View
1.378
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Hellenic Air Navigation Supervisory Authority National Performance Plan for the period 2012-2014
Citation preview
i
HELLENIC AIR NAVIGATION SUPERVISORY
AUTHORITY
NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN
GREECE
RP1
2012-2014
Edition : 0.7
Edition Date : 17-6-2011
Status : FINAL
iii
DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD
The following table records the complete history of the successive editions of the present document.
EDITION DATE REASON FOR CHANGE
SECTIONS
PAGES
AFFECTED
0.1 10/2/2011 Draft of work in progress ALL
0.2 3/3/2011 Draft of work in progress ALL
0.3 21/3/2011 Draft of work in progress ALL
0.4 28/4/2011 Draft of work in progress ALL
0.4.1 2/5/2011 Data insertion ALL
0.5 11/5/2011 Draft for consultation with stakeholders ALL
0.6 2/6/2011 Updated draft ALL
0.7 17/6/2011 FINAL -
v
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures and Tables ................................................................................................................. vii
Relevant Regulations ...................................................................................................................... viii
Abbreviations and Acronyms............................................................................................................. ix
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 THE SITUATION .................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 OVERALL ASSUMPTIONS FOR RP1 ...................................................................................... 2
1.3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ......................................................................................... 6
2. National Performance Targets and Alert Thresholds ...................................................................... 7
2.1 PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND ALERT THRESHOLDS FOR RP1 .......................................... 7
2.2 CONSISTENCY WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION-WIDE PERFORMANCE TARGETS .............. 10
2.3 CARRY-OVERS FROM THE YEARS BEFORE RP1 ................................................................. 17
2.4 PARAMETERS FOR RISK SHARING AND INCENTIVES ........................................................ 17
3. Contribution of Each Accountable Entity ...................................................................................... 20
3.1 ANSP’s SHARE TO THE NATIONAL TARGETS .................................................................... 20
3.2 HANSA’s SHARE TO THE NATIONAL TARGETS.................................................................. 24
3.3 METSP’s SHARE TO THE NATIONAL TARGETS .................................................................. 25
4. Military Dimension of the Plan ...................................................................................................... 26
4.1 PERFORMANCE OF THE FUA APPLICATION ...................................................................... 26
4.2 ADDITIONAL KPI’s .............................................................................................................. 27
5. Analysis of Sensitivity ................................................................................................................... 29
5.1 EXTERNAL ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................. 29
5.2 COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS PLANS ............................................................................. 29
6. Implementation of the Performance Plan ..................................................................................... 31
ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................ 32
ANNEX A ......................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 1 - Total Costs-En-route .......................................................................................................... 33
Table 2 - Unit rate calculation ........................................................................................................... 41
Total costs-Terminal ........................................................................................................................ 49
ANNEX B .......................................................................................................................................... 51
STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION MATERIAL ............................................................................... 51
vi
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................................... 51
MINUTES OF THE STAKEHOLDERS’ CONSULTATION ................................................................... 53
vii
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1: General socio-economic situation in Greece ............................................................................ 3
Figure 2: GDP growth .............................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 3: Inflation ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4: SU forecasts 2010-2016 ........................................................................................................... 4
Table 1: Unit rate trend..............................................................................................................................5
Table 2: KPI's for local target setting in PR1.............................................................................................7
Table 3: Presentation of the National targets and thresholds for RP1.......................................................7
Table 4: Reference values for capacity.....................................................................................................9
Table 5: Presentation of en-route capacity target for RP1.........................................................................9
Table 6: Presentation of en-route cost-efficiency target for RP1.............................................................10
Table 7: EU-wide targets and associated thresholds for RP1.................................................................11
Table 8: En-route capacity target-details at National level......................................................................12
Table 9: En-route service units forecast used for the calculation of the national en-route
cost-efficiency targe.................................................................................................................................13
Table 10: National determined en-route costs-breakdown per entity (in nominal terms in EURO).........14
Table 11: National determined en-route costs-breakdown by nature (in nominal terms in EURO).........14
Table 12: National determined en-route costs-total in real terms............................................................15
Table 13: National real en-route determined unit rate.............................................................................15
Table 14: National costs for terminal ANS-breakdown per entity/ charging zone....................................16
Table 15: Carry-overs from the years before RP1- under(-) and over(+) recoveries (in nominal
terms in EURO).......................................................................................................................................17
Table 16: HCAA/ANSP contribution to the National capacity target ( at ANSP level).............................20
Table 17: HCAA/ANSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)...........21
Table 18: HCAA/ANSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by service (in nominal terms in EURO)..........21
Table 19: Complementary information on the cost of capital en-route (in nominal terms in EURO).......22
Table 20: HCAA/ANSP-Terminal ANS costs in EURO............................................................................22
Table 21: HCAA/ANSP-Investments (capex) in nominal terms in EURO for en-route and terminal ANS.........................................................................................................................................................23
Table 22: HANSA-Determined en-route ANS costs by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)...................24
Table 23: HANSA-Determined en-route ANS costs by service (in nominal terms in EURO)..................24
Table 24: HANSA-Terminal ANS costs in EURO....................................................................................24
Table 25: METSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)...................25
Table 26: METSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by service (in nominal terms in EURO)..................25
viii
Relevant Regulations
• Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 2010 laying down a
performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions and
amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 laying down common requirements for
the provision of air navigation services.
• Commission Decision No 2011/121/EU of 21 February 2011 setting the European
Union-wide performance targets and alert thresholds for the provision of air
navigation services for the years 2012 to 2014.
• Commission Regulation (EU) No 1191/2010 amending Commission
Regulation1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme
for air navigation services.
• Commission Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 of 20 December 2005 laying down
common requirements for the provision of air navigation services.
• Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10
March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky
(the framework Regulation)
• Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10
March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky
(the service provision Regulation)
• Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10
March 2004 on the organization and use of the airspace in the single European sky
(the airspace Regulation)
• Regulation (EC)No 1070/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21
October 2009 amending Regulations (EC)No 549/2004, (EC)No 550/2004, (EC)No
551/2004 and (EC)No 552/2004 in order to improve the performance and
sustainability of the European aviation system.
• Commission Regulation (EU)No 255/2010 of 25 March 2010 laying down common
rules on air traffic flow management
• Commission Regulation (EC) No 1315/2007 of 8 November 2007 on safety oversight
in air traffic management and amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005
• Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20
February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a
European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC,
Regulation (EC) No1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC.
ix
Abbreviations and Acronyms
The most important abbreviations used in this document are the following:
A :Actual
ACC :Area Control Center
AIS :Aeronautical Information Services
ANS : Air Navigation Service
ANSP : Air Navigation Service Provider
APP :Approach
ATFM :Air Traffic Flow Management
ATM :Air Traffic Management
ATC :Air Traffic Control
ATS :Air Traffic Services
AOM :Airspace Organization and Management
AOP :Airports Operations Domain
BSO :Basic Objective
COM :Communications
CT :Consolidated Table
D :Determined
ET :Entity Table
F :Forecast
FAB :Functional Airspace Block
FIN :Financial
FIR :Flight Information Region
FUA :Flexible Use of Airspace
GAT :General Air Traffic
HANSA :Hellenic Air Navigation Supervisory
Authority
HCAA :Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority
HUM :Human Resources Domain
ICAO :International Civil Aviation Organization
IMF :International Monetary Fund
KPA :Key Performance Area
KPI :Key Performance Indicator
MET :Aviation Meteorology
METSP :Meteorological Service Provider
NAV :Navigation
NSA :National Supervisory Authority
OI :Operational Improvement
PM :Project Manager
PMP :Project Management Plan
PS :Performance Scheme
QA :Quality Assurance
QM :Quality Management
RP :Reference Period
SAF :Safety Domain
SAR :Search and Rescue
SES :Single European Sky
SSP :State Safety Program
SUs :Service Units
SUR :Surveillance
T :Target
TMA :Terminal Control Area
WP :Work Package
1
1. Introduction
1.1 THE SITUATION
In order to meet the requirements of Commission Regulation (EU) no. 691/2010 of July
2010 (laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions
and amending Regulation (EC) no. 2096/2005 laying down common requirements for the
provision of air navigation services) Hellenic Air Navigation Supervisory Authority (HANSA)
has prepared for Greece the present Performance Plan which covers the first Reference
Period (RP1; 2012-2014).
This Performance Plan has been developed at a national level and registers Greece’s
intention, for the duration of the first reference period, to achieve the objectives of the
Single European Sky and the balance between the needs of all airspace users and supply of
services provided by air navigation service providers.
• Accountable Entities:
The accountable entities covered by the present performance plan are the following:
• HCAA/ANSP: The Greek Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) was certified by
HANSA for a bundle of services (ATS, CNS, AIS) on 25 June 2010.The duration of
the certificate is one (1) year. An extension of the certificate has been issued by
HANSA until 30 April 2012.
• HANSA: A single NSA, the "Hellenic Air Navigation National Supervisory Authority"
(HANSA), has been established functionally separated from the air navigation
service provision. Law 3446/2006 establishes the NSA while Presidential Decree
150/2007 covers the organization, the staffing and the responsibilities of the NSA.
Presidential Decree 103/2010 regulates the internal functioning of the NSA.
• METSP: The meteorological service for civil aviation is provided by the “National
Meteorological Service”, the “Regional Met Centre MAKEDONIA” and the
“Regional Met Centre ATA”, which are subordinated to the Ministry of Defence.
HANSA certified the Hellenic National Meteorological Service Provider on 20 May
2010.The duration of the certificate is three (3) years.
• Geographical Scope:
The airspace under Hellenic responsibility is encompassed by the ATHINAI FIR/ HELLAS
UIR as per AIP Greece.
Two ACCs, the Athinai and Makedonia ACCs provide within the ATHINAI FIR/HELLAS UIR
with air traffic services. The environment can be considered as highly complex due to the
large number (10) of adjacent FIRs and the traffic profile (a lot of climbing/descending
flights).
Fifteen (15) TMAs are established at civil airports and eight (8) MTMAs at military
aerodromes. The lower limit of TMAs is generally 1.000 ft. GND. The upper limit varies
between FL 85 and FL 460.
Twenty-six (26) Control Zones (CTRs) are established around civil airports and eight (8)
Control Zones around military aerodromes.
2
The Athinai TMA is the only high complexity TMA. However, taking into account traffic
complexity and distribution, the Makedonia, Kerkira, Iraklion and Rodos TMAs can also be
considered as complex TMAs.
There is no cross border provision of ATS.
• Body providing aggregation of performance targets for FAB:
Greece is cooperating with other EU Member States (Cyprus, Malta and Italy) in
establishing a Functional Airspace Block (FAB) which is called BLUE MED. However, the
four States have decided that, since BLUE MED is not yet formed, each State should submit
its own NPP.
1.2 OVERALL ASSUMPTIONS FOR RP1
For the development of the present Performance Plan, the following key factors have been
taken into account:
• General socio-economic situation of Greece:
In spring 2010 Greece jointed the three-year Economic Adjustment Programme and
consequently adopted comprehensive fiscal consolidation measures.They are expected to
have a dampening impact on domestic demand. However, successful and credible fiscal
adjustment efforts are expected to compensate for the economic cost of adjustment and
lead to the beginning of a recovery in the second half of 2011.
Because of the general socio-economic situation though, it is difficult to draw exact
conclusions as to how the economy will move in the long term.
For the year 2011, fiscal tightening will have a strong contraction impact on economic
activity, on the back of cuts in public wages, an increasing tax burden and ensuing declining
disposable income and public spending. Real GDP is expected to further decline by 3% in
2011 – mainly due to carry-over effects – while growth is expected to turn around positively
during the second half of the year, with the recovery gaining further momentum in 2012.
Inflationary pressures have built up in the course of 2010, fuelled by the VAT-rates rises in
March and July and the increase in excise duties on alcohol, tobacco and fuel.
The contraction of economic activity, reflected in weakening labour demand from the
retail, wholesale and construction sectors, is weighing heavily on employment which is set
to fall by more than 5% over the forecast horizon. Reduced employment opportunities in
the private sector, along with the recruitment freeze and cuts in short-term contracts in the
public sector will push the unemployment rate up to just below 15% in 2012. Negative
employment growth and declining wages should weigh on disposable income over the
medium-term, dampening real demand.1
1 GREECE-Rebalancing growth amidst ongoing fiscal consolidation/European Economic Forecast-Autumn 2010
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eu/forecasts/2010_autumn/el_en.pdf
3
The overall economic situation for Greece in key sectors, from the year 2009 up to the year
2014, can be summarized in the following table:
Forecasts for Greece2 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
GDP growth (%, yoy) -2,3 -4,2 -3,0 1,1 2,1 2,1
Inflation (%, yoy)3 1,35 4,70 2,54 0,50 0,66 0,95
Unemployment (%) 9,5 12,5 12,5 15,2
Public budget balance (% of GDP) -15,4 -9,6 -7,4 -7,5 -7,8 -7,8
Current account balance (% of GDP) -14,0 -10,6 -8,0 -6,5 -5,2 -4,1
Figure 1: General socio-economic situation in Greece
The expected evolution of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and of the national Inflation
is presented schematically below:
• GDP growth (%)
Figure 2: GDP growth
2 The Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece Second review – autumn 2010 http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2010/pdf/ocp72_en.pdf
3 Source: International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2011
http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/gallery/content/public/Docs/IMF_WEO_April2011.pdf
-5,0
-4,0
-3,0
-2,0
-1,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
1 2 3 4 5 6
GDP %
GDP %
4
• Inflation rate (%):
Figure 3: Inflation rate
• Traffic forecast:
According to the Eurocontrol short – and medium term forecast of Service Units of May
20114, the traffic in Greece is going to increase at around 21% from 2010 to 2016.
Below is a table with the total units for Greece between 2010 and 2016, according to
EUROCONTROL forecasts, with the high, low and baseline scenario for each year:
GREECE
Total SU
in
thousands
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
H 4.555 4.793 5.035 5.283 5.528 5.797
B 4.454 4.507 4.698 4.860 5.041 5.219 5.409
1.2% 4.2% 3.4% 3.7% 3.5% 3.6%
L 4.461 4.607 4.723 4.861 4.995 5.140
Figure 4: SU forecasts 2010-2016
4 EUROCONTROL Short-and-Medium-Term Forecast of Service Units: May 2011 Update
Doc 434-SUF-May11-v1.0.pdf
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
3,50
4,00
4,50
5,00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
INFLATION %
INFLATION %
5
• Unit rate trend:
The unit rate trend for the first reference period is presented in the following table:
Real en-
route
determined
unit rate
profile
2012-2014
2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 F 2013 F 2014 F
Total costs
in real
terms
(in
EUR2011)
182.946.000 173.394.220 171.311.070 166.121.280 164.997.000 165.395.210
Total SU 4.139.000 4.454.000 4.507.000 4.698.000 4.860.000 5.041.000
Real en-
route
determined
unit rate
profile (in
EUR2011)
44.20 38.93 37.57 35.36 33.95 32.81
% n/n-1 -11.9% -3.5% -5.9% -4.0 -3.4%
Table 1: Unit rate trend
Details on the calculations of the unit rate are given in chapter no. 2 “National
performance targets and alert thresholds”.
• Overall status of Aviation Safety:
There are arrangements on safety both at State level and at ANSPs level.
At State level the existing arrangements on safety are:
• the National legal safety regulatory framework and
• a series of safety relevant activities.
Greece, in order to discharge its obligation to ICAO for the development of a State
Safety Programme (SSP), has designated the Governor of Hellenic Civil Aviation
Authority as the National Coordinator for the development of the Greek State Safety
Programme (SSP).
To this end, the HCAA Governor has established a relevant Committee. The primary
task of this Committee is to collect and integrate all existing national arrangements
and safety elements, aiming at developing an SSP manual as the basis for the
establishment of the Greek SSP.
The Committee, so far, has developed a considerable amount of material in
coordination with all the relevant State aviation stakeholders.
The establishment of national Acceptable Levels of Safety (ALoS) is still pending.
The development of a list of national safety indicators and targets, such as the
measurement of safety maturity, the extent of RAT use, the safety culture
measurement (as required by the EC regulation 691/2010), has not been finalized yet.
The completion of this task will allow the State to monitor the level of aviation safety.
6
• Institutional context for ANS provision:
o Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks: it is the Ministry
responsible for the civil aviation in Greece
o HANSA: The Hellenic Air Navigation Supervisory Authority is the Greek
NSA responsible for the certification, supervision and oversight of the Air
Navigation Services Providers, according to the regulations of the
European Commission for Air Navigation Services in the framework of the
Single European Sky, including the Eurocontrol Safety Regulatory
Requirements (ESSAR’s).
o ANSP: is the certified Air Navigation Service Provider responsible for ANS
provision. The duration of its certificate has been extended by HANSA until
30 April 2012. Law 3913/2011 regarding the reconstruction of HCAA has
been put into effect but its implementation will not affect the status of civil
aviation safety.
o METSP: is the certified Meteorological Air Navigation Service Provider
responsible for the provision of meteorological data.
o Military Component(HAF): The Military Authorities (Hellenic Air Force –
HAF provide Air Traffic Services to civil aircraft at military
Aerodromes/Terminal Control Areas. HAF is also user of some
designated/reserved parts of the airspace. Civil military co-ordination is
ensured through agreed procedures (use of LoAs etc).
1.3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Performance Scheme Regulation, recital number 11, article
10 clauses 2 (b) and 3 (j), the following stakeholders’ consultation took place:
1. On 28/3/2011 between HANSA, ANSP and METSP experts for the cost-
efficiency.
2. On 1/4/2011 between HANSA and ANSP representatives where guidance
material for the preparation of the Performance Plan and the role of each
accountable entity was presented.
3. On 19/4/2011 between HANSA and ANSP for the elaboration of the data
that will be inserted in the Performance Plan.
4. On 7/6/2011 consultation with all relevant stakeholders (ANSP, METSP,
IATA).All relevant information regarding the meeting is provided in ANNEX
B “Stakeholders Consultation Material”.
7
2. National Performance Targets and Alert Thresholds
The following table lists all the Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) for each Key
Performance Area (KPA) and their status as mandatory or optional for the RP1 according to
Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010:
Table 2: KPI's for local target setting in PR1
2.1 PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND ALERT THRESHOLDS FOR RP1
This section presents, for each KPA, the KPI’s and associated targets that form Greece’s
Performance Plan. It also presents the defined alert thresholds beyond which the alert
mechanism may be activated.
A summary of the National Targets and Thresholds is presented in the following table:
KPA KPI National Targets National
Alert Thresholds 2012 2013 2014
(a) Safety Not set for the first
reference period
(b) Capacity En-route ATFM delay (minutes
per flight) 1.20 1.35 1.50
- Deviation over a
calendar year by at
least 10% of the
actual traffic versus
the traffic forecasts
(c) Environment Not set for the first
reference period
(d) Cost-efficiency Determined en-route unit rate
(2011 prices in EURO) 35.36 33.95 32.81
- Deviation over a
calendar year by at
least 10% of the
actual costs versus
the reference costs
Table 3: Presentation of the National targets and thresholds for RP1
KPA Local KPI for Target Setting in RP1 Status
Safety
Effectiveness of safety management (Maturity) Optional
Application of severity classification scheme Optional
Targets for:
*Separation infringements
*Runway incursions
*ATM special technical events
Optional
Application of just culture Optional
Environment Average horizontal en-route flight efficiency Optional
Capacity
Minutes of en-route ATMF delay per flight Mandatory
Targets for:
*ATFM airport delays
*Additional time in taxi-out phase
*Additional time in arrival sequencing/merging area
Optional
Cost Efficiency Determined unit rate for en-route ANS Mandatory
8
A) SAFETY TARGET AND THRESHOLD
For the first reference period the SAFETY key performance indicators, according to the
Performance Scheme Regulation, are:
(a) The first national safety KPI shall be the effectiveness of safety management as
measured by a methodology based on the ATM Safety Maturity Survey Framework. This
indicator shall be developed jointly by the Commission, the Member States, EASA and
Eurocontrol and adopted by the Commission prior to the first reference period. During this
first reference period, national supervisory authorities will monitor and publish these key
performance indicators, and Member States may set corresponding targets.
(b) The second national safety KPI shall be the application of the severity classification of
the Risk Analysis Tool to allow harmonized reporting of severity assessment of Separation
Minima Infringement, Runway Incursions and ATM Specific Technical Events at all Air
Traffic Control Centers and airports with more than 150 000 commercial air transport
movements per year within the scope of this Regulation (yes/no value). The severity
classification shall be developed jointly by the Commission, the Member States, EASA and
Eurocontrol and adopted by the Commission prior to the first reference period. During this
first reference period, national supervisory authorities will monitor and publish these key
performance indicators, and Member States may set corresponding targets.
(c) The third national safety KPI shall be the reporting of just culture. This measure shall be
developed jointly by the Commission, the Member States, EASA and Eurocontrol and
adopted by the Commission prior to the first reference period. During this first reference
period, national supervisory authorities will monitor and publish this measure, and Member
States may set corresponding targets.EN 3.8.2010 Official Journal of the European Union L
201/13
Greece, for the first reference period, will not set any safety targets at National level.
B) CAPACITY TARGET AND THRESHOLD
For the first reference period, the mandatory capacity KPI is the minutes of en route ATFM
delay per flight. It is defined as follows:
(a) the indicator is defined as the difference between the 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” .
(b) the indicator is given for each year of the reference period.
In order to prepare the development of a second national capacity KPI, Member States
shall report as from the first reference period:
(a) the total of ATFM delays attributable to terminal and airport air navigation services;
(b) the additional time in the taxi out phase;
(c) for airports with more that 100 000 commercial movements per year the additional time
for ASMA (Arrival Sequencing and Metering Area).
The alert threshold for the first reference period, where an alert mechanism will be
activated, is the deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual traffic versus
the traffic forecasts.
9
For Greece the capacity targets that would be consistent with the EU-target, as calculated
by EUROCONTROL, are set as shown in the following table:
Table 4: Reference values for capacity
Nevertheless, the minutes of en-route ATFM delay for the years 2012 to 2014 are expected
to be higher than the reference values and reach the numbers shown in the table below:
Table 5: Presentation of en-route capacity target for RP1
The reasons for the discrepancy between the EUROCONTROL reference values and the
targets set for Greece for the first reference period of the Performance Plan are being
analytically explained in the paragraph “2.2 Consistency with the European Union-Wide
performance targets – (b) capacity”.
C) ENVIRONMENT TARGET AND THRESHOLD
The EU-wide environment target is the average horizontal en-route flight efficiency.
For the first reference period, Greece does not propose to adopt any environment KPI at
National level.
D) COST-EFFICIENCY TARGET AND THRESHOLD
For the first reference period, the mandatory cost-efficiency KPI is the determined unit rate
for en route air navigation services, defined as follows:
(a) the indicator is the result of the ratio between the determined costs and the forecast
traffic contained in the performance plans in accordance with Article 10(3)(a) and (b) of the
performance regulation;
(b) the indicator is expressed in national currency and in real terms;
(c) the indicator is provided for each year of the reference period.
5 Capacity reference values- EU Target ACC Breakdown
Capacity KPI ACC ACC Code 2012 F 2013 F 2014 T
Intermediate
Value
Intermediate
Value
Minutes of en-route
ATFM delay per flight5
ATHENS LGGGCTA 0.29 0.24 0.20
MAKEDONIA LGMDCTA 0.28 0.26 0.21
ANSP 0.37 0.32 0.26
Capacity KPI ANSP 2012 F 2013 F 2014 T Alert Threshold
Intermediate
Value
Intermediate
Value
Minutes of en-route
ATFM delay per flight
- Deviation over a
calendar year by at
least 10% of the
actual traffic versus
the traffic forecasts
ANSP 1.20 1.35 1.50
10
In addition, States have to report their terminal air navigation services costs and unit rates
in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 and must justify to the Commission any
deviation from the forecasts.
The alert threshold for the first reference period, where an alert mechanism will be
activated, is the deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual costs versus the
reference costs.
For Greece, the cost-efficiency targets for RP1 are the ones shown in the table below:
Table 6: Presentation of en-route cost-efficiency target for RP1
2.2 CONSISTENCY WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION-WIDE PERFORMANCE
TARGETS
This section sets out the justifications for Greece’s targets and their consistency with the
EU-wide targets, in particular with due regard to the assessment criteria set out at Annex III
of the Performance Scheme IR.
For the performance reference period starting on 1 January 2012 and ending on 31
December 2014, the European Union-wide performance targets, according to Commission
Decision No 2011/121/EU of 21 February 2011, shall be as follows:
(a) environment target: an improvement by 0,75 of a percentage point of the average
horizontal en route flight efficiency indicator in 2014 as compared to the situation
in 2009;
(b) capacity target: an improvement of the average en route Air Traffic Flow
Management (ATFM) delay so as to reach a maximum of 0,5 minute per flight in
2014;
(c) (c) cost-efficiency target: a reduction of the average European Union-wide
determined unit rate for en route air navigation services from 59,97 EUR in 2011 to
53,92 EUR in 2014 (expressed in real terms, EUR 2009), with intermediate annual
values of 57,88 EUR in 2012 and 55,87 EUR in 2013.
For all key performance indicators applicable to the performance reference period, the alert
threshold beyond which the alert mechanism referred to in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No
691/2010 may be activated shall be a deviation over a calendar year by at least 10 % of the
actual traffic recorded by the Performance Review Body versus the traffic forecasts
expressed in en route service units: 108 776 000 in 2012, 111 605 000 in 2013 and 114 610
000 in 2014.
For the cost-efficiency indicator, the costs evolution alert threshold beyond which the alert
mechanism referred to in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 may be activated shall
be a deviation over a calendar year by at least 10 % of the actual costs at European Union-
Cost efficiency
KPI
2012 F 2013 F 2014 T Alert Threshold
Intermediate
Value
Intermediate
Value
Real en-route
determined unit
rate (in EURO at
2011 prices)
35.36 33.95 32.81
- Deviation over a
calendar year by at
least 10% of the actual
costs versus the
reference costs
11
wide level recorded by the Performance Review Body versus the reference determined
costs level (expressed in real terms, EUR 2009): 6 296 000 000 in 2012, 6 234 000 000 in
2013 and 6 179 000 000 in 2014.
The above are presented in the following table:
KPA KPI EU-WIDE TARGETS EU-WIDE THRESHOLDS
2012 2013 2014
(b) Capacity Minutes of en-route
ATFM delay per flight
0.7 0.6 0.5 - Deviation over a calendar
year by at least 10% of the
actual traffic versus the
traffic forecasts
c) Environment Improvement of the
average horizontal en-
route flight efficiency
indicator compared to
2009 (in % points)
0.75 - Deviation over a calendar
year by at least 10% of the
actual traffic versus the
traffic forecasts
(d)Cost-efficiency Average EU-wide
determined unit rate for
en route ANS (in Euros
2009)
57.88 55.87 53.92 - Deviation over a calendar
year by at least 10% of the
actual traffic versus the
traffic forecasts
- Deviation over a calendar
year by at least 10% of the
actual costs at EU-wide
level versus the reference
costs
References for the activation of the thresholds
Reference en-route traffic at EU-
wide level (in million en-route service
units)
108.776 111.605 114.610
Reference determined en-route costs
at EU-wide level (in million Euros
2009)
6.296 6.234 6.179
Table 7: EU-wide targets and associated thresholds for RP1
12
� Capacity
The performance of the ANSP with respect to the mandatory capacity KPI for RP1 is shown
in the table below:
Capacity 2009A 2010A 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014T
En-route ATFM delay prior to RP1 (en-
route ATFM delay minutes per flight) 1.11 0.99 1.10/1.256
Reference value from the capacity planning
process of EUROCONTROL (en-route
ATFM delay minutes per flight)
0.37 0.32 0.26
% n/n-1 -13.5% -18.8%
National/FAB capacity target (en-route
ATFM delay in minutes per flight) 1.20 1.35 1.50
% n/n-1 10.0% 13.6%
Difference between the target and the
reference value 0.83 1 .03 1.24
Table 8: En-route capacity target-details at National level
The national capacity targets the first reference period were calculated on the basis of the
en-route ATFM delay recorded during the three previous years, i.e. 2009-2011.
The reasoning behind these figures is listed below:
• The significant increase of overflights that has been documented as of 2003
onwards, mainly attributed to the continuous efforts for improvement of the route
network has resulted to an increase in en-route ATFM delays.
• The economic situation in Greece has resulted in a big decrease in domestic flights
that is expected to continue until the end of the year 2014.
• The STATFOR forecast data on traffic evolution for Greece for the first reference
period show a sizeable increase of traffic at about 3% per annum.
• Having regard to the decrease in domestic flights and the evolution of overflights
so far, Greece expects an increase in traffic higher than 3% p.a..
• The economic situation, Greece being under the Economic Support Mechanism,
and the austerity measures taken, in conjunction with the fact that the ANSP staff
is part of the public sector, cannot guarantee immediate actions in personnel
recruitment. Consequently, the existing personnel, which is additionally expected
to decrease due to scheduled retirements, cannot easily cope with significant traffic
increase.
• Furthermore, there is no evidence so far that adequate investments for
infrastructure have been undertaken that could lead to capacity increase.
6 If the Libyan situation still exists during the summer of 2011, the mean en-route ATFM delay will be deteriorated.
13
� Cost-efficiency
Historically, the Greek en-route unit rate is well below the European average and is among
the lowest in the European Union.
For the first reference period, the cost-efficiency target of Greece is expected to present an
annual reduction in the determined en-route unit rate of 4.3%. The Greek target therefore
is consistent and even surpasses the EU-wide target.
The following tables summarise all relevant costs. Full reporting tables are included as
ANNEX A to this document.
1) En-route SU Forecast (in thousands)
The Service Units forecasts used are from the STATFOR May 2011 forecasts:
2009
A
2010
A 2011 F 2012 F 2013 F 2014 F
En-route total service units prior to
RP1 4.139 4.454 4.507
Forecast total service units used for
the determined unit rate 4.698 4.860 5.041
Source: STATFOR STATFOR STATFOR STATFOR
% n/n-1 7.6% 1.2% 4.2% 3.4% 3.7%
STATFOR service units forecast
(Baseline scenario)7
4.139 4.454 4.507 4.698 4.860 5.041
Date of STATFOR SU forecast: MAY
2011
MAY
2011 MAY 2011 MAY 2011 MAY 2011 MAY 2011
% n/n-1 7.6% 1.2% 4.2% 3.4% 3.7%
Table 9: En-route service units forecast used for the calculation of the national en-route cost-efficiency target
2) Determined en-route ANS costs in nominal terms
The tables below show the efforts made to maintain costs at a stable level. It has to be
stressed that, since 2010, Greek government has adopted austerity measures which
have resulted in cuts in wages and increase in operating costs (mainly due to rises in
VAT, fuel prices, electricity, telecommunications, water et.c.). This procedure is still on-
going and it is expected to affect the cost base at least for the year 2012, given the fact
that all accountable entities in this Performance Plan are part of the Public Sector.
7 EUROCONTROL Short- and Medium-Term Forecast of Service Units: May 2011 Update
14
ANS en-route cost per
entity Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
ANSP EURO 143,3 142,0 142,8 143,2 143,4
% n/n-1 -8.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.1%
HANSA EURO 12,4 11,1 12,6 12,7 12,9
% n/n-1 6.8% 0.8% 1.6%
METSP EURO 9,7 9,8 9,6 9,6 9,6
% n/n-1 1.0% -2.0% 0 0
Total determined costs
in nominal terms EURO 165,4 163,6 165,0 165,5 165,9
% n/n-1 -1.1% 0.9% 0.3% 0.2%
Table 10: National determined en-route costs-breakdown per entity (in nominal terms in EURO)
ANS en-route costs per
nature Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
Staff EURO 139,0 121,4 119,8 119,6 119,6 119,6
% n/n-1
-1.3% -0.2% 0 0
Other operating costs EURO 16,6 33,2 33,0 34,3 34,7 35,0
% n/n-1
-0.6% 3.9% 1.2% 0.9%
Depreciation EURO 7,9 7,4 7,3 7,5 7,6 7,6
% n/n-1
-1.4% 2.7% 1.3% 0
Cost of capital EURO 3,3 3,4 3,5 3,6 3,6 3,7
% n/n-1
2.9% 2.9% 0 2.8%
Exceptional items EURO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
% n/n-1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total determined costs
in nominal terms EURO 166,8 165,4 163,6 165,0 165,5 165,9
% n/n-1 -1.1% 0.9% 0.3% 0.2%
Table 11: National determined en-route costs-breakdown by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)
15
3) Determined en-route ANS costs in real terms
The following table provides the calculations of the conversion of the determined en-route costs
from nominal terms into real 2009 terms. The projected inflation rates used were derived as
described in section 1.2.
Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
Total determined costs
in nominal terms
EURO 189.9 165.4 163.6 165.0 165.5 165.9
Inflation % 4.7% 2.54% 0.50% 0.66% 0.95%
Inflation index
(100 in 2009)
100 104.7 107.4 107.9 108.6 109.6
Total determined costs
in real 2009 terms
EURO 158.0 152.4 153.0 152.5 151.4
% n/n-1 -3.5% 0.4% -0.3% -0.7%
Table 12: National determined en-route costs-total in real terms
4) Real en-route determined unit rate
Based on the total determined costs in real 2009 terms and the Service Units forecasts, the real
en-route determined unit rate is presented in the table below:
Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
Determined costs in real
terms (in national
currency at 2009 prices)
EURO
158.0 152.4 153.0 152.5 151.4
Total en-route SUs 4.454 4.507 4.698 4.860 5.041
Real en-route
determined unit rate in
national currency (at
2009 prices)
EURO 35.47 33.81 32.56 31.38 30.03
% n/n-1 -4.7% -3.7% -3.6% -4.3%
EU-wide target:
average determined
en-route unit rate (in
2009 EUR)
2009 EUR 57,88 55,87 53,92
Table 13: National real en-route determined unit rate
16
5) Terminal ANS costs
The Performance Scheme Regulation requires that, for RP1, EU member States provide an
overview of determined costs for terminal services. This information is provided in the following
table:
ANS terminal cost per
entity/charging zone Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
ANSP EURO 27.324 25.614 25.636 25.674 25.585 25.585
% n/n-1
0.1% 0.1% -0.3% 0.0
HANSA EURO 0,1948 0,1962 0,1690 0,1660 0,1660
% n/n-1
0.7% -13.9% -1.8% 0.0
Total terminal costs in
nominal terms EURO 25.614,19 25.636,20 25.674,17 25.585.17 25.585.17
% n/n-1 0.1% 0.1% -0.3% 0.0
Table 14: National costs for terminal ANS-breakdown per entity/ charging zone
� Independencies between targets
The Key performance Areas covered by this Performance Plan, i.e. capacity and cost-efficiency,
should not be considered as stand alone, performance in one area will affect performance in other
areas. A balance should be found between the cost of investments necessary to provide adequate
capacity and the cost of delays if insufficient capacity is provided.
The cost-efficiency target adopted by Greece is consistent, and even surpasses, the EU-wide targets.
On the other hand, the en-route ATFM delays are well above the reference values provided by
Eurocontrol and as a result the capacity target is not consistent with the EU-wide targets.
This is caused mainly because traffic has increased dramatically over the years, it is expected to
continue to do so, but no new staff recruitments nor any investments for the improvement of the
capacity target are foreseen due to the fact that Greece in under the European Support Mechanism.
Nevertheless, HCAA has made an effort to expedite approval for the initiation of five major projects
within the next 3 years, which would improve capacity and cost-efficiency but as these would take
some time to implement it would be crucial to invest in the human factor.
17
2.3 CARRY-OVERS FROM THE YEARS BEFORE RP1
The following table provides an overview of the carry-overs form the years before RP1 that are
relevant to the period covered by RP1.
2007
A
2008
A
2009
A
2010
F
2011
F
2012
P
2013
P
2014
P
Carry- overs of under / over recoveries (in '000 euro)
Balance Year 2004
-13.887 -2.777 -2.777 -2.777 -2.777
Balance Year 2005
-24.786 -4.957 -4.957 -4.957 -4.957
-
4.957
Balance Year 2006
-319 -319
Balance Year 2007
-1.109 -1.109
Balance Year 2008
2.179 2.179
Balance Year 2009
-4.920
-
4.920
Balance Year 2010
-1.593 -1.593
Balance Year 2011
Amounts carried over to
year (i) -7.735 -8.054 -8.843 -5.596 -9.878 -1.593
(1) Adjustment total service units -5.702
-
10.138
-
1.634
Table 15: Carry-overs from the years before RP1- under(-) and over(+) recoveries (in nominal terms in EURO)
2.4 PARAMETERS FOR RISK SHARING AND INCENTIVES
• Incentives:
For the time being, no incentive mechanisms are foreseen to be applied regarding the capacity and
cost-efficiency targets.
• Risk-sharing:
The traffic risk-sharing mechanism comprises the following:
o Where, over a given year n, the actual number of service units does not
exceed or fall below the forecast established at the beginning of the
reference period by more than 2 %, the additional revenue or loss in
revenue of the air navigation service provider with regard to determined
costs shall not be carried over.
o Where, over a given year n, the actual number of service units exceeds the
forecast established at the beginning of the reference period by more than
2 %, a minimum of 70 % of the additional revenue obtained by the air
navigation service provider(s) concerned in excess of 2 % of the difference
between the actual service units and the forecast with regard to
18
determined costs shall be returned to airspace users no later than in year
n+2.
o Where, over a given year n, the actual number of service units falls below
the forecast established at the beginning of the reference period by more
than 2 %, a maximum of 70 % of the loss in revenue incurred by the air
navigation service provider(s) concerned in excess of 2 % of the difference
between the actual service units and the forecast with regard to
determined costs shall be borne by the airspace users in principle no later
than in year n+2. However, Greece may decide to spread the carry -over of
such loss in revenue over several years with a view to preserving the
stability of the unit rate.
The following costs shall not be submitted to traffic risk sharing and shall be
recovered irrespective of traffic evolution:
(a) the determined costs established in application of Article 5(2) of EC Regulation
1191/2010 with the exception of agreements relating to cross border air traffic
service provision;
(b) the determined costs of METSP;
(c) the carry-overs authorised from a previous year or reference period and bonuses
or penalties resulting from incentive schemes;
(d) the over- or under-recoveries resulting from traffic variations, which shall be
recovered no later than in year n+2.
Where, over a given year n, the actual service units are lower than 90 % of the
forecast established at the beginning of the reference period, the full amount of the
loss in revenue incurred by the air navigation service provider(s) concerned in
excess of the 10 % of the difference between the actual service units and the
forecast in respect of determined costs shall be borne by the airspace users in
principle no later than in year n+2. However, Greece may decide to spread the
carry-over of such loss in revenue over several years with the view to preserving the
stability of unit rate.
Where, over a given year n, the actual service units exceed 110% of the forecast
established at the beginning of the reference period, the full amount of the
additional revenue obtained by the air navigation service provider(s) concerned in
excess of the 10% of the difference between the actual service units and the
forecast in respect of determined costs shall be returned to airspace users in year
n+2.
The cost risk-sharing mechanism provides that:
(a)where, over the whole reference period, actual costs fall below the
determined costs established at the beginning of the reference period, the
resulting difference shall be retained by the air navigation service provider,
Member State or qualified entity concerned;
(b)where, over the whole reference period, actual costs exceed the
determined costs established at the beginning of the reference period, the
resulting difference shall be borne by the air navigation service provider,
Member State or qualified entity concerned without prejudice to the
activation of an alert mechanism in accordance with Article 18 of
Regulation (EU) No 691/2010;
Points (a) and (b) may not apply to the difference between actual and determined
costs which may be deemed to be out of the control of the air navigation service
providers, Member States and qualified entities as a result of:
19
(i) unforeseen changes in national pension regulations and pension accounting
regulations;
(ii) unforeseen changes in to national taxation law;
(iii) unforeseen and new cost items not covered in the national performance plan
but required by law;
(iv) unforeseen changes in costs or revenues stemming from international
agreements;
(v) significant changes in interest rates on loans.
Where, over the whole reference period, actual costs are lower than the determined
costs established at the beginning of the reference period, the resulting difference
shall be returned to airspace users through a carry-over to the following reference
period.
Where, over the whole reference period, actual costs exceed the determined costs
established at the beginning of the reference period, the resulting difference shall
be passed on to airspace users through a carry-over to the following period.
The national supervisory authority concerned shall explicitly agree to the carry-over
after having ascertained that:
(i) the variation of actual costs against determined costs is actually the result of
developments that are beyond the influence of the air navigation service provider,
Member State or qualified entity concerned;
(ii) the variation in costs to be passed on to users is specifically identified and
categorised.
20
3. Contribution of Each Accountable Entity
3.1 ANSP’s SHARE TO THE NATIONAL TARGETS
(a)Safety
The SES regulatory framework requires that each certified ANSP has a Safety Management
System (SMS) in place.
The required Acceptable Levels of Safety (ALoS), to be agreed between HCAA and HANSA,
are currently being developed.
(b)Capacity
The HCAA/ANSP will be the only entity accountable for meeting the capacity targets for
RP1.
Capacity 2009A 2010A 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014T
En-route ATFM delay prior to RP1 (en-
route ATFM delay minutes per flight) 1.11 0.99 1.10/1.258
Reference value from the capacity planning
process of EUROCONTROL (en-route
ATFM delay minutes per flight)
0.37 0.32 0.26
% n/n-1 -13.5% -18.8%
National/FAB capacity target (en-route
ATFM delay in minutes per flight) 1.20 1.35 1.50
% n/n-1 10.0% 13.6%
Difference between the target and the
reference value -0.83 -1 -1.24
Table 16: HCAA/ANSP contribution to the National capacity target ( at ANSP level)
(c)Environment
HCAA/ANSP is the accountable entity for the environment.
No targets on environment will be set for the first reference period.
(d)Cost-efficiency
Details of the HCAA/ANSP’s determined en-route costs are provided in the Reporting
tables included in ANNEX A of this document. A summary of these tables is provided
below:
8 If the Libyan situation still exists during the summer of 2011, the mean en-route ATFM delay will be deteriorated.
21
• Determined en-route ANS costs:
• By nature
<HCAA/ANSP> Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
Staff EURO 115.3 113.2 113.2 113.2 113.2
Other operating costs EURO 18.1 18.9 19.2 19.5 19.5
Depreciation EURO 6.8 6.7 7.0 7.1 7.2
Cost of capital EURO 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5
Exceptional items EURO 0 0 0 0 0
Total en-route costs EURO 143.3 142.0 142.8 143.3 143.4
Table 17: HCAA/ANSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)
• By service
<HCAA/ANSP> Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
Air Traffic Management EURO 140.1 140.4 141.2 141.7 141.8
Communication EURO
Navigation EURO
Surveillance EURO
Search and rescue EURO
Aeronautical Information EURO
Meteorological services EURO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Supervision costs EURO 3.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Other State costs EURO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total costs EURO 143.3 142.0 142.8 143.3 143.4
Table 18: HCAA/ANSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by service (in nominal terms in EURO)
22
<HCAA/ANSP> Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
Net book value fixed assets EURO 137.2 123.0 105.0 105.0 105.0
Adjustments to total assets EURO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Net current assets EURO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total asset base EURO 137.2 123.0 105.0 105.0 105.0
Cost of capital pre tax rate % 2.5% 2.8% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3%
Return on equity % 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1%
Average interest on debts %
Table 19: Complementary information on the cost of capital en-route (in nominal terms in EURO)
• Terminal ANS costs:
<HCAA/ANSP> Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
Staