

3 AGENDA

10:00-10:15 Introduction

10:15-11:00 Safety Targets and plans associated to:

Level of EoSM

Application of the RAT methodology

Just Culture

11:00-11:45 Environment Targets and plans associated to:

Horizontal en route flight efficiency (KEA)

11:45-12:30 En route Capacity:

Traffic forecast At SW FAB, Portugal and Spain levels, targets, reference values and plans associated to:

En route ATFM delay per flight

Incentive Scheme

12:30-13:30 Break

13:30-14:15 Terminal Capacity

Traffic forecast Portugal and Spain targets and plans associated to:

Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight

14:15-15:00 En route Cost-Efficiency




Investments

15:00-15:45 Terminal Cost-Efficiency




Investments

15:45-16:00 Any other issues


Page 3

4 SUMMARY

David Nieto from AESA welcomed all participants in the meeting room. No comments were made to the agenda. The

SOWEPP was then presented to the audience.

4.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE SOWEPP

AESA-DSANA initiated the SOWEPP presentation by introducing the regulatory framework and clarifying that

according to that only those Spanish airports of more than 70,000 movements have been included in the plan. INAC

explained that for cost-efficiency matters, all airports have been included. Therefore, Azores and Madeira

airports have been included in the common scheme, which makes the scheme cheaper.

Comment #1. IATA: We have had cost-efficiency meetings with all the States who have asked to us to

participate (i.e. Germany, France).

4.2 SAFETY ISSUES

AESA-DSATI presented this safety part. According to ICAO, in 2013 the achieved figure of passenger

fatalities per 100,000 flights worldwide was of 0.1. Therefore, safety is of paramount importance. It is

important to note that the SW FAB is the gateway to Europe from the SW. Therefore, it manages a

considerable number of flights throughout the year and safety is a paramount area.

Concerning the level of EoSM, the proposed SW FAB targets at NSA level is to reach level C by 2019,

according to the European-wide target. Nevertheless, at ANSP level the proposed SW FAB target of level D

for all MOs go beyond the European-wide targets (level C for safety culture MO and level D for all other

MOs). Concerning the NSAs (ESA and INAC), both will focus on the areas in which they have lower

performance levels to reach level C of maturity by 2019. According to the safety plans of Aena and NAV

Portugal, it will be possible to achieve level D in all management objectives by 2019.

With respect to the application of RAT methodology to separation minima infringements (SMIs), runway

incursions (RIs) and ATM-specific occurrences (ATM-S) both in terms of ground an overall score, the

proposed targets in the SOWEPP are consistent with the EU-wide targets (80% by 2017 and 100% by 2019

for ground score and for the overall score: 80% of SMIs and RIs by 2019 as well as 80% of ATM-S by 2017,

100% of ATM-S by 2019). Aena and INAC will work together during RP2 in order to identify common areas

for potential improvements towards the establishment of a common SW FAB just culture approach.

Comment #2. IATA: asked whether the SW FAB has an overall safety policy and the SW FAB is working on

a common safety policy and material.

AESA-DSATI explained that both authorities and providers are working to develop a common safety policy

and training material for the SW FAB. AESA-DSANA then added that a common safety policy is one of the

priorities of the NSA groups, and a common safety policy is expected to be finalised by the end of this year.


Page 4

Comment #3. IATA: asked whether the NSAs plan to share this policy with the users. IATA wants to see a

real collaboration as there is the impression that AENA and NAV Portugal are experiencing different

evolutions which evidences that there is not a lot of cooperation and sharing of practices (two-state

operations approach). They want to check that the strategy is at the right point and make a follow-up.

AESA-DSANA then replied that they are developing common inspection procedures and framework as well

as common safety oversight activities. There is an effort to join teams and facilities.

Comment #4. IATA: asked whether they plan to do more with fewer resources or just do better work with

the same resources. Any resource savings?

AESA-DSANA replied that they expect to exploit synergies to take full advantage of both partners. The

obligation as an NSA is to have adequate resources in place and number. The intention is to have a robust

plan and exploit synergies. The challenge is to save effort. Nevertheless, from an NSA perspective, the SW

FAB has developed a FAB Operational Plan under the remits of the SW FAB Committee. This is already

considered an improvement.

Comment #5. IATA: What is the practical implication? Cost savings?

AESA-DSATI commented that the operational changes specified in the FAB Operational Plan have been

assessed as a joint team. The practical implication of this activity is the enhancement of safety levels.

Comment #6. IATA: According to the information provided, Portugal NSA plans to be in level B until 2018

and then achieve level C in 2019. They will appreciate more information about the safety plans.

AESA-DSATI replied that there is a plan. There are only four questions in which we are at level B. The main

points are: Implementation of QMS, best practices sharing, common safety policy and safety culture

methodology to be applied not only on ANSPs but providers as well.

INAC added that Portugal expects to achieve level C before the end of 2019. Nevertheless, they are going

through an internal reorganization process of the authority to become more independent. They expect

therefore to require more facilities and staff to undertake these activities. Nowadays they are still studying

some common policies to save costs concerning training and the implementation of procedures.

Comment #7. IATA: They would like to have the number of questions under level C, more quantitative

information. They still see a gap between level C and D and they need more information to better

understand if this target is ambitious or not. The document explains these values qualitatively but they

want to have some quantitative information on this respect.

AESA-DSATI explained that a procedure has been approved trying to achieve level C in order to promote

safety. They are also developing a safety culture methodology. It is also important to note that AESA only

applies RAT to SMIs and RIs from categories A, B and C and for ATM-S, RAT is applied to SMIs and RIs from

categories AA,A, B and C.

Comment #8. IATA: It seems that there are two different speeds in the FAB when looking at the targets for

AENA and INAC regarding the RAT. Is there any practice sharing within the FAB?

INAC comments that it is not 0% in 2015 and 2016, they are working to introduce values for these years in

the final plan. The operators still need to check the values.


Page 5

Comment #9. IATA: insisted that it is clear for them that there is not a common FAB plan, but two plans

one for Spain and another for Portugal. It seems not to be optimized in terms of resources and activities.

Portugal then explained that the SW FAB is working in developing common procedures.

4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

AESA-DSANA introduces the environmental KPI (KEA) and explains the differences with respect to RP1. In

RP1 the KPI was defined as the average horizontal en-route flight efficiency indicator, estimated from the

difference between the actual trajectory versus de great circle distance, where the actual trajectory is

calculated on the basis of the Filed Tactical Flight Model (FTFM) or the last filed flight plan. The target was

set at European Network level only. For RP2, the KPI is defined as the average en-route flight efficiency of

the actual trajectory, estimated using as well the actual trajectory. However, this actual trajectory is

calculated on the basis of radar data or actual trajectories. The EU-wide target is to reach an average of

horizontal en-route flight efficiency of the actual trajectory at least 2.6% in 2019. All FABs have to

contribute to the achievement of this target.

The Network Manager has provided reference values for all the FABs. In the case of the SW FAB, it is

proposed an improvement of 0.99 points in the target from 2012 to 2019. The proposed KEA values for the

SW FAB are then the following: for 2012: 4.27%, for 2015: 3.85%, for 2016: 3.71%, for 2017: 3.57%, for 2018:

3.43% and for 2019: 3.28%.

Comment #10. Iberia: Why is there no improvement for 2014?

AESA-DSANA explained that this value has not yet being estimated for 2014.This value corresponds to RP1.

Comment #11. ACETA: is there any reference value before 2012? This is a new indicator which has not been

estimated before.

AESA-DSANA explained that there is no experience on this indicator and AESA has already expressed its

concerns concerning this target due to the fact that it is not possible to make any estimation from previous

periods.

AESA-DSANA continued explaining that the SW FAB targets are challenging but acceptable in view of

current performance and the action plans in place. The starting point is the Free Route Airspace Lisboa

(FRAL) implemented since 2009 above FL245 and the definition of the Portugal-Spain cross-border

boundary limit. The SW FAB flight efficiency improvement plan consists of several projects ranging from

minor ATS route alignments to large scale reorganization.

The Free Route Airspace initiative includes the following projects:

Lisboa-Madrid-Brest project: extension of the Free Route Airspace from Lisboa FIR to North West

Spain towards the French coast. This project consists in 3 steps. Step 1: improvement of the

interface between Madrid and Brest FIRs. Step 2: implementation of H24 Free Route Airspace in


Page 6

Santiago and Asturias sectors from FL245 to INL. Step 3: Free Route operations in Brest airspace as

continuation of Free Route Airspace in SW FAB.

Comment #12. IATA: It is always good to achieve the reference values. What is the timing for steps 1 to 3?

AESA-DSANA replied that the overall project is expected to be implemented in 2018. Nevertheless not all

the activities will be implemented at the same time. On one hand, step 2 – FRASAI is already implemented

since May 2014. On the other hand, step 1 is expected to be implemented in 2015, according to the NOP.

AESA-DSANA then proposed to provide more detailed information on these activities in the performance

plan in reply to IATA’s request. IATA insisted that the evolution of the activities in the performance plan is

not clear to them.

Comment #13. IATA: Have you undertaken any cost-benefit analysis on this project? What is the magnitude

of the investment on this project?

AENA replied that they don´t have that information at the moment, they need to ask internally for more

information on investments.

The presentation continued with the proposed network improvement initiatives. Several projects are

planned regarding SW FAB ATS route network redesign (Canarias TMA, Madrid TMa, Barcelona TMA, etc)

and the interconnectivity with SW FAB adjacent areas (SW FAB/Marseille FIR interface project, Casablanca

dualisation project). These activities have a direct link with the “European Network Improvement Plan”.

Regarding the he civil and military coordination activities, they are a fundamental part in the

implementation of all the previously related initiatives and cannot be treated in isolation.

Comment #14. IATA: they noted that the interface problems created with the military and the French

airspace. Is there any use of FUA?

AESA-DSANA commented that military issues need to be addressed more in depth.

Comment #15. IATA: Any plan of free routes below FL245?

According to the PCP proposal, free route above FL310 throughout Europe will be required for the next

year.

AESA-DSANA explained that what it is stated in the SW FAB plan is solid and consistent with the European

Route Network Plan.

Aena also commented that the plan includes what can be reasonably achieved. For instance, Aena is

working on the extension of free routes in Canarias but this information is not included in the plan as it is not

possible to do it in the way they would like to do it. It is also important to note that Aena is not the sole actor

in this play. Furthermore, they have to cope with big inefficiencies in the Spanish airspace structure, which

gives a lot of room for improvement. In addition, it is difficult to quantitatively assess the effect of the

proposed measures and the initiatives in place.

NAV Portugal added in this respect that the only way to improve efficiency is to review the route structure

and extend the free routes.


Page 7

The Spanish DGAC clarified that during the last SES Committee the PCP proposal included in the annex was

not approved. Therefore, the future of the PCP annex remains open as Member States have expressed their

concerns regarding its implementation. The annex of the PCP can then be subject of local revision in the

coming future.

To finalize with the discussion, IATA wondered whether we want confidence on the regulations.

Concerning interdependencies in the case of the environmental indicators, the presentation continued with

a list of identified causes of inefficiencies: holdings in the terminal areas, actual trajectory modifications

with respect to the filed flight plan, business choices by which airspace users make a choice between the

extra cost of fuel burnt that a selection of an alternative route might imply and the difference in the cost of

route charges (example: traffic from Europe to South America).

Comment #16. IATA: In relation to the business choices and more precisely the example of routes through

Canarias, wind is also an important factor apart from the route charges.

Comment #17. ACETA: In relation to the environmental target. This target is linked to the first SES

objectives. ACETA would like this target to be more ambitious, between 2.60 and 2.28 from now to 2019.

ACETA does not have technical information available but they really want to have a lower target more

aligned with the SES objectives. Regarding the Atlantic routes, ACETA considers that a technical solution at

FAB level should be found. Refuse the provision of direct routing is also affecting this environmental

parameter. This way of operating is in place in Spain since 2 or 3 years ago.

AESA then commented that we are the worst FAB in terms of performance right now. Hence this FAB has

to improve the most because of structural problems. When looking at the required improvement to achieve

it is a different story. The Network Manager has agreed with the proposed values and considers they are

valid to achieve the target. Indeed, the deviation of some specific routes can be solved at FAB level.

Concerning direct routing, the scarce provision of these direct routings causes inevitably inefficiencies that

are captured by this environmental indicator. Anyway, it is important to note that the Network Manager

also provides indications that are against this indicator.

Comment #18. IATA: there seems to be a lot of projects in place, how are they going to be managed? Do

you expect to increase the number of controllers? IATA’s assumption is that there is operational capacity in

the system to be explored and they are therefore interested in the business cases.

AENA explained that they are carrying out an intense training program within the company. The free route

initiative in Asturias is a big challenge for the company and they have identified that additional training is

required. Operationally-related capacity initiatives will not be directly translated into extra resources. This is

not what they plan to provide.

4.4 CAPACITY ISSUES

As an introduction, it is explained to the audience that the SOWEPP flight forecast for RP2 is consistent

with the STATFOR forecast for the LOW scenario as of February 2014.


Page 8

Concerning the en-route ATFM delay, AENA introduced the AENA targets. AENA target of 0.48 min of en-

route ATFM delay per flight is below the delay forecast of the NOP 2014-2019. Nevertheless, historically

AENA has always over-performed their targets.

Comment #19. IATA: Asks for the delay forecast of 2.1 for 2019 in the NOP.

AENA explains that in that version of the NOP were plans independent from capacity. Aena has then

thoroughly reviewed these figures in the NOP and gone through the interdependencies with other KPAs.

An updated version will be published by the end of June by the Network Manager. This version of the NOP

has been approved in the NETOPS.

Comment #20. IATA: the FAB reference value remains in 0.30?

AENA answered positively. Anyway this value was introduced in October 2013. AENA is putting priority on

the costs area.

AENA continued with the capacity plan included in the NOP. The Portuguese information has still to be

included. Additional details on the operational and technical measures for the Spanish NSA were provided.

NAV Portugal complemented this presentation by announcing a target of 0.2 for Portugal over the

reference period. This is above the reference value provided by the PRB. Nevertheless, it is important to

note that since February they have been provided with a new traffic forecast. The traffic increased 6% in

2013, which was not expected and now they foresee a 3% traffic improvement in 2015. They have asked to

the Network Manager for an update of the NOP, considering different scenarios (opening of two new

sectors, optimize resources, improve procedures) to deal with the issue of this changing traffic and maintain

the 0,2 min of en-route ATFM delay/flight over the period. To meet this target, they have identified that

they need to increase costs and improve operations in the critical areas. Otherwise, if nothing is done, the

forecast delay is over 0.80 by 2019.

Comment #21. IATA: Differences between the last version of the NOP and current draft are all related to

traffic? What are the reasons?

AENA replied that major changes in the NOP are not related to traffic. Major changes are due to the

required number of new sectors to be opened according to the new version, when compared to the closure

of some sectors as depicted in the previous version of the plan. In any case, it is important to note that

service providers provide information (plans, projects) to the Network Manager and they include all this

information in the machine and come up with a figure of the service level of quality. However, after the first

version of the plan, they have also understood that it is not all about the methodology.

Comment #22. IATA: Do you still feel comfortable with the STATFOR LOW scenario forecast? Traffic is

growing above low scenario right now. Is the consequence in terms of traffic risk-sharing being considered?

AESA-DSANA intervened to clarify that this point is commonly shared and they support IATA’s concerns.

The situation is stable neither for Spain nor for Portugal. We are not sure whether the traffic forecast might

considerably change.


Page 9

Comment #23. IATA: What about the contribution to the EU-wide targets? Targets would be met with the

reference value of 0.30 min of en-route ATFM delay per flight, but not with the proposed value of 0.52 min

of en-route ATFM delay per flight. It is difficult for them to support this value. Is it a question of additional

investment? It would be healthy to take a look at different scenarios: costs versus capacity. Looking for

different options, IATA acknowledges the fact that there are many projects and they will appreciate to have

more conversations on what solutions could be, particularly when missing the targets.

AESA-DSANA replied that there are additional scenarios to be considered to that of reducing costs versus

capacity. Airlines have expressed their interest to participate more. To that respect, Aena commented that

it would be healthy to engage users in the ANPS projects’ decision making process. Today there is a

meeting of the SW FAB Operational Board with the users with the aim at checking on whether the

proposed projects are those that the airlines want. This forum with the airlines will be more focused in

operational aspects rather than costs. AESA-DSANA suggested to AENA to extend the invitation to IATA.

AENA thinks that they have been already invited but they will check the list of invitees. AENA finally

commented in reference to the value that the reference values are figures delivered by a machine, while the

proposed values are something solid.

Comment #24. IATA: comments that this fact does not change the situation. Nevertheless, sticking to these

activities and initiatives is the best possible scenario.

4.4.1 INCENTIVE SCHEME

The SOWEPP incentive mechanism for en-route capacity is applied at FAB level. The proposed incentive

formula is a symmetrical linear function with a dead-band. Therefore, bonuses are awarded for

achievement of performance which goes beyond the target. Only the ANSPs that have achieved their

individual reference value are awarded a bonus. And only the ANSPs that have not met their reference

value are penalized.

Comment #25. IATA: commented that this scheme is new for them. They found prudent not to go up to 1%

for the maximum value. In fact, they would prefer to go lower than 1%. In terms of the symmetrical nature

of the function, they requested to look at the scheme more carefully and consider other options before

taking a final decision. Other FABs are taking other approaches. They consider a best practice to apply just

penalties.

AESA-DSANA comments that a final decision has not yet be taken. We are trying to find common points

between NAV Portugal and Aena.

NAV Portugal intervened afterwards to express their agreement with the proposed model. However, their

views with respect to AENA were slightly different in some aspects. They haven’t agreed on the parameters

of the linear function yet. For instance, they did not foresee to reach the maximum value of 1% of income.

They proposed instead a value for the maximum value of 0.75%. Their aim was to have a fair incentive

scheme.

AESA acknowledged the preference of airlines for non-symmetrical functions. Discussions are still ongoing

regarding questions like dead-band or not, range for the maximum value, etc.


Page 10

Comment #26. IATA: added that probably the most important thing to do in the scheme is to take the

target at the most appropriate level with very small percentage of revenues, something that will make

sense. The maximum or minimun level of bonus/penalty is not that important particularly considering the

lack of experience. With regard to the gradient, they needed to think more on what sort of gradient they

would prefer. In any case, they could illustrate us on this because they have some ideas. Obviously, they

would expect penalties to come faster than bonuses.

Comment #27. IATA OT: considered that they are already paying for the service. The incentive is for

improving the facilities and services that users are already paying for.

AESA-DSANA expressed their support to the symmetrical model, they consider it is a good model. NAV

Portugal also stated that, in their opinion, the symmetric model is the fairest and more balanced model. In

their view, the open issue is to set the appropriate parameters.

Comment #28. IATA: added that the UK has a scheme which was implemented years ago. They

recommend learning from that. This scheme has evolved from a symmetric to a non symmetric model

based on the experience.

4.4.2 TERMINAL CAPACITY

AENA presented the capacity KPI for terminal and airports. This is a new KPI and there is no experience in

setting up this type of target. There is need of a depth analysis at individual airport level to account not only

for historical evolution. The aggregated proposed target is of 0.8 min of delay per arrival flight for each year

of the period. In addition to that, specific targets for the selected airports (Gran Canaria, Barcelona, Madrid-

Barajas, Málaga and Palma de Mallorca) are provided. These targets are aligned with the targets proposed

in other FAB plans. Finally, the characteristics and local initiatives to improve terminal capacity on each of

the selected airports were explained.

INAC explained that they have not provided yet the figures for Portugal because they have identified

differences in the airport information, which needs to be clarified.

NAV Portugal added to this information that they have a list of 9 airports included in the terminal zone, of

which 5 of those airports are located in the FIR. They have estimated the amount of delays from historical

data for the period 2006 to 2012. Four of them have shown a delay of 0 min/arrival flight (Azores). The other

5 remaining airports consist in 3 airports located in the mainland and 2 airports in Madeira. According to the

historical analysis results, the Porto airport has shown to experience the highest weather constraints

(between 0.6 to 0.7 min/arrival flight). Lisbon airport, on its side, experienced the highest capacity

constraints (between 0.4 to 0.55 min/arrival flight). For RP2, no increase in the delay estimation is foreseen

for these two airports. In the forthcoming days, they expect to provide and distribute precise figures.

Preliminary, they have estimated a global terminal KPI figure of 0.55 min/arrival flight.

Comment #29. IATA: Considering that the deadline for providing comments is the 3rd of June, they would

like to receive the data as soon as possible.


Page 11

NAV Portugal committed to distribute the values by Friday.

AESA-DSANA requested to NAV Portugal to circulate the figures directly to AESA, IATA and the

Commission.

Comment #30. IATA: This is the first time that this target is established. It would be useful to understand

the historical performance of the airports. Are the figures limited to ATC Capacity?

AENA replied that historical data is not homogenous throughout the years. Besides, there is not enough

experience. These targets are estimated making use of the traffic forecast and an analysis tool introduced

by EUROCONTROL. Concerning ATC Capacity, only 32% in average of this parameter is due to that cause.

They have chosen a simple approach, a constant value throughout the period addressing all causes.

Comment #31. IATA: Is there any ambition in Madrid and Barcelona? We would appreciate an improvement

in the efficiency level.

AENA explained that the environmental issues limit any potential progress at airports. In fact, they find the

targets to be quite challenging. In Barcelona, there has been a substantial increase in the traffic compared

with the traffic forecast for next years. They are also planning to deploy A-CDM in Barcelona by 2016. In the

case of Madrid, as they mentioned before in the environmental part, they have plans to improve the TMA

operations. The objective is to operate with independent parallel runway approaches instead of current

segregated runway approaches. The proposed targets are both achievable and challenging.

Comment #32. IATA: Is Madrid currently performing better than Barcelona?

AENA explained that Barcelona airport performed better than Madrid airport last year, but from the ATC

point of view it is more difficult to improve capacity. IATA commented that they will have to look to

historical data and come back with more questions.

Comment #33. ACETA: commented on the 0.48 target compared to the 0.41 actual value achieved in 2013.

They consider that the target should not be worse than the 2013 value. Regarding the terminal target,

taking out from the estimation those years that showed bad performance, they obtain an average value of

0.58 min/arrival flight. In relation to the incentive scheme, the bonus and penalties should be applied to

both the ANSP and the user. It is important to note that a non ambitious target leads to easy bonuses as

well as stringent targets lead to imminent penalties.

AESA-DSANA then proposed to establish the following mechanism to consult airlines. It is clear that

forecast traffic was not realistic for airports. [Action 01:]It is then proposed to circulate historical

information (by tomorrow) so airlines will be able to comment on performance.

4.5 COST-EFFICIENCY

Regarding cost-efficiency, the Performance Regulation requires that the target for en-route cost-efficiency

for en-route services is expressed in terms of the determined unit costs, at charging zone level and in local

currency. There are three en-route charging zones within the SW FAB: Portugal Lisboa, Spain Canarias and

Spain Continental. The EU-wide en-route cost-efficiency targets are set to provide a reduction in

determined unit costs by 3.3.% per year over RP2: from 65.64 Real (EUR2009) en-route DUC in 2015 to 49.10


Page 12

Real (EUR2009) en-route DUC in 2019. In the SOWEPP, the en-route service unit variation for the RP2 period

has been selected in consistency with the STATFOR forecast LOW scenario as of February 2014.

This presentation continued with the detailed information provided by INAC on cost-efficiency followed by

AENA.

4.5.1 COST-EFFICIENCY PORTUGAL

INAC presented the cost-efficiency part of the plan for all the accountable entities. Staff costs were

increased to consider a 2% salary upgrade. The total CAPEX for RP2 was of 54 MEUR. The cost of capital

was considered on the base of a low average interest on debts (lower than 1% according to the

recommendations) for RP2.

The Portuguese DUC is always lower than the European average throughout RP2 and is reduced at a higher

pace.

There are different interdependencies between meeting traffic demand or increase the number of

movements (3 movements per hour), between increasing delays or implementing new operational

procedures, between capacity (decrease delay) and cost-efficiency (change sectors and increase resources).

What is better? A higher delay with lower costs, or the opposite? Their preferred option is to choose a

balanced approach. The Portuguese proposal is a compromise between cost-efficiency and capacity

targets. Taking that into account, not implementing free routes in all the airspace is a good proposal for

them.

Comment #34. IATA: the SOWEPP is not presented in line with the PRB template. The targets are set in

terms of 3.3% yearly reduction of the DUC, and Portugal is actually increasing them by 1.3%. It seems, when

looking at the tables that the ANSPs costs are increasing at a 12%. The SOWEPP has the highest ATCO

employment costs, and a low productivity. ANSPs staff costs are still not good in average, so raising them is

not reasonable. The government should put more measures.

INAC answered that they have discussed the capping of staff costs. Nevertheless, costs are not only driven

by wages. There are costs that do not entirely depend on NAV Portugal. Some of them stem from decisions

issued by the Portuguese Government. For example the increase in the social security and pension costs.

They are working to control the variation of these costs.

Comment #35. IATA: expressed that it is still very difficult for them to accept that ANSPs cannot address

staff costs. ANSPs have to adapt and take measures as others do. They did recognize that great

improvements were made in the past. Nonetheless, they were mainly due to Governmental decisions. Many

people were losing their jobs nowadays in the airlines. Therefore, it was not acceptable for them to hear

that nothing else can be done.

INAC replied that they were considering the scenario of decreasing costs. Nevertheless, staff costs can only

be lowered by reducing staff hours, and that would have an impact on delays and capacity.


Page 13

NAV Portugal added that operating costs have been discussed. They have worked to incorporate what the

users suggested in a previous consultation in Lisbon (career progression is frozen, risk reduction, etc). No

further improvement is possible.

Comment #36. IATA: All SAR and supervision costs in Portugal are allocated to en-route? They considered

that this is not a fair cost allocation.

INAC replied affirmatively.

Comment #37. IATA: ICAO fair cost allocation states that around 20% should be allocated to the terminal

part. Is INAC looking at that?

INAC clarified that the TNC in Portugal only covers the provision of ANS. IMAC and MET provider costs are

not included in the terminal database costs.

4.5.2 COST-EFFICIENCY SPAIN

AESA-DSAPU explained that the unit rate and costs are frozen in RP2. Therefore few internal adjustments

and corrections have been made. A minor correction relates to the 2013-2014 actual military costs, which

have been updated. In addition to that, a 10 MEUR reduction of terminal MET costs has been applied. It is

important to note that we are still recovering from the situation caused by the important deviations

experienced between reality and what was planned in RP1 NPP. In AESA’s view, Spanish targets are more

than compliant with the EU-wide targets. Those targets imply an RP2 cost reduction over the EU target of -

230M€ for Spain continent and -17 M€ for Canary islands. In addition, the real en-route DUC experiences an

average yearly improvement of -4.7% for Spain continental and -3.7% for Spain Canarias within the two

reference periods (2009 -2019).

Comment #38. IATA: Spain is key for IATA. As for Portugal, they recognize the great improvements made

in the past, even prior to RP1. The fact is that when only looking at the RP2 targets in isolation, the values

are not that good. The result of that is that only a 1.8% per annum per determined costs improvement will

be achieved in RP2, way below the target of 3.3% improvement of the EU-wide targets. Airlines are still in a

very fragile situation. They appreciate what has been done. However, can we have more than the EU-wide

target?

AESA replied that the economic situation of the airlines is supervised periodically. Hence, we are not

disconnected from the problems of the airlines. Maybe at the end of RP2 we will be in a better position to

go further on cost-efficiency issues. In the case of Spain, the scheme is not working very well, because there

are important differences between the traffic forecast and the real traffic as shown during RP1, this problem

also applies to the costs.

AENA’s CAPEX Plan for RP2 was also presented. The CAPEX table includes information on short-term

improvements, specific projects, project facilitators as well as other CAPEX investments. Contribution of

CAPEX to the European ATM Master Plan deployment corresponds to a 66% of the total investments

planned for RP2.


Page 14

Comment #39. IATA: They would like that the PCP costs are identified in isolation with respect to other

project costs. PCP costs were discussed in the last CEF consultation.

AENA replied that the PCP has not yet reached full maturity. Some of the investments make sense from the

PCP point of view. Nevertheless, all the provided information on investments relate to operational

improvements. It is important to note that only 10% of the PCP-related costs are addressing ATM related

activities. The ATM MP is the basis for the investment scheme of AENA, which includes additional

investments to that proposed in the PCP: validation activities, large scale exercises, training, etc.

Comment #40. IATA: The PRB template requests the total percentage of PCP costs. PCP OPEX can also be

included in the template. We would just like to know how much we are paying for PCP. What is the potential

self-funding? The template has to be populated.

AENA answered that they will populate the PCP line when required. The PCP is going ahead of reality right

now. In addition, no other ANSPs are including this information.

Comment #41. IATA: There is a lot of maturity in the PCP decision making process. They just noted some

difficulties to understand the CAPEX information. How is cost-effectiveness identified?

AENA noted IATA’s point and highlighted that the ANSP business plan is robust as well. It took five years to

generate the investment plan. They will do their best with respect to PCP and the related activities to

master their investment plan. However, it is important to note that the PCP is asking for more time to get

the full picture.

Comment #42. IATA OT: expressed their feeling that we are too cautious with regards to traffic. A more

ambitious traffic forecast could have a positive impact on cost-efficiency targets. They also found the

Canaries unit rate too high, considering in particular that there is a large portion of oceanic airspace. The

unit rate in the Canaries seems to mirror that one for the Continent. The Canaries unit rate is even higher

than the unit rates for other Eurocontrol areas. They would expect more costs to be allocated to the

Continental unit rate. In the end, that would mean more flights will cross the Canarian airspace.

AENA explained that the evolution of the Canaries and Continental costs are very similar because costs

evolve the same way, in particular staff. It is a political issue.

AESA-DSANA added that they were trying to follow the business forecasts provided by AENA. AENA is still

with debts. Anyhow, if traffic increases above forecast values, users should be paid. Eventually, the traffic

forecasts for RP2 will be reviewed by 2016. This is a lesson learnt from RP1 where a lot of deviations were

provided regarding the predictions included in the RP1 plan.

Comment #43. ACETA: considered that the DUC targets are high: in Spain Continental the proposed values

of 68.55 in 2015 as well as of 63.83 in 2019 are 21% and 30% higher than the EU-wide real en-route DUC for

2015 and 2019 respectively.

NAV then answered that they have selected the STATFOR forecasts for the LOW scenario for this reason as

well as Spain. The ANSP is losing money due to RP1 assumptions based on the STATFOR forecasts for the

BASE scenario. It is important to note that the STATFOR forecasts for the LOW scenario foresee great

traffic increases in 2015, which they consider unrealistic. According to their forecasts, until 2019 the traffic

levels experienced before 2014 will not be recovered.


Page 15

The DGAC intervened to explain that a mid-term review of the targets and the traffic forecast has been

proposed.

Comment #44. IATA: asked how this will impact on the DUC. Will this represent a benefit?

DGAC expressed his positive opinion. The European Commission seems to support the revision of the whole

scheme in the middle of RP2.

Comment #45. IATA: thanked for the organization of this meeting and requested to upload the

documentation into the website.

[Action 02:] Upload the presentations into the website.



Stakeholders’ Written Comments

26 April 2013 Appendix

General remarks

Overall comments

FAB level

The SW-FAB draft performance plan is not in line with the PRB draft PP template.

Macro-economic

Overall comments

FAB level

Portugal and Spain inflation figures are aligned with the latest IMF inflation forecast (with the exception of the year 2016: Spain forecast a 0.69% inflation rate while the IMF forecasts 0.90%).

Traffic

Overall comments FAB level

Both Portugal and Spain are using the STATFOR low scenario in their en route traffic forecast. It is believed that traffic increase will be more aligned with the STATFORr base scenario, especially considering the growth in GDP rates in both countries (which will have a multiplier effect on air traffic growth in return). In such a situation, Portugal and Spain are required to provide a sound justification on the choice of the low scenario or to adjust traffic assumptions upward.

Safety


We appreciate that SW-FAB proposes to achieve safety targets in line with the EU-wide targets. The overall approach to safety is considered to be lacking a FAB perspective. There is no overall strategy and progression between the entities is at differing rates suggesting little best practice/resource sharing. The activities to support progression towards achieving the targets by 2019 are in some cases unclear. In particular, INAC provides very limited information on how targets will be achieved. The approach to OVERALL application of the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology is a concern given the current levels of performance are considerably far from the target in the case of Spain and in the case of Portugal its appears the current performance level is not known.

Environment


We appreciate that the SW-FAB horizontal en route flight efficiency targets are in line with the FAB reference values proposed by the Network Manager. The current levels of horizontal en route flight efficiency within SW-FAB are relatively poor compared with other FABs. We therefore see considerable improvement possibilities, in particular across Spanish airspace. Given the planned activities to address the KPI, we believe an even better level of horizontal en route flight efficiency is achievable and encourage SW-FAB to expedite deployment of FRA across Spanish airspace.

Capacity target & Incentive

Overall comments on FAB level

SW-FAB, Spain and Portugal en route ATFM delay per flight targets do not meet the FAB reference values by a considerable margin in any year of RP2. Additionally, we note that the NetOps assessment of SW-FAB planned capacity performance is considerably worse than the already poor proposed target. Additional effort to meet the target is required especially considering that the STATFOR low-case scenario for traffic evolution has been applied which we consider to be overly pessimistic. The Performance Regulation requires that terminal and airport capacity targets are set at national level with a breakdown at airport level for monitoring purposes. Spain has proposed to establish such a scheme; however there is no scheme proposed for Portugal. For Spain, the approach to establishing a local terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight is unclear. There is no documented rationale for the proposed target of 0.8 min/flight. Given the relatively low levels of delay experienced during 2013 and considering that the STATFOR low-case scenario for traffic evolution has been applied, the proposed Spanish target is lacking ambition. Additionally, the considerable capacity improvement actions planned during RP2 should deliver better performance and therefore encourage the setting of more ambitious targets. On the incentive scheme, we consider that the maximum bonus/penalty should be limited to a smaller amount than 1% of revenues during RP2 as this scheme is relatively immature. We would suggest not more than 0.5% be considered. In terms of the design of the scheme, we request the application of an asymmetric dead band, whereby a bonus is relatively more difficult to achieve than a penalty. We believe that this approach to be more equitable since the airspace users are already funding the capital and operational capabilities to deliver any level of service and further, that the impact of delay on airspace users carries significantly greater costs in terms of fuel and network impact whereas there is no additional impact on ANSPs.

Cost efficiency En-route

Overall comments FAB

level

The information is not presented as per the PRB template. As a result, it is believed that the information presented in the report (and the related comments) are missing the most important element: the RP2 Union-wide reduction targets are not met.

Portugal proposed

targets

(in MEUR 2012 real terms) 2015 (D) 2016 (D) 2017 (D) 2018 (D) 2019 (D)

Determined Cost 109,452 113,258 115,302 116,635 118,025

Determined Cost change 3.5% 1.8% 1.2% 1.2%

Average % 2015-2019 1.9%

DUC (EUR 2012 base) 34.31 35.37 35.81 35.94 36.1

DUC % change 3.1% 1.2% 0.4% 0.4%

Average % 2015-2019 1.3%

Total % 2015-2019 5.2%

Portugal comments

Portugal DC is increasing by 1.9% p.a. on average over the 2015-2019 period while the DUC is increasing by 1.3% p.a. on average. Such increases are unacceptable and Portugal is urged to re-adjust its DC and DUC according to the EU-wide target of 16.5% decrease in DC and 3.3% average p.a. decrease in DUC. Airspace users appreciated Portugal good performance over RP1, but such good performance does not mean that Portugal is exonerated from contributing toward the RP2 targets. The following elements (from the reporting tables, in nominal terms) are also of concern: 1. ANSP staff costs are increasing by 12% over RP2 (and by 22% over the 2014D-2019D period!). We note that the draft performance plan mentions the need to increase salaries. Nonetheless, given that the latest ACE report shows that NAV Portugal has amongst the highest ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour (gate‐to‐gate), we strongly believe that there is room to reduce staff costs rather than increasing them. A 22% increase over 2014-2019 is not acceptable. 2. The plans also mentions investment as a reason for not meeting the EU-wide target without any further information. Furthermore, while the asset base is increasing by 25% over RP2, depreciation costs are increasing by 84%. Such a difference is of concern, especially considering the lack of information related to investments planned by Portugal. More information and transparency are requested on investments, especially as regards amortization periods, ER/TNC allocation, shift of investments from RP1 to RP2, etc. 3. Supervision costs are increasing by 6% over the period (and by 46% over the 2014D-1019D period!). There is no justification for such an increase, which is not acceptable. 4. All SAR and supervision costs are allocated to en route. The portion of these costs attributable to terminal navigation must be shifted to TNC DC. 5. Table 2 - NAV Portugal display an amount ('000 EUR) of 6.826 for 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 for costs exempt from cost sharing. What is the justification for this yearly amount?

Spain CON proposed

targets


Determined Cost 608,175 603,991 597,414 594,190 589,708

Determined Cost change -0.7% -1.1% -0.5% -0.8%

Average % 2015-2021 -0.8%

DUC (EUR 2012 base) 68.55 67.59 66.25 65.1 63.83

DUC % change -1.4% -2.0% -1.7% -2.0%

Average % 2015-2021 -1.8%

Total % 2015-2021 -6.9%

Spain CON comments

While we note that Spain CON DC and DUC are decreasing, the EU-wide targets of a 3.3% average p.a. decrease (for a total 16.5% decrease) in the DUC over RP2 are still far to be met and it is expected that the tables will be re-adjusted accordingly. Similar to Portugal, the good performance of Spain over RP1 is appreciated by airspace users, but it does not exonerate Spain from contribution toward the EU-wide target for RP2. The following elements (from the reporting tables, in nominal terms) are also of concern: 1. AENA employment costs per ATCO‐hour, which were the highest in 2011, have subsequently decreased and such decrease should continue in order to meet the RP2 targets. It is believe that more efforts must be made on the staff cost side. 1. Other operating costs are increasing over RP2: efforts could be made to control such costs in order to contribute to the RP2 targets. 2. Depreciation costs are decreasing much faster than the asset base: what is the explanation for the non-correlation of the two? 3. The reduction in the cost of capital from 6.7% in RP1 is appreciated, though it was understood that it would be reduced at 5.2% over RP2 (reporting tables are displaying a higher level - from 5.4% to 5.6% - which should be adjusted). It is believed that additional efforts can be made if AENA cost of capital is aligned is AEMET (4.1%). 4. All SAR costs are allocated to en route. The portion of these costs attributable to terminal navigation must be shifted to TNC DC. 5. The presence of revenue from other sources is welcomed by the users: it must be ensured that such revenue will be available over the whole RP2 period.

Spain CAN proposed

targets


Determined Cost 96,146 95,475 94,713 93,262 92,121


Average % 2015-2022 -1.1%

DUC (EUR 2012 base) 62.8 62.48 61.86 60.68 59.7

DUC % change -0.5% -1.0% -1.9% -1.6%

Average % 2015-2022 -1.3%

Total % 2015-2022 -4.9%

Spain CAN comments

Spain CAN DC and DUC are decreasing over RP2, which is welcome by airspace users, but they are decreasing at a slower rather than Spain CON DC and DUCs. Furthermore, the EU-wide targets of a 3.3% average p.a. decrease (for a total 16.5% decrease) in the DUC over RP2 are still far to be met and it is expected that the tables will be re-adjusted accordingly. As Spain CAN mostly mirrors Spain CON, same comments as above related to staff costs, other costs, depreciation and asset base, cost of capital, allocation of SAR costs and revenue from other sources apply).

Cost- efficiency Terminal


The information is not presented as per the PRB template. As a result, it is believed that the information presented in the report (and the related comments) are missing the most important element: the RP2 Union-wide reduction targets are not met in the case of Portugal.

Portugal proposed targets


Determined Cost 26.795 27.381 28.048 28.392 29.702

Determined Cost change 2.2% 2.4% 1.2% 4.6%

Average % 2015-2019 2.6%

DUC (EUR 2012 base) 143.55 146.24 149.17 149.64 154.63

DUC % change 1.9% 2.0% 0.3% 3.3%

Average % 2015-2019 1.9%

Total % 2015-2019 7.7%

Portugal comments

The proposed increase in the unit rate of 1.9% p.a on average with a 2.6% p.a. increase in DC is not in line with the PRB recommendation of a flat cost development. We urge Portugal to review the cost base for TNC in order to work towards a cost reduction or at least a stable development. Portugal mentions the investment plans and the salary increase as a justification for not meeting the target. Nonetheless, it is believed that with efficient investments and adequate depreciation timeline as well as much-needed continuous effort on salaries (again, Portugal has amongst the highest ATCO employment costs per ATCO‐hour) it is possible to meet the EU target.

It is therefore expected that the tables will be re-adjusted downwards. The following elements (from the reporting tables, in nominal terms) are also of concern: 1. All terminal costs are attributable to the ANSP: the reporting tables do not display any terminal costs attributable to the MET provider or the NSA. Costs attributable to these entities for terminal must be excluded from en route costs and shifted to terminal costs. 2. A cost of capital pre tax rate of 7.8% (far from the 6.1% rate for en route) is unacceptable and must be adjusted downward, at the level of the en route cost of capital. 3. Same comments as for Portugal en route related to staff costs, other costs and allocation of SAR and supervision costs apply.

Spain proposed targets


Determined Cost 97 96 93 91 89


Average % 2015-2020 -2.1%

DUC (EUR 2012 base) 151.75 148.34 143.06 137.92 133.01

DUC % change -2.2% -3.6% -3.6% -3.6%

Average % 2015-2020 -3.2%

Total % 2015-2020 -12.3%

Spain comments

The proposed decrease in the unit rate of 3.2% p.a on average with a 2.1% p.a. decrease in DC is in line with the PRB recommendation of a flat cost development, which is appreciated by airspace users. Same comments as for Spain CON en route related to staff costs, other costs, depreciation and asset base, cost of capital, allocation of SAR costs and revenue from other sources apply).

Investments

Overall comments on FAB level

Buenas tardes, En relación al Documento de Consulta sobre el South West FAB Performance Plan

de Navegación Aérea para el periodo 2015-2019, Aena Aeropuertos, como usuario

de los servicios de tránsito de aeródromo, realiza los siguientes comentarios y

propuestas de cambio:

1. Previsiones de tráfico: Se muestra en la tabla adjunta la última previsión oficial de operaciones de Aena aeropuertos, correspondiente a la Edición de mayo-2014.

Las previsiones de Aena Aeropuertos son más optimistas y difieren de las

presentadas en el Documento de Consulta, especialmente para el aeropuerto de

Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas.

2. Propuesta de objetivos para el Airport ATFM Arrival Delay per Flight por

Aeropuerto: la meta general propuesta se considera elevada, especialmente por el

valor asignado al aeropuerto de Barcelona-El Prat. Por ello, se ha procedido a realizar un análisis considerando los siguientes argumentos:

Las previsiones apuntan a que durante el periodo 2015-2019 se tenderá a

recuperar progresivamente los niveles de tráfico perdidos durante el periodo 2008-2013.

En todos los aeropuertos, salvo en Madrid-Barajas, parece razonable que durante el

periodo 2015-2019 se exija, al menos, el mismo nivel de demoras que para el periodo 2008-2013.

En el caso de Madrid-Barajas, se ha tenido en cuenta la excepcionalidad de los años

2010 y 2011, tanto por motivos operativos como de meteorología, excluyendo por

tanto estos años a la hora de calcular las medias.

Atendiendo a lo anterior, se adjunta tabla con la propuesta de objetivos:

Propuesta de objetivo 2015-2019: Airport ATFM arrival delay per flight

Aeropuerto Aena Aeropuertos Aena

(**) (*)

Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas 1,16 0,87 0,83

Barcelona-El Prat 0,27 0,27 0,91

Palma de Mallorca 1,08 1,08 1,29

Málaga-Costa del Sol 0,13 0,13 0,11

Gran Canaria 0,23 0,23 0,32

TOTAL 0,69 0,57 0,80

(*) Mantener en todos los aeropuertos la media de 2008-2013, salvo en

LEMD, en el que se excluirían los años 2010 y 2011

(**) Mantener en todos los aeropuertos la media de 2008-2013, salvo en

LEMD, en el que se excluiría el año 2010

3. Para la consecución del objetivo anterior también intervienen causas de demora

externas al proveedor de servicios de Navegación Aérea, como “Aerodrome

Capacity” o “Weather”:

3.1- Contribución de la causa “Aerodrome Capacity” En primer lugar, Aena Aeropuertos, después del enorme esfuerzo inversor realizado

en la última década, dispone de unas infraestructuras aeroportuarias capaces de

absorber, en términos generales, la demanda tanto actual como futura,

especialmente en lo que se refiere al período 2015-2019. Por este motivo, la

capacidad de Aena Aeropuertos supone una mayor ventaja competitiva frente a

otros aeropuertos, y la situación de saturación y problemas de crecimiento que

existe a nivel europeo, no es extrapolable al caso de España, con lo que eso supone

para el desarrollo de una de las industrias estratégicas de este país como es el

turismo. Por ello, se solicita que se revisen las siguientes afirmaciones reflejadas en el

documento de Consulta (página 30) sobre las limitaciones de capacidad de la

infraestructura:

Aeropuerto de Barcelona-El Prat: “The main capacity constraint is due to

environmental issues, the structural and operational capacity of the airport has

reached its limit with the current use of runways (parallel and segregated)”.

Aeropuerto de Palma de Mallorca: “It is not possible to target more ambitius achievement, considering current runway configuration” .

En ambos casos Aena Aeropuertos considera que la capacidad de las

infraestructuras aeroportuarias está por encima de los valores actualmente

declarados y aún no se ha alcanzado ningún límite. Además de lo anterior, se ha producido durante el período de análisis un importante

descenso de las demoras por causas “Aerodrome Capacity” (ver gráfico adjunto)

que viene a reforzar el hecho de que las infraestructuras aeroportuarias no suponen

ni van a suponer una limitación a la capacidad en los próximos años.

3.2- En cuanto contribución de la causa “Weather”, se puede afirmar que España no

puede compararse con Europa, tal y como se observa en la gráfica adjunta, con las

demoras atribuibles a distintas causas en los principales aeropuertos europeos,

entre ellas la Meteorología (Weather).

4. Por otro lado, se resalta la preocupación de Aena Aeropuertos por la postura del

proveedor de no aumentar la capacidad ni mostrar flexibilidad de adaptación

durante todo el periodo 2015-2019, entendiendo que esto va en contra del principio

de Cielo Único que no es otro que el de ir siendo cada vez más eficiente, sin

aumentar (incluso disminuir) los costes.

Tampoco se considera conveniente no incluir medidas para mejorar la capacidad,

como las que van a venir impuestas por Europa a través del PCP, o la

reestructuración del espacio aéreo en zonas actualmente con problemas de

demoras/capacidad.

5. Se quiere destacar, que se han encontrado discrepancias entre las fechas de

implantación del A-CDM en los aeropuertos de Barcelona- El Prat y de Palma de

Mallorca que figuran en los distintos documento de consulta del remitidos por AESA.

También existen discrepancias entre estos datos y el LSSIP (Local Single Sky

ImPlementation), firmado el pasado 8 de mayo y en el que estaba prevista la

implantación en 2015 para ambos aeropuertos. Atentamente, Rafael Fernández Villasante Director de Operaciones, Seguridad y Servicios

South West FAB RP2 Performance Plan Consultation Aena Navegación Aérea Comments.

In the context of the elaboration of the South West FAB RP2 Performance Plan, Aena Navegación Aérea, as one of the main contributors to the achievement of the proposed actions and targets, has contributed to the elaboration of the current draft, and welcomes the opportunity to share its views on the proposal circulated for consultation.

In this framework Aena N.A, would like to highlight the following points:

Traffic

The use of a STATFOR Low traffic profile (ref. February 2014), both for Capacity and for Cost-Efficiency, is considered adequate and supported as it is completely coherent with the Decision adopted by the Commission on 11th March when establishing the traffic forecast underpinning the European Targets.

Safety

Aena N.A is committed to all the policies promoting safety increase. Capacity

Aena N.A. evaluates the 0.48 minutes of delay per flight en-route and the 0.8 minutes of Terminal/Airport arrival delay targets as a rational approach, taking into account the evolution of the indicator throughout the first 2 years of RP1 (74% improvement achieved) and the optimum behavior of other quality of service indicators. It is also viewed as a coherent and challenging target when compared to the NOP forecasts, which indicate a worse evolution of delay in Spain using a base STATFOR traffic scenario.

Although the current South West FAB Performance Plan proposal attempts to balance the continuation of a strict policy in terms of cost-efficiency with the expectation of improving the performance in the other Key Performance Areas, it has to be stressed that the targets in capacity are ambitious with the foreseen traffic increase and the context of restricted expenditures, and their achievement will require the effective and efficient accomplishment of all the planned actions.

Aena N.A. agrees with the application of incentive mechanism only to the en-route capacity indicator, as the implications on the Terminal unit rate would be only partial (it is under contract agreements between Airports and Air Navigation companies) and complex when applied in the Spanish legal context.

The applicability of the incentive scheme at FAB level is supported, as well as the establishment of the maximum incentive value around 0.75% of the ANSPs income. The maintenance of a symmetric function, addressing all causes with a buffer for unexpected behavior on those outside ANSPs control, is strongly recommended in order to really incentivize a good performance achievement. With respect to the specific values proposed in the document, a proposed transition area of 0.15 is considered to be a more reasonable value, taking into account the overall function and the potential impact on airspace users.

Environment

Aena N.A. supports the environment targets considering the current level of efficiency in the Spanish airspace, and taking into account that a share of responsibility with other involved actors to execute the planned improvements is needed.

Claudio Coello, 76 – 1º D – Teléfonos: 91-575 59 61 – 91-781 48 69 – Fax: 91- 781 48 66 – 28001 MADRID 1

AAssoocciiaacciióónn ddee ccoommppaaññííaass eessppaaññoollaass

ddee ttrraannssppoorrttee aaéérreeoo

AAcceettaa

[email protected] C/ General Perón nº 40, Portal B, 1ª planta 28020 MADRID

Madrid, 22 de mayo de 2014

Estimados amigos: En las páginas siguientes incluyo los comentarios que nos sugiere en ACETA la información

contenida en su Documento de Consulta de fecha mayo de 2014, titulado: Draft RP2 South West FAB Performance Plan 2015-2019 SOWEPP. Un cordial saludo

Manuel López Colmenarejo

PRESIDENTE




AAcceettaa

1. Objetivos Generales: Todos los objetivos de este Plan deberían enmarcarse en los siguientes Objetivos Generales:

I. Responder a previsiones realistas de evolución de tráfico II. Plantear mejoras de productividad de todos los sistemas

III. Perseguir la convergencia de todos los países y gestores europeos en los siguientes objetivos:

i. Objetivos de Seguridad ii. Objetivos de medio ambiente

iii. Objetivos de Capacidad iv. Objetivos de Coste-Eficiencia

IV. Plantear un escenario ambicioso que permita acercarse claramente a los objetivos generales del Cielo Único Europeo

2. Previsiones de Tráfico La banda baja de las previsiones de Eurocontrol del pasado mes de febrero (es la adoptada para España), parece poco realista por ser excesivamente baja (ofrecen un crecimiento de 2019 sobre 2013 del 5,7%). Las correspondientes a la banda básica, son más realistas (ofrecen un crecimiento de 2019 sobre 2013 del 15,7%). Estas previsiones entendemos que tienen que ver con el dimensionado de todos los sistemas. Mantener cifras muy bajas, claramente por debajo de los valores esperables, conducirá a dimensionar los sistemas por debajo de las necesidades reales. Por todo lo anterior, entendemos que se deberían adoptar las previsiones de la banda básica.

3. Objetivos de Seguridad

Los objetivos de Seguridad contemplados para España en este documento, entendemos que están alineados con los previstos en el mismo para la Unión Europea, por lo que no tenemos ninguna consideración que añadir.

4. Objetivos de Medio Ambiente Este objetivo coincide con una de las propuestas iniciales del Cielo Único Europeo: la simplificación de la estructura de rutas y con ella la disminución de tiempos bloque, la disminución de consumos de combustible y, consecuentemente, la disminución de emisiones de CO2.

Pasar la eficiencia en ruta, en los términos que está planteada, de 3,85 en 2015 a 3.28 en 2019 con una diferencia de -0,57 parece un objetivo poco ambicioso. En 2019 este objetivo debería quedar alineado con el general de la Unión Europea, situándose en 2,60. En este apartado, por las repercusiones directas que tiene para los costes de las compañías que tienen operaciones a través del Atlántico por una parte y consecuentemente para la mejora de este indicador, tendría un gran valor resolver el problema de diferencia de tarifa unitaria de la tasa de ruta entre Portugal Azores y España Canarias, diferencia que genera desviaciones para ahorrar tasas que incluso compensan el mayor consumo de combustible.




AAcceettaa

5. Objetivos de Capacidad

I. Demora en Ruta. Situar el objetivo de Demora en Ruta en 0,48, cuando en 2013 se consiguió 0,41 y a marzo de 2014 este valor se situa en 0,15, parece contradictorio. Un valor de 0,40 parece más alineado con una vocación necesaria de mejorar o, al menos no empeorar la calidad del servicio. Este valor cobra especial relevancia al servir de referencia para las bonificaciones/penalizaciones previstas, como se verá después.

II. Demoras en llegadas a terminal. El valor propuesto de 0,80 a lo largo de todos los

años parece muy alto. Este valor debe estar alineado con la evolución de los datos históricos, a los que AENA asigna valores de 0,47 y 0,29, en los años 2012 y 2013; el valor 0,91 al conjunto de años 2008 a 2013 y 0,84 al conjunto 2008 a 2013 excluido el 2010. En primer lugar el valor 0,84 no concuerda con los datos que ofrece la tabla; parece que debería ser 0,72. En segundo lugar parece que, además de excluir el año 2010 del grupo representativo, habría que excluir también el 2011, con lo que el grupo daría 0,58. A la vista de ese 0,58 de la serie representativa y del valor de 0,47 que se obtuvo en 2012, parece razonable adoptar este 0,47 como objetivo de 2015 a 2019, en vez del 0,80 propuesto. Al cambiar 0,80 por 0,47 en el objetivo global, los objetivos para los 5 aeropuertos considerados podrían ser:

GCLP – Gran Canaria: 0,32 (Igual que propuesto) LEBL – Barcelona: 0,53 (Propuesto 0,91) LEMD – Madrid: 0,53 (Propuesto 0,83) LEMG – Málaga: 0,11 (Igual que propuesto) LEPA – Palma de Mallorca: 0,53 (Propuesto 1,29)

En esta tabla se respetan los valores del documento inferiores al 0,47 que planteamos para el conjunto de aeropuertos y se pone un valor máximo de 0,53 para los que superan ese valor, de forma que como media de esos cinco aeropuertos salga el 0,47 propuesto.

6. Esquema de incentivos El esquema propuesto de incentivos, contemplando una bonificación o penalización máximas del 1 % al separarse ± Y del objetivo, disminuyendo a 0% al llegar a separaciones de ± X, nos parece razonable, siempre que el valor del objetivo sea razonable. Poner un objetivo muy alto (sería el caso del 0,48 propuesto) conduciría a una subida casi segura del 1% de la tasa. Con el valor sugerido de 0,40 encajaría razonablemente el esquema de incentivos planteado.

7. Coste – eficiencia

El documento plantea los siguientes escenarios de coste – eficiencia:

EU global: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 56,64 en 2015 a 49,10 en 2019 (+0,00%) Portugal Lisboa: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 34,31 en 2015 a 36,10 en 2019 (-26,48%) España Canarias: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 62,80 en 2015 a 59,70 en 2019 (+21,59%) España Continental: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 68,65 en 2015 a 63,83 en 2019 (+30,00%) Los porcentajes entre paréntesis al final de cada línea, son las diferencias de cada valor en 2019 con el valor de 49,10 planteado ese año a nivel global para la UE




AAcceettaa

Se sugiere para España:

A) Converger con UE de forma que la diferencia con el nivel global en 2019 sea solo de un 10%, la mitad del 21,03 que difiere en 2015 el índice de España Continental:

España Canarias: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 62,80 en 2015 a 54,01 en 2019 (+10,00%) España Continental: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 68,65 en 2015 a 54,01 en 2019 (+10,00%) B) Mantener en 2019 el nivel de convergencia de 2015, es decir que la diferencia en 2019

sea la misma que en 2015. No divergir:

España Canarias: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 62,80 en 2015 a 54,44 en 2019 (+10,88%) España Continental: DUC en ruta evoluciona de 68,65 en 2015 a 59,43 en 2019 (+21,03%)

Las dos series propuestas para España en el documento divergen de la serie global de la UE. Incrementan el porcentaje de diferencia con la UE del 10,88 en 2015 al 21,59 en 2019 en Canarias y del 21,03 en 2015 al 30,00% en España Continental.

Las dos series A) propuestas aquí convergen con Europa a lo largo de los años del Plan.

En España Continental empieza en 2015 un 21,03% por encima de Europa y termina en 2019 solo un 10,00% por encima.

En Canarias empieza en 2015 un 10,88% por encima de UE y acaba en 2019 un 10,00%

Las dos series B) no convergen, pero no divergen. Acaban en 2019 con las mismas diferencias que había en 2015: En España Continental empieza en 2015 un 21,03% por encima del global de la UE y termina en 2019 con esa misma diferencia. En Canarias empieza en 2015 un 10,88% por encima de la UE y termina en 2019 con esa misma diferencia.

En este apartado creemos que si la convergencia planteada con las series A) no pudiera alcanzarse, al menos los objetivos deberían ser los de las series B).

Madrid, 22 de mayo de 2014


2. Spanish Airport and ANSP National forum, 25 April 2014

Attendance List



Meeting Slides

6ª REUNIÓN DEL “SUBGRUPO DE NUEVOS INDICADORES DE NAVEGACIÓN AÉREA”

OBJETIVOS SW FAB PERFORMACE PLAN (2015 – 2019)

Abril de 2014

Departamento de Performance

Eduardo Abia

Isabel Izquierdo

2

OBJETIVO

Consulta a los usuarios del espacio aéreo los objetivos propuestos en las áreas clave operativas para el plan SOWEPP de rendimientos 2015-2019.

La consulta se centra en los aspectos de: • Capacidad en ruta y aeropuertos; y • Medio ambiente; • Para el SW FAB; • Para el segundo período de referencia.

En el segundo período de referencia RP2:

• Reglamento de la Comisión Europea No 390/2013 de 3 de mayo de 2013 por el que se establece el sistema de evaluación del rendimiento de los servicios de navegación aérea y de las funciones de red.

• Reglamento de la Comisión Europea No 391/2013 de 3 de mayo de 2013 por el que se establece un sistema común de tarificación de los servicios de navegación aérea.

• Decisión de Ejecución (2014/132/UE) del 11 de marzo de 2014 la Comisión Europea por la que la Comisión establece los objetivos de rendimiento de la red de gestión del tránsito aéreo y los umbrales de alerta para el segundo período de referencia (2015-19).

3

MARCO REGULATORIO

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R0390&qid=1398326121777&from=ES















http://www.boe.es/doue/2013/128/L00031-00058.pdf















http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2014:071:0020:0023:ES:PDF























































4

PLANIFICACIÓN ACTIVIDADES SOWEPP

abril mayo junio julio

24/04/2014

Consulta usuarios IATA

COSTE - EFICIENCIA

29/04/2014

Consulta interna usuarios

aeropuertos

CAPACIDAD y MEDIO AMBIENTE

25/04/2014

Consulta interna usuarios navegación aérea

CAPACIDAD y MEDIO AMBIENTE

29/04/14

Documento consulta

sobre el SOWEPP

20/05/2014

Consulta usuarios FAB

03/06/14

Fecha límite

comentarios al

SOWEPP

27/06/14

Aceptación del

SOWEPP

10/06/14

Entrega versión

final SOWEPP

20/05/14

Versión intermedia

SOWEPP

Evolución del tráfico

Vuelos IFR

• Previsiones de tráfico en línea con las previsiones publicadas por STATFOR en febrero 2014.

• Se considera que el tráfico va a evolucionar a nivel FAB siguiendo la tendencia de las previsiones de febrero de 2014 de STATFOR para España Continental.

5

CONSIDERACIONES PRELIMINARES

RP2 SOWEPP Forecast

IFR Flights 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Spain Overall Flights (000) 1.618 1.622 1.648 1.656 1.671 1.691 1.711


Número de movimientos de llegada IFR en aeropuertos

• La previsión tiene en cuenta la información presentada en la conferencia de slots de IATA. No obstante, la tendencia creciente del tráfico está por confirmarse.

RP2 SOWEPP Forecast

IFR arrival movements at airports 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

GCLP: Gran Canaria Arrival movs. 46.787 53.763 54.121 54.323 54.850 54.991

Annual variation % 0,67% 0,37% 0,97% 0,26%

LEBL: Barcelona Arrival movs. 138.176 138.980 142.090 144.514 150.263 154.313


LEMD: Madrid-Barajas Arrival movs. 166.466 167.859 169.547 171.142 174.035 176.438


LEMG: Málaga Arrival movs. 50.165 53.083 53.748 55.537 57.071 58.927


LEPA: Palma de Mallorca Arrival movs. 84.695 85.451 86.640 88.893 92.064 94.321


6

CONSIDERACIONES PRELIMINARES

7

CUESTIONES

¿Os parecen razonables las previsiones de tráfico para vuelos IFR?

1

¿Cuál es vuestra opinión sobre las previsiones de movimientos de llegada IFR en aeropuertos?

2

¿Alguna consideración adicional a tener en cuenta? 3

8

OBJETIVOS DE CAPACIDAD

Los objetivos de capacidad se proporcionan para dos indicadores:

Demoras ATFM en vuelo para ruta

Demoras ATFM en vuelos de llegada: • atribuidas a servicios de navegación aérea en aproximación y aeropuerto; y • ocasionadas por restricciones al aterrizaje en el aeropuerto de destino.

Demoras ATFM en vuelo para ruta.

• Se calculan como la media de minutos de demora ATFM en ruta por vuelo.

• Se ha establecido un objetivo a nivel europeo.

• El objetivo se debe proponer a nivel FAB. Si bien, por razones de monitorización y de cara a los incentivos, se va a proporcionar también a nivel nacional.

• El Network Manager ha proporcionado valores de referencia a nivel FAB.

• Teniendo en cuenta lo anterior, AESA ha propuesto un rango de objetivos a nivel SW FAB.

• Los valores indicados para AENA son los proporcionados por el proveedor de servicio.

9


Capacity KPI #1: En route ATFM delay per flight 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Union-wide targets 0,50 0,50 0,05 0,50 0,50

FAB reference values 0,30 0,31 0,31 0,30 0,30

SW FAB Target Upper limit 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,50

Lower limit 0,30 0,30 0,30 0,30 0,30

AENA 0,48 0,48 0,48 0,48 0,48

¿Consideráis que los objetivos en ruta a nivel FAB propuestos contribuyen adecuadamente a los objetivos europeos?

4

Justificación de los valores propuestos:

• La mejora en el área de capacidad ha sido significativa durante los dos últimos años del primer período de referencia: 74% de mejora en el indicador de demora ATFM en ruta en 2013 con respecto al valor del 2011.

• Los pronósticos de tráfico indican un incremento continuado de la demanda.

• Aumentar la capacidad para acomodar la demanda implica una mayor inversión y más personal controlador, lo cual no está en los planes de AENA.

• Teniendo en cuenta lo anterior, no se prevé una mejora de los valores para el segundo período de referencia para Aena, proponiendo un valor de 0,48 min/vuelo para el período.

10


Esquema de incentivos seleccionado a nivel FAB para capacidad en ruta

• El valor “T” es la meta (target) del SW FAB.

• Máxima penalización o incentivo a aplicar (valor “max”) : 1% de los ingresos en ruta del ANSP.

• El valor “X” de la “Dead Band” se ha establecido en 0,02 min/vuelo. Representa más o menos un 4% del margen del “target”.

• Área de transición (de “T-X” a “T-Y”): el máximo bonus o penalización se alcanza para un valor de “Y” de 0,15 min/vuelo

11


Target T

-max

Dead band

max

Bonus Penalty

T+X T -Y T-X T+Y

12

CUESTIONES

¿Consideráis adecuado el mecanismo de incentivos propuesto?

5

¿Alguna consideración adicional respecto al mecanismo de incentivos?

6

Interdependencias:

• Las interdependencias entre capacidad y coste-eficiencia son claras: por un lado aumentar la capacidad conlleva un coste, y por otro un defecto de capacidad conduce a la demora, la cual tiene un coste.

• Como se ha comentado, aumentar la capacidad implica aumentar la inversión y la disponibilidad del personal. AENA no tiene previsto aumentar la contratación de controladores.

• El sistema no es lo suficientemente flexible para adaptarse a cualquier tipo de variación, como la estacionalidad del tráfico.

• La prioridad en RP2 continua siendo coste-eficiencia. AENA ha optado por no comprometer las metas en esta área y de ahí se derivan los valores que ha propuesto para capacidad.

13


14

¿Cuál es vuestra opinión con respecto a la contribución de España a los objetivos del SW FAB?

CUESTIONES

¿Cuál es vuestra opinión con respecto al plan de capacidad de España?

7

8

Demoras ATFM en vuelos de llegada imputable a servicios de navegación aérea de aproximación y de aeropuerto.

• No se ha establecido objetivo a nivel europeo para este parámetro.

• AESA propone inicialmente un rango de valores a nivel FAB.

• Aena ha proporcionado valores a nivel nacional.

Consistencia con NSP:

• Los planes son consistentes con el objetivo estratégico SO6 “Integración completa de las operaciones en aeropuertos y de la red” y está en consonancia con el proyecto estratégico del Network Manager.

15


Capacity KPI #2: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay

per flight 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Reference values for Spain Upper value 0,47 0,47 0,47 0,47 0,47

Lower value 0,27 0,27 0,27 0,27 0,27

Spain 0,80 0,80 0,80 0,80 0,80

Capacity KPI #2: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per

flight – Breakdown at airport level 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

GCLP – Gran Canaria 0,32 0,32 0,32 0,32 0,32

LEBL – Barcelona 0,91 0,91 0,91 0,91 0,91

LEMD – Madrid-Barajas 0,83 0,83 0,83 0,83 0,83

LEMG – Málaga 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11 0,11

LEPA – Palma de Mallorca 1,29 1,29 1,29 1,29 1,29

16


Demoras ATFM en vuelos de llegada para área terminal y aeropuerto.

• Aena ha proporcionado los siguientes valores para los principales aeropuertos.

17

CUESTIONES

Considerando que no se han establecido objetivos a nivel europeo, ¿estáis de acuerdo con los objetivos de capacidad en área terminal y aeropuerto propuestos por España?

9

¿Cuál es vuestra opinión respecto a los planes asociados? 10

¿Consideráis que la explicación sobre las interdependencias contribuye a aclarar las metas escogidas?

11

El indicador es el índice de eficiencia horizontal en ruta (KEA). Este índice compara la longitud de la trayectoria real volada por la aeronave con la longitud de la ruta ortodrómica correspondiente.

• Se aplica a nivel FAB.

• El objetivo europeo es alcanzar una media horizontal de la eficiencia en ruta en vuelo del 2,6% en 2019.

• El Network Manager ha propuesto unos valores de referencia a nivel FAB.

• Los objetivos propuestos a nivel FAB se corresponden con los del NM.

18

OBJETIVOS DE MEDIO AMBIENTE

Environment KPI #1: Horizontal en route flight efficiency (KEA) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Union-wide targets - - - - 2,60%

FAB reference values 3,85% 3,71% 3,57% 3,43% 3,28%

SW FAB Targets 3,85% 3,71% 3,57% 3,43% 3,28%

Justificación de los valores propuestos:

• La propuesta es aceptable teniendo en cuenta los valores propuestos por el Network Manager y el plan de acción existente a nivel SOWEPP.

• Los objetivos son coherentes con las mejoras propuestas en la estructura de rutas.

• Los objetivos se basan en:

– la combinación de los niveles de eficiencia en Portugal, donde se ha implantado FRA a partir de FL245.

– la mejora gradual prevista en el espacio aéreo español mediante la implantación de un plan de mejora de la eficiencia horizontal en vuelo.

Elementos del plan de mejora de la eficiencia horizontal en vuelo:

• Mejoras potenciales en las rutas más ineficientes.

• Introducción de “free routing”.

• Mejora de la gestión de la red.

• Coordinación civil-militar.

19


Plan a nivel SW FAB para la mejora de la eficiencia horizontal en vuelo:

+ Free Route Airspace (FRA):

Durante RP2 se implantará a nivel FAB el proyecto de FRA para los tráficos en el eje Lisboa – Madrid - Brest, según el cual se mejorarán las rutas ATS:

• en la interfaz Madrid y Brest.

• con la implementación de FRA H24 en los sectores de Santiago y Asturias, desde FL245 hasta UNL.

+ Proyectos de Gestión de la red:

• Proyecto TMA Canarias.

• Proyecto interfaz SW FAB / Marsella

• Proyecto interfaz SW FAB/Burdeos

• Proyecto dualización Casablanca

• Proyecto TMA Madrid (OPTIMA)

• Proyecto TMA Barcelona

• Proyecto mejoras red ATS

• TMA Faro

• TMA Lisboa

20


+ Coordinación civil-militar:

• A nivel SW FAB: proyecto optimización FUA con representantes militares en el comité operacional. Actividades y acciones asociadas:

– Mejoras en la red ATS ya previstas en el ERNIP.

– Definición de un plan de medidas comunes a nivel FAB a implantar durante RP2.

– Coordinación militar en proyectos de eficiencia en vuelo (proyecto interfaz Marseille y Bordeaux) y acciones de mejora de la red ATS del tipo CDR.

Adicionalmente a nivel español se ha establecido un organismo permanente estratégico (OPGEA) entre AENA y el Estado Mayor del Aire con objeto de implantar medidas mitigadoras del impacto ambiental.

21

MEDIOAMBIENTE / DIMENSIÓN CIVIL - MILITAR

Interdependencias:

• Aspectos técnicos de cuantificación: dificultad para desvincular los efectos de los TMAs..

• KEA vs KEP: AENA sigue la recomendación de adherirse al plan de vuelo, lo que va en contra de dar directos.

• Planificación de rutas por los operadores basándose en las tasas: coste del combustible frente al coste de las tarifas de ruta. Este fenómeno tiene consecuencias en distintas áreas:

22


– Medioambiente: los vuelos siguen trayectorias más largas y menos eficientes.

– Capacidad: los flujos de tráfico cambian y pueden congestionar sectores.

– Costes: los flujos de tráfico cambian y pueden reducir los ingresos de los proveedores.

23

CONSULTA

¿Los objetivos propuestos a nivel FAB para el indicador KEA de medio ambiente teniendo en cuenta los proyectos y consideraciones pertinentes son adecuados?

12

¿Cuál es vuestra opinión sobre estos objetivos y los proyectos presentados?

13

¿Consideráis que la explicación sobre las interdependencias contribuye a aclarar las metas escogidas?

14

Gracias por su atención

24

Demora ATFCM en ruta

1

Medidas :

Despliegue de sectorización máxima en verano

Desdoblamiento de sectores / aumento configuraciones máximas

Mejoras en la arquitectura SACTA

Mejora de los procedimientos ATFCM

Cooperación con proveedores colaterales

0,60

0,78

1,93

1,56

0,480,41

0,15

0,800,75

0,50 0,48

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

(marzo)

2015-2019

Demora ATFCM Ruta (real) Objetivos (RP1/RP2)

ESPAÑADemora ATFCM por

vuelo (RUTA)Objetivo

2008 0,60 --

2009 0,78 --

2010 1,93 --

2011 1,56 --

2012 0,48 0,80

2013 0,41 0,75

2014 (marzo) 0,15 0,50

2015-2019 -- 0,48

2

InfluenciasCapacidad de actuación

de AENAUso flexible del espacio aéreo (FUA) NO

Encaminamientos RAD SÍ

Operativa en fase de Aproximación SÍ

Ineficiencia del punto de entrada NO

Planificación ineficiente de las aerolíneas NO

Ausencia de ruta más directa SÍ

Autorización de directos en táctica SÍ

Mejora de la Eficiencia en Vuelo (KEA)

Estudio del indicador KEA e identificación de las fuentes de ineficiencia

Demora ATFCM en Aeropuertos (Arribada)

3

Suma ARR Suma Min ARR Indicador Unificado

2008 606.419 481.702 0,79

2009 545.393 392.827 0,72

2010 544.298 1.010.669 1,86

2011 562.429 688.826 1,22

2012 516.785 245.018 0,47

2013 486.257 139.113 0,29

2008-2013 3.261.581 2.958.155 0,91

2008-2013 (sin año 2010) 2.699.152 2.269.329 0,84

• Indicador unificado 2008-2013 (real): 0,91 min/vuelo

• Indicador unificado 2008-2013 (real sin 2010): 0,84 min/vuelo

• Indicador unificado 2015-2019 (objetivo): 0,80 min/vuelo

Aeropuertos analizados: Madrid/Barajas, Barcelona/El Prat, Palma Mallorca, Málaga, Gran Canaria

Demora ATFCM en Aeropuertos (Arribada): Importancia causas “externas NA” (2008-2013)

4

Aeropuerto Principales causas externas NA

GCLP32% Ejercicios Militares

28% Capacidad Aérodromo

LEBL62% Meteorologia adversa

14% Medioambiente

LEMD32% Meteorología

20% Capacidad Aeródromo

LEMG25% Capacidad Aeródromo

21% Meteorología

LEPA52% Capacidad Aeródromo

34% Meteorología

Resto ATC: falta personal ATC, equipos ATC, huelga ATC

Resto Otras: medioambiente, ejercicio militares, eventos especiales, accidentes, equipos noATC, huelga noATC, otros

Capacidad ATC32%

Meteorologia33%


25%Resto ATC

3%

Resto Otras7%

Ejemplos días con mayor demora ATFCM por “causas externas NA”

5

Gran Canaria:

17-jun-09 Ejercicio Militar NEWFIP09 2.368 minutos 17,8 min/arr

6-nov-10 Huelga handling 1.990 minutos 10,5 min/arr

Barcelona:

07-abr-14 Capacidad reducida (niebla) 10.418 minutos 24,9 min/arr

14-mar-08 Capacidad reducida (niebla) 17.769 minutos 37,1 min/arr

6-feb-11 Trabajos en pista 3.455 minutos 9,78 min/arr

Madrid:

17-ene-11 Niebla 27.847 minutos 51,28 min/arr

25-jul-10 Trabajos en pista RWY15L/33R 12.115 minutos 21,25 min/arr

Palma:

07-may-13 Capacidad aeródromo 7.769 minutos 29,8 min/arr

03-sep-11 Capacidad reducida (tormentas) 6.564 minutos 14,5 min/arr

5-jul-08 Huelga de Handling (Acciona) 3.928 minutos 14,11 min/arr

Málaga:

06-abr-09 Meteorología 1.313 minutos 9,24 min/arr

Comparativa metas provisionales en otros Planes de Rendimiento RP2

6

Arribadas / Movimientos IFR totales 2013 en aeropuertos sujetos a

Performace Scheme

Meta Retraso ATFM de llegada por vuelo agregada por Estado

Austria 123.813 / 247.628 1.88—1.27

Reino Unido 740.560 / 1.484.815 1.1

España 486.186 / 973.417 0.8

Noruega 234.922 / 476.331 0.63

Suecia 109.922 / 219.838 0.35



Meeting Minutes

MINISTERIO

DE FOMENTO

Página 1 de 7

SUBGRUPO DE NUEVOS INDICADORES DE

NAVEGACIÓN AÉREA Acta de la quinta reunión (R06)

1.- LUGAR, FECHA, HORA Y DURACIÓN DE LA REUNIÓN

Oficinas de AESA (Avenida del General Perón nº 40, Edificio Mapfre, 4ª Planta, 28020

Madrid), martes, 25 de abril de 2014, 10:30-13:00.

2.- ASISTENTES

NOMBRE ORGANIZACIÓN

Cristina Montero Aena Aeropuertos

Antonio Ruiz de la Mata Aena Aeropuertos

Luis Castillo Bernat DGAC

Ramón Montero Aceta

Steve McGrawth Ryanair

Juan Rola Ryanair

José Antonio Aznar Aena Navegación Aérea

Elena Vega Aena Navegación Aérea

Ana Gómez-Pineda AESA

Eduardo Abia SENASA

María Isabel Izquierdo SENASA

3.- AGENDA

A continuación se expone el orden del día de la reunión prevista:

1.- Comentarios al acta de la reunión anterior. 2.- Consulta de las metas de capacidad y medioambiente, junto con la información sobre coordinación civil-militar (FUA) que incluirá el plan de rendimientos del SW FAB para RP2 (SOWEPP).

Acta de reunión de subgrupo de nuevos indicadores de navegación aérea (R06)

Página 2 de 7

3.- Establecer próximos pasos a seguir.

4.- ACTAS

A modo de introducción, AESA comenta el calendario de presentación del plan a nivel FAB,

indicando que el plan se va a presentar el día 20/05 en una consulta de usuarios. Los

objetivos que se van a presentar en esta reunión son los de capacidad en ruta y aeropuertos y

medio ambiente para el segundo período de referencia (2015 a 2019). El día anterior, AESA

mantuvo una reunión con IATA para tratar el tema de costes.

4.1 Comentarios al acta de la reunión anterior

Respecto al primer punto de la agenda, no se realizaron comentarios por parte del grupo al

acta de la reunión anterior.

4.2 Consulta de la parte operacional del SOWEPP

A continuación, siguiendo con el segundo punto de la agenda, AESA realizó una

presentación sobre las metas de capacidad en ruta y aeropuertos, así como de las metas de

medioambiente propuestas en el plan para el SW FAB y el segundo período de referencia.

Tráfico

En primer lugar, se presentan las previsiones de tráfico propuestas para vuelos IFR en ruta en

España para los años 2015 a 2019. Las previsiones están en línea con la evolución de tráfico

publicada por STATFOR en febrero de 2014 para el “escenario conservador”.

En relación a la evolución de tráfico en ruta propuesta, el representante de ACETA considera

que son significativamente conservadoras teniendo en cuenta los valores de tráfico del primer

trimestre de 2014, los cuales apuntan hacia una recuperación. Añade también que, según la

información proporcionada por Aena, el tráfico se incrementó en un 1% en el primer trimestre

y el número de pasajeros aumentó en un 3%. Por otra parte, en el último comité de horarios

que tuvo lugar recientemente, el número de slots solicitados de cara a este verano se

incrementó en un 4% con respecto al año pasado para la misma temporada. El grupo solicita,

por tanto, (R06-01) que ACETA aporte toda la información disponible sobre este tema.

Con respecto a las previsiones de tráfico proporcionadas para los aeropuertos españoles con

más de 70.000 movimientos IFR al año, Aena Aeropuertos indica que ellos realizan sus

propias previsiones de tráfico totalmente independientes de Aena Navegación Aérea. Las

previsiones de Navegación Aérea se calculan utilizando una herramienta proporcionada por

Eurocontrol (NEST), mientras que Aena Aeropuertos, además de tener en cuenta la

información de STATFOR, consideran el número de slots solicitados. Se solicita, por tanto,

(R06-02) que Aena Aeropuertos proporcione a AESA sus propias previsiones para los

aeropuertos seleccionados.


Página 3 de 7

ACETA asevera que, aún faltando los datos de 2014, las previsiones son muy conservadoras

llegando incluso a ser irreales. Opina asimismo, que el negocio de AENA estará

dimensionado de acuerdo a las previsiones de tráfico que se hagan y que, por tanto, unas

previsiones demasiado conservadoras la limitan.

AESA incide que las previsiones presentadas son las elaboradas por AENA. Las previsiones

están sujetas a mucha incertidumbre y, dado que se está hablando del negocio de AENA, el

cual está condicionado por las disposiciones normativas, se ha optado por apoyarles en esta

aproximación. AENA añade que las previsiones están hechas en base a los datos históricos y

éstos no son positivos.

Capacidad de ruta

A continuación, AESA presenta los objetivos de capacidad. En relación al objetivo de

capacidad en vuelo para ruta, se comenta que el objetivo europeo está establecido en 0,50

minutos de retraso ATFM medio por vuelo para cada año del período. El Network Manager,

por su parte, ha proporcionado valores de referencia para el FAB que oscilan entre los 0,30 y

0,31 min de retraso ATFM medio por vuelo. El valor indicado por Aena para este período se

mantiene constante y se ha establecido en 0,48 min/vuelo.

A este respecto, el representante de ACETA comenta que si la demora ATFM media del año

pasado fue de 0,41 min/vuelo, no le parece razonable que se proponga una cifra superior

para el nuevo período.

AENA indica que los valores propuestos se corresponden con la fijación de una meta

estratégica, no de que el nivel de rendimiento se vaya a situar allí. Para apoyar su argumento,

AENA indica que sin ir más lejos la meta del PNER (plan de rendimientos de RP1) para 2013

era de 0,75 min/vuelo, y sin embargo el rendimiento fue de 0,41.

ACETA responde que no es sólo una cuestión de que la meta vaya por encima del

rendimiento, sino que desde Europa se pide más. AENA defiende que no es bueno ser

demasiado optimista a la hora de fijar metas. Atendiendo al histórico nunca se han obtenido

datos tan buenos como los que se proponen desde Europa

El representante de Ryanair se interesó por conocer las medidas adoptadas por Aena en

años anteriores y la efectividad de las mismas, con objeto de comprobar su contribución en la

mejora de este valor en el 2013. De otro modo, la mejora de dicho valor solamente se podrá

justificar con el descenso del tráfico. Para Ryanair son tan importantes los objetivos como las

medidas adoptadas o que se van a adoptar y el análisis de su efectividad. Ryanair sugiere

que se analice la efectividad de las medidas adoptadas en la última temporada, teniendo en

cuenta sobre todo los momentos de máximo tráfico.

A este respecto, Aena Navegación Aérea aclara que sí se van a tomar ciertas medidas, como

por ejemplo aumentar el despliegue de sectores hasta llegar a la máxima sectorización en

verano (desdoblar ciertos sectores), pero resulta muy difícil identificar y cuantificar cuál va a

ser contribución de manera particular porque la situación varía constantemente. Habla de la


Página 4 de 7

redistribución de los controladores de las torres que se han liberalizado como una medida

paliativa de la demora.

Aena Aeropuertos muestra su perplejidad ante los valores propuestos por AENA, a los que

califica como una congelación de la capacidad de aquí a 2019. Sostiene que hay inputs

irrefutables como el reglamento del PCP (“Pilot Common Project”), que incide en mejoras de

los TMAs de alta densidad. Hay zonas de espacio aéreo especialmente saturadas, y que se

debe incidir en mejorar la capacidad en estas zonas. Según su criterio, el SOWEPP debe

reflejar estas cuestiones.

AESA muestra la versión actual de borrador del NOP 2014-2019 (“Network Operations Plan”)

en el que ha de basarse el SOWEPP. Comenta, que conforme a los datos aportados por

AENA y a las simulaciones realizadas por el Network Manager, existe una descompensación

entre metas propuestas por AENA y el rendimiento esperado.

AENA comenta que la información que constará en la versión final del NOP ha cambiado y

que por tanto las conclusiones planteadas por AESA ya no son válidas. De cara a completar

el plan del SW FAB para el segundo período, se solicita (R06-04) a Aena Navegación Aérea

que proporcione a AESA la última información actualizada del NOP.

Incentivos

Con respecto al esquema de incentivos lineal propuesto para la capacidad en ruta, el grupo

pregunta si el mecanismo a establecer será automático y cómo se aplica. AESA explica que

este mecanismo será automático y afectará al cálculo de la tarifa del siguiente año. El

mecanismo de incentivos compara el rendimiento real (del año N) con respecto al objetivo, y

en función de si se ha cumplido o no y en qué medida, se traslada manteniendo, bajando o

subiendo la tarifa (del año N+2) fijada en el plan de rendimientos.

AESA comenta a este respecto que, si bien entiende el contexto económico y la situación

prevista a nivel de personal en Aena para el segundo período, no le parece razonable usar

una meta tan conservadora como 0,48 min/vuelo para capacidad en ruta, en particular para

los años 2015 y 2016. Sobre todo teniendo en cuenta el valor alcanzado en el 2013 (0,41

min/vuelo) y el pequeño aumento de tráfico previsto. Esta situación podría dar lugar a que en

el 2015 AENA reciba una bonificación si alcanza una demora por debajo de los valores de

referencia propuestos, pero más alta que la demora de los últimos años. Se propone seguir

trabajando en esta meta.

Capacidad de terminal

Se presentan las metas de capacidad de terminal propuestas por AENA para el SOWEPP,

consistentes en 0.80 min/vuelo para todos los años de RP2 y valores de referencia por

aeropuerto.

Con respecto a las metas propuestas para la demora en vuelos de llegada imputable a

servicios de navegación aérea de aproximación y de aeropuerto, el representante de Aena

Aeropuertos comenta que le sorprende el valor propuesto para el aeropuerto de Barcelona


Página 5 de 7

(0,91min/vuelo) porque el histórico es de 0,27 min/vuelo (promedio 2008-2013) y ha sido el

aeropuerto que mejor se ha comportado.

AENA Navegación Aérea comenta que ellos han intentado calcular un indicador unificado

teniendo en cuenta los datos históricos de los últimos 6 años, considerando además las

causas de la demora. Entre esas causas están algunas que no tienen que ver con la gestión

de la capacidad ATC, como por ejemplo la capacidad de aeródromo y la climatología. En el

caso de Barcelona se estaría al límite de capacidad por cuestiones meteorológicas y, por

ejemplo, en Palma de Mallorca por restricciones debidas a la capacidad del aeródromo como

infraestructura. Por último, AENA indica que es la primera vez que se rueda el sistema con

este indicador y quizá conviene ser prudente.

Dado que Aena Aeropuertos dispone de sus propias cifras y previsiones, lo cual podría dar

lugar a una contribución diferente, (R06-03) AESA solicita que Aena Aeropuertos proporcione

lo antes posible dichos valores en función de sus datos y consideraciones.

Medioambiente

Con respecto al objetivo de medioambiente, índice de eficiencia horizontal en ruta (KEA), se

informa al grupo que este índice se aplica a nivel FAB. El objetivo europeo es alcanzar una

media horizontal de eficiencia en ruta del 2,6% en el año 2019. El Network Manager en este

caso ha propuesto unos valores de referencia para el FAB, los cuales han sido adoptados

íntegramente. Estos objetivos son coherentes con las mejoras propuestas en la estructura de

rutas y con el plan a nivel SW FAB para la mejora de la eficiencia horizontal en vuelo.

AENA presenta el resultado de un estudio del indicador KEA en el que se identifican las

fuentes de ineficiencia. En primer lugar, hay que aclarar que AENAna discrepa con la

metodología de Eurocontrol dado que la ineficiencia en ruta se aplica fuera de un radio de

40MN alrededor de los aeropuertos, y algunos TMAs en España (como el de Madrid) son más

extensos. Por tanto, ineficiencias en la fase de aproximación se imputan al indicador de ruta.

Las fuentes identificadas de ineficiencia son:

mejoras necesarias en el ámbito FUA,

encaminamientos RAD, operativa en fase de aproximación,

ineficiencia del punto de entrada,

planificación de las aerolíneas basada en otros parámetros (como costes por tarifas),

ausencia de rutas más directas

y autorización de directos en táctica.

AENA manifiesta que hay un cierto nivel estructural de ineficiencia, el cual es asintótico y a

partir del mismo no se puede mejorar. En el caso del SW FAB, en Portugal está implantado

“Free Route Airspace” (FRA) por encima de FL 245 y aún así tienen una ineficiencia del 2%.


Página 6 de 7

En cualquier caso, influye la planificación de las aerolíneas, no sólo por las tasas sino por

condiciones meteorológicas.

Con respecto a la planificación ineficiente de las compañías, quienes podrían preferir utilizar

rutas más largas a cambio de pagar tarifas más baratas, ACETA y Ryanar comentan que

estos factores afectan únicamente a vuelos de largo recorrido. Un ejemplo de ello es el

proveedor de servicios suizo, cuyas tarifas son bastante elevadas. A pesar de ello, las

compañías siguen sobrevolando su espacio aéreo ya que hay otros elementos a tener en

cuenta como los vientos, el ahorro de combustible y la asignación de niveles de vuelo

óptimos. Ryanair dice que la clave está en ver qué porcentaje real representan estos vuelos.

A continuación, el representante de Ryanair comenta que se ha creado un grupo de trabajo

para eficiencia en vuelo entre Aena y usuarios del aeropuerto de Palma de Mallorca, el cual

se reunirá el día 20 de mayo. En dicha reunión se tratará un posible problema con los niveles

de vuelo asignados para los vuelos domésticos.

4.3 Pasos a seguir

Por último, se trata el tercer punto de la agenda, por el cual AESA pregunta sobre las

medidas FUA para este objetivo, a lo que AENA responde que ellos tienen definidas medidas,

si bien aún no están coordinadas con los militares. AESA solicita (R06-05) que se le

proporcione información del plan FUA y, a su vez, se coordine con los militares.

AESA, llegado a este punto, pregunta al grupo si conocen cuál es la contribución del Network

Manager a estos planes. El Network Manager dispone de un presupuesto de 180M€ y con

ese presupuesto podrían realizar ciertos trabajos para AESA/AENA. Ellos tienen que mejorar

en la planificación de los planes de vuelo, ya que no han cumplido su objetivo porque las

aerolíneas siguen teniendo planes repetitivos y no optimizan sus planes de vuelo. Se les

puede pedir que contribuyan. DGAC manifiesta que considerará esta reflexión.

Por último, el representante de ACETA solicita que (R06-06) se distribuyan las presentaciones

de la reunión al grupo lo antes posible.

5.- ACUERDOS ADOPTADOS

1. A continuación se indican las acciones acordadas a realizar:

Acción nº Acción Responsable

R06-01 Aportar toda la información disponible sobre la evolución del tráfico en el primer trimestre del año 2014.

ACETA

R06-02

Proporcionar a AESA las previsiones de tráfico para el segundo período de referencia y los aeropuertos de: Gran Canaria, Palma de Mallorca, Madrid-Barajas, Barcelona y Málaga.

Aena Aeropuertos

R06-03 Proporcionar a AESA lo antes posible sus propias estimaciones para los objetivos de los aeropuertos seleccionados.

Aena Aeropuertos

R06-04 Proporcionar información del NOP actualizada a AESA. Aena Navegación


Página 7 de 7

Acción nº Acción Responsable Aérea

R06-05 Proporcionar información a AESA del plan FUA de Aena en coordinación con los militares.

Aena Navegación Aérea

R06-06 Distribuir las presentaciones de la reunión al grupo lo antes posible.

AESA

6.- ANEXOS

Anexo 1. Estado de las acciones acordadas en las reuniones anteriores del Subgrupo de de Nuevos Indicadores de Navegación Aérea.

Es importante indicar que estas acciones no fueron revisadas durante la reunión. Sin

embargo, AESA ha comprobado que todas las acciones han sido llevadas a cabo y

finalizadas antes o durante la reunión.

Acción nº Acción Responsable Estado

R05-01 Mantener informado al grupo de las fechas y propuestas para el foro y consulta de usuarios.

AESA Cerrada. El grupo

fue informado de la planificación.

R05-02

Investigar la posibilidad de dirigirse a los grupos de coordinación con los militares con los datos de este análisis y, de este modo, buscar maneras de mejora conjunta.

AESA

Cerrada. Este tema se trató en la

reunión del grupo general y durante la 6ª reunión de este

subgrupo

R05-03 Realizar una presentación con el análisis de la performance de los indicadores para el grupo global que tendrá lugar el día 7 de marzo.

Aena Cerrada. Se realizó el día 7 de marzo.




DIRECCIÓN DE NAVEGACIÓN AÉREA DIVISIÓN DE SISTEMAS DE GESTIÓN Y SEGURIDAD

1

Indicador “Demora ATFCM arribadas”. Consideraciones

El indicador RP2 “demora ATFCM en arribadas por vuelo IFR” según se encuentra definido en el reglamento UE390/2013, corresponde a los minutos ATFCM que el proveedor de servicio de control de aeródromo establece en el volumen de arribadas al aeropuerto, por cualquiera de las causas ATFCM identificadas por NM-Eurocontrol en su documento “ATFCM Operational Procedures - apartado 4.4.1. Regulation Cause”.

Dentro de dichas causas, se pueden identificar: En un primer grupo, las relacionadas directamente con la prestación del servicio de control de aeródromo, las denominadas causas NA (capacidad ATC, falta personal ATC, equipos ATC y huelga ATC).

En un segundo grupo, en el establecimiento de medidas ATFCM en arribadas influyen otra serie de factores, que se agrupan bajo la denominación de “causas externas NA”, y que corresponden entre otros, a la meteorología adversa (nieblas, deshielo, etc), capacidad de aeródromo, ejercicios militares, medioambiente, huelgas No ATC etc.

En el período 2008-2013, elegido para este estudio y para el conjunto de los 5 aeropuertos españoles con tráfico por encima de los 70.000 movimientos IFR anuales, las “causas NA” acumulan el 35% del total de los minutos ATFCM de arribada, casi el mismo orden de magnitud que el 33% de meteorología adversa y por encima del 25% de la causa “capacidad aeródromo”.

De las 3 causas principales de regulación en arribadas ( que suponen el 90% del total de minutos ATFCM entre el 2008 y 2013), 2 se pueden considerar externas a NA (meteorología y capacidad aeródromo) y 1 es responsabilidad de NA (capacidad ATC).

Figura 1: Reparto de causas de demora en los 5 aeropuertos principales (2008 a-2013)

Analizando el impacto de las causas de regulación para cada uno de los aeropuertos, nos encontramos con que en 3 de ellos, más del 60% de los minutos de regulaciones fueron asignados a causas externas NA, mientras que en los 2 restantes, la proporción entre las causas se sitúa de forma casi equilibrada 50/50. Los minutos ATFCM por causas NA, por aeropuerto, se distribuyen en 2008-2013:

Barcelona: 10% de minutos por causas NA Palma Mallorca/Gran Canaria: 13% de minutos por causas NA Madrid/Barajas y Málaga: 43% al 50% de minutos por causas NA

Capacidad ATC32%

Meteorologia33%


25%Resto ATC

3%

Resto Otras7%

Aeropuerto Principales causas externas NA

GCLP32% Ejercicios Militares28% Capacidad Aérodromo

LEBL62% Meteorologia adversa14% Medioambiente

LEMD32% Meteorología20% Capacidad Aeródromo

LEMG25% Capacidad Aeródromo21% Meteorología

LEPA52% Capacidad Aeródromo34% Meteorología


2

Barcelona/El Prat

El aeropuerto de Barcelona/El Prat presenta como principal causa de regulación en las arribadas la meteorología adversa (nieblas, cumulonimbos, tormentas) de forma habitual, con una media del período del 62%.

Salvo el año 2008, donde la causa “medioambiente (ruido)” estuvo en minutos en el orden de magnitud de la meteorología, el resto de causas apenas alcanzan por sí solas una importancia por encima del 10% del total.

Los minutos ATFCM de los volúmenes de arribada al aeropuerto de los tres primeros meses del 2014, corresponden con “meteorología adversa”.

DEPENDENCIA LEBL

Minutos ATFCM

C‐ATC Capacity Resto (ATC) G‐Aerodrome Capacity Resto (Otras) W‐Weather

2008 277 2.494 1.470 25.227 29.627

2009 966 6.258 824 4.387 13.576

2010 1.577 1.277 1.547 5.312 14.958

2011 510 3.143 208 5.417 20.637

2012 7.312 25.070

2013 396 582 103 8.673

Total 3.726 13.754 4.049 47.758 112.541

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


CAUSA

Año

Minutos ATFCM

DEPENDENCIA


3

Palma Mallorca

En el aeropuerto de Palma de Mallorca, de forma histórica, más del 50% de los minutos ATFCM de las regulaciones establecidas en los volúmenes de arribadas al aeropuerto tiene como causa principal “Capacidad Aeródromo”, relacionada principalmente con la alta ocupación de los stands del aeropuerto en las jornadas de mayor tráfico de los meses del verano.

Otro 34% de la demora en el aeropuerto corresponde a la meteorología adversa (tormentas/cumulonimbos), que de forma habitual tienen lugar en los meses de temporada de invierno.

En el primer trimestre del año 2014, el 100% de la demora ATFCM de arribada en el aeropuerto ha sido por tormentas, habiéndose establecido regulaciones sólo en el mes de enero 2014.

DEPENDENCIA LEPA

Minutos ATFCM


2008 14.347 14.337 61.705 3.928 31.757

2009 2.364 248 44.324 3.220 31.286

2010 12.666 2.839 34.741 2.528 26.617

2011 8.535 9.932 78.641 39.934

2012 5.237 509 39.359 1.562 31.057

2013 1.834 39.338 151 34.620

Total 44.983 27.865 298.108 11.389 195.271

0

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

160.000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


CAUSA

Año

Minutos ATFCM

DEPENDENCIA


4

Gran Canaria

El aeropuerto de Gran Canaria presenta como principal causa de establecimiento de regulaciones en las arribadas, la causa “externa NA” correspondiente a “gestión espacio aéreo / ejercicios militares”, registrando la práctica totalidad de sus minutos en meses puntuales (ejemplo: abril 2013-ejercicio DACT 2013 Disimilares), no estando repartida de forma uniforme en el año.

Reseñar en este aeropuerto el impacto en 2011 de las obras de acondicionamiento de la pista, que motivaron una reducción de capacidad de pista, y las consiguientes regulaciones en los días de mayor volumen de tráfico (causa externa NA: capacidad aeródromo).

No se han registrado regulaciones en el volumen de arribadas en el primer trimestre del año 2014.

DEPENDENCIA GCLP

Minutos ATFCM


2008 594 1.470 6.302 1.811 1.118

2009 1.809 7.030 1.035

2010 525 1.540 171 4.869 3.076

2011 1.796 365 13.089 7.474 2.747

2012 868 716 6.983

2013 548 301 6.935 478

Total 6.140 3.375 20.579 35.102 8.454

0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


CAUSA

Año

Minutos ATFCM

DEPENDENCIA


5

Madrid/Barajas

El aeropuerto de Madrid/Barajas es el que mejor cuadra con el perfil medio de los 5 aeropuertos comentado en el primer apartado. Entre las 3 causas principales se reparten el 94%, con un porcentaje mayor para capacidad ATC (42%), seguido de meteorología (32%) y capacidad aeródromo (20%).

Estos tres porcentajes se igualarían (~28% por causa), sin contabilizar los años 2010 y 2011.

A lo largo del año 2014, el 90% de los minutos ATFCM de las regulaciones en arribada, corresponden con “meteorología adversa”.

DEPENDENCIA LEMD

Minutos ATFCM


2008 68.891 973 124.985 37.820 50.409

2009 30.506 9.894 109.418 6.285 105.894

2010 426.757 13.276 124.392 54.691 273.563

2011 260.492 2.493 37.220 10.170 177.027

2012 77.231 1.708 10.750 915 28.759

2013 10.591 511 2.334 1.487 23.540

Total 874.468 28.855 409.099 111.368 659.192

0

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

800.000

900.000

1.000.000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


CAUSA

Año

Minutos ATFCM

DEPENDENCIA


6

Málaga

Málaga es en el que las causas “externas NA imprevisibles” (meteorología, medioambiente, accidente, etc…) presentan menor impacto y la demora ATFCM en las arribadas se reparte de forma más o menos equilibrada entre capacidad ATC (causa NA) como principal causa de la demora arribada y capacidad aeródromo (causa externa NA).

No se han registrado regulaciones en las arribadas en el primer trimestre del año 2014.

DEPENDENCIA LEMG

Minutos ATFCM


2008 132 738 254 431 605

2009 2.855 265 7.080 537 2.766

2010 3.009 427 25 258 28

2011 5.274 639 1.264 72 1.747

2012 2.937 209 3.836

2013 4.362 505 1.767 57

Total 18.569 2.574 10.599 1.298 9.039

0

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


CAUSA

Año

Minutos ATFCM

DEPENDENCIA

Buenos días,

Sin ánimo de entrar en ningún debate estéril y con espíritu igualmente

constructivo, se realizan los siguientes comentarios:

En primer lugar, todos sabemos que después del enorme esfuerzo inversor

realizado en la última década, Aena Aeropuertos dispone de unas

infraestructuras aeroportuarias capaces de absorber perfectamente, en

términos generales, la demanda tanto actual como futura, especialmente en

lo que se refiere al período 2015-2019. Por este motivo, nuestra capacidad

supone una mayor ventaja competitiva frente a otros aeropuertos, y la

situación de saturación y problemas de crecimiento que existe a nivel

europeo, no es extrapolable al caso de España, con lo que eso supone para

el desarrollo de una de las industrias estratégicas de este país como es el

turismo.

Además de lo anterior, se ha producido durante el período de análisis un

importante descenso de las demoras por causas “Aerodrome Capacity” que

viene a reforzar el hecho de que las infraestructuras aeroportuarias no

suponen ni van a suponer una limitación a la capacidad en los próximos

años.

Por otro lado, y retomando nuestros argumentos iniciales, volvemos a

insistir en que las previsiones apuntan a que durante el periodo 2015-2019

se tenderá a recuperar progresivamente los niveles de tráfico perdidos

durante el periodo 2008-2013. Por lo que parece razonable e incluso

conservador, que durante el periodo 2015-2019 se exija, como mucho, el

mismo nivel de demoras que para el periodo 2008-2013 (0,57), eliminando

las posibles distorsiones para el caso de LEMD en 2010-2011.

En cuanto a temas de Weather, dios mediante, poco tenemos que decir,

salvo que no nos podemos comparar con Europa. Aquí el tiempo es mucho

mejor por suerte.

Por último, estamos completamente de acuerdo en que la meta solo es alcanzable

con la contribución activa de todas las partes implicadas.

Quedamos a vuestra entera disposición para intercambiar puntos de vista, abordar

y tratar más en profundidad el tema si así lo consideráis.

Un saludo,

Antonio

Buenas tardes Ana,

Tal y como quedamos en la reunión del pasado viernes, en la que nos presentasteis

la propuesta de objetivos para el futuro Performance Plan de Navegación Aérea

para el periodo 2015-2019 (antiguo PNER - Plan Nacional de Evaluación de

Rendimientos), te adjunto a continuación la información solicitada:

Previsiones de tráfico de Aena Aeropuertos: Te adjunto la última previsión

oficial de operaciones, correspondiente a la Edición de Octubre-2013:

Actualmente estamos a punto de fijar las nuevas previsiones (Edición Abril-2014),

si bien me han confirmado que hasta dentro de unas semanas no se cerrarán. En

cuanto que nos lleguen, os las enviamos.

Podrás comprobar que hay gran diferencia entre nuestras estimaciones y las

realizadas por Aena, principalmente en el caso de Madrid-Barajas (que es lo de lo

que precisamente se quejaba ACETA).

AEROPUERTO PREVISIÓN OPERACIONES LLEGADA

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Barcelona-El Prat 138.900 142.350 145.750 149.200 152.650

138.980 142.090 144.514 150.263 154.313

Gran Canaria 48.150 49.100 50.150 51.250 52.200

53.763 54.121 54.323 54.850 54.991

Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas

167.050 172.650 178.600 185.050 191.650

167.859 169.547 171.142 174.035 176.438

Málaga-Costa del Sol 52.950 54.650 56.250 57.800 59.350

53.083 53.748 55.537 57.071 58.927

Palma Mallorca 85.850 88.100 90.800 93.450 95.850

85.451 86.640 88.893 92.064 94.321

Previsión Aena Aeropuertos (Ed. Oct-13)

Previsión Aena

Propuesta de objetivos para el Airport ATFM Arrival Delay per Flight por

Aeropuerto: Tal y como ya os adelantamos, la propuesta para el aeropuerto de

Barcelona nos parecía especialmente desproporcionada, por lo que hemos

procedido a realizar un análisis considerando los siguientes argumentos:

Las previsiones apuntan a que durante el periodo 2015-2019 se tenderá a

recuperar progresivamente los niveles de tráfico perdidos durante el periodo 2008-2013.

En todos los aeropuertos, salvo en Madrid-Barajas, parece razonable que durante el

periodo 2015-2019 se exija, al menos, el mismo nivel de demoras que para el

periodo 2008-2013.

En el caso de Madrid-Barajas, se ha tenido en cuenta la excepcionalidad de los años

2010 y 2011, tanto por motivos operativos como de meteorología, excluyendo por

tanto estos años a la hora de calcular las medias.

Atendiendo a lo anterior, se adjunta tabla y archivo con la propuesta de objetivos:

Propuesta de objetivo 2015-2019:

Airport ATFM arrival delay per flight

Aeropuerto Aena Aeropuertos Aena

(**) (*)






TOTAL 0,69 0,57 0,80





Por otro lado, aprovecho de nuevo la ocasión para volver a manifestarte nuestra

preocupación por la postura del proveedor de no aumentar la capacidad ni

mostrar flexibilidad de adaptación durante todo el periodo 2015-2019,

entendiendo que esto va en contra del principio de Cielo Único que no es otro que

el de ir siendo cada vez más eficiente, sin aumentar (incluso disminuir) los costes.

Tampoco vemos razonable, no incluir medidas para mejorar la capacidad, como las

que van a venir impuestas por Europa a través del PCP, o la reestructuración del

espacio aéreo en zonas actualmente con problemas de demoras/capacidad.

Aunque entendemos que la decisión ya está tomada, al menos a efectos de

performance en la parte de aeropuertos, hubiéramos considerado conveniente

incluir los aeropuertos por encima de los 20.000-30.000 IFR/año, con lo que para

RP2 hubieran pasado a monitorizarse, en vez de los 12 actuales de RP1, 14-16

aeropuertos, en lugar de los 5 finales.

Para cualquier comentario o cuestión adicional, no dudes en contactar con nosotros.

Un saludo, Dpt. Desarrollo Servicios Navegación Aérea Dirección de Operaciones, Seguridad y Servicios Aena Aeropuertos

PREVISIÓN DE OPERACIONES TOTALEdición: Octubre 2013

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

321.693 278.981 277.832 303.054 290.004 276.496 272.700 277.800 284.700 291.500 298.400 305.300

-8,7% -13,3% -0,4% 9,1% -4,3% -4,7% -1,4% 1,9% 2,5% 2,4% 2,4% 2,3%

116.252 101.557 103.093 111.271 100.393 95.483 94.700 96.300 98.200 100.300 102.500 104.400

1,7% -12,6% 1,5% 7,9% -9,8% -4,9% -0,8% 1,7% 2,0% 2,1% 2,2% 1,9%

469.746 435.187 433.706 429.390 373.192 333.065 323.900 334.100 345.300 357.200 370.100 383.300

-2,8% -7,4% -0,3% -1,0% -13,1% -10,8% -2,8% 3,1% 3,4% 3,4% 3,6% 3,6%

119.821 103.539 105.634 107.397 102.162 102.359 102.800 105.900 109.300 112.500 115.600 118.700

-7,6% -13,6% 2,0% 1,7% -4,9% 0,2% 0,4% 3,0% 3,2% 2,9% 2,8% 2,7%

193.379 177.502 174.635 180.152 173.966 170.138 168.700 171.700 176.200 181.600 186.900 191.700

-2,0% -8,2% -1,6% 3,2% -3,4% -2,2% -0,8% 1,8% 2,6% 3,1% 2,9% 2,6%

2.420.072 2.168.580 2.119.665 2.140.308 1.924.866 1.790.861 1.770.200 1.815.500 1.866.000 1.919.700 1.975.300 2.029.400

-3,3% -10,4% -2,3% 1,0% -10,1% -7,0% -0,7% 2,6% 2,8% 2,9% 2,9% 2,7%

NOTA: La suma total se presenta con valores redondeados a la centena.

PREVISIÓN DE OPERACIONES LLEGADA AENA AEROPUERTOS Vs AENA

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

138.900 142.350 145.750 149.200 152.650

138.980 142.090 144.514 150.263 154.313

48.150 49.100 50.150 51.250 52.200

53.763 54.121 54.323 54.850 54.991

167.050 172.650 178.600 185.050 191.650

167.859 169.547 171.142 174.035 176.438

52.950 54.650 56.250 57.800 59.350

53.083 53.748 55.537 57.071 58.927

85.850 88.100 90.800 93.450 95.850

85.451 86.640 88.893 92.064 94.321

Previsión Aena Aeropuertos (Ed. Oct-13)

Previsión Aena

PREVISIÓN

Barcelona-El Prat

Gran Canaria


Málaga-Costa del Sol

Palma Mallorca


Palma Mallorca

TOTAL Aeropuertos

AEROPUERTO

AEROPUERTO

Fecha: 15 de Noviembre de 2013

HISTÓRICO PREVISIÓN

Barcelona-El Prat

Gran Canaria


(**) (*)






TOTAL 0,69 0,57 0,80

Propuesta de objetivo 2015-2019:

Airport ATFM arrival delay per flight

Aena Aeropuertos





AenaAeropuerto

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Airport ATFM arrival delay per flight Vuelos Llegada

100.000

120.000

140.000

160.000

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Barcelona-El Prat


70.000

80.000

90.000

100.000

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

1,20

1,40

1,60

1,80

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Palma de Mallorca


40.000

50.000

60.000

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019



40.000

50.000

60.000

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

0,35

0,40

0,45

0,50

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Gran Canaria



3. Spain RP2 cost-effectiveness stakeholder consultation, 24 April 2014

Attendance List

South West FAB Performance Plan for RP2

Spain Cost-efficiency consultation meeting

24 April 2014

ATTENDANCE LIST

Angeles Pozo Romero/Iberia

Nicole Ammann/Swiss

Hengxuan Tian/Air Canada

Robert Meinderts/KLM-AF

Peter Currant / IATA

Javier Valdes Colunga/IATA

Laurie OToole/IATA

Angel Soret / AESA

Ana Gómez-Pineda / AESA

Leandro Calvo / AESA

Carlos Oliver / AESA

Ricardo López / AESA

Celia Ríos / AENA

Emiliano Morona / AENA


3. Spain RP2 cost-effectiveness stakeholder consultation, 24 April 2014

Meeting Slides Small adjustments regarding the presentation displayed on the 24th:

Pages 2 and 5: better explanations of the entities, so the names are the same of the tables 1 & 2.

Page 5: now it is the right graph for AESA. In the other one there were two graphs of AENA instead

1 MADRID, 24th April 2014

DIVISIÓN DE SUPERVISIÓN ECONÓMICA Y DE NAVEGACIÓN AÉREA

DIRECCIÓN DE SEGURIDAD DE LA AVIACIÓN CIVIL Y PROTECCIÓN AL USUARIO

BILATERAL MEETING WITH IATA(AENA & AESA)

2º Reference Period (2015 – 2019)


TOTAL COSTS EVOLUTION


SERVICE UNITS EVOLUTION

‐10,2% ‐12,3% ‐13,2%‐6,2%

PNER1CON 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Forecast SU (NPP) 8.320 9.110 9.401 9.626 9.857Actual SU 8.642 9.099 8.444 8.447Actual / forecast SU (in %) 103,9% 99,9% 89,8% 87,7%

CAN 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Forecast SU (NPP) 1.515 1.618 1.705 1.746 1.795Actual SU 1.540 1.666 1.599 1.516Actual / forecast SU (in %) 101,7% 103,0% 93,8% 86,8%


SPAIN COST‐EFFICIENCY POLICY

- STABILITY ON DETERMINED COSTS

- STABILITY ON UNIT RATE

ALL RP1 & RP2:

CONTINENT UNIT RATE: 71,69 €/USCANARY ISLAND UNIT RATE : 58,36 €/US


TOTAL COSTS EVOLUTION RP2


SPAIN CONTINENT EN ROUTE COSTS & DUC RP2 (2015 ‐ 2019)

CONTINENT: COSTS & DUC 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Total Determined Costs (€ 2009) 631.750 564.288 559.873 553.989 551.088 546.650Cost Target EU Comision (€ 2009) 633.410 627.406 614.069 601.015 588.238 575.734DUC (Determined Costs / Traffic Statfor LOW) 76,22 63,55 62,65 61,43 60,37 59,17DUC target for Spain (EU Comision) 76,42 75,28 72,77 70,48 68,06 65,79Traffic STATRFOR LOW (Feb 2014) 8.288 8.880 8.936 9.018 9.128 9.238

CONTINENT: ANUAL COST REDUCTION 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Total Determined Costs (€ 2009) ‐10,68% ‐0,78% ‐1,05% ‐0,52% ‐0,81%Cost Target EU Comision (€ 2009) ‐0,95% ‐2,13% ‐2,13% ‐2,13% ‐2,13%DUC (Determined Costs / Traffic Statfor LOW) ‐16,63% ‐1,40% ‐1,95% ‐1,72% ‐1,99%DUC target for Spain (EU Comision) ‐1,49% ‐3,33% ‐3,16% ‐3,43% ‐3,33%Traffic STATRFOR LOW (Feb 2014) 7,14% 0,63% 0,92% 1,22% 1,21%


‐232.234

Anual Reduction‐2,8%‐1,9%‐4,7%‐2,9%


CANARY ISLANDS EN ROUTE COSTS & DUC RP2 (2015 ‐ 2019)

CANARY ISLANDS: COSTS & DUC 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Total Determined Costs (€ 2009) 97.873 90.049 89.443 88.794 87.486 86.406Cost Target EU Comision (€ 2009) 98.130 95.915 93.751 91.635 89.567 87.546DUC (Determined Costs / AENA forecast April 2014) 64,56 58,82 58,54 58,00 56,92 56,00DUC target for Spain (EU Comision) 64,60 62,56 63,56 62,00 60,57 58,96Traffic AENA forecast April 2014 1.516 1.531 1.528 1.531 1.537 1.543

62,56 63,56 62,00 60,57 58,96CANARY ISLANDS: ANUAL COST REDUCTION 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total Determined Costs (€ 2009) ‐7,99% ‐0,67% ‐0,73% ‐1,47% ‐1,23%Cost Target EU Comision (€ 2009) ‐2,26% ‐2,26% ‐2,26% ‐2,26% ‐2,26%DUC (Determined Costs / AENA forecast April 2014) ‐8,90% ‐0,48% ‐0,92% ‐1,86% ‐1,62%DUC target for Spain (EU Comision) ‐3,16% 1,60% ‐2,45% ‐2,31% ‐2,66%Traffic AENA forecast April 2014 0,99% ‐0,20% 0,20% 0,39% 0,39%


‐16.494

Anual Reduction‐2,4%‐2,3%‐2,8%‐1,8%


4. Portugal RP2 cost-effectiveness stakeholder consultation, 10 April 2014


Documents

Annex A: Public consultation material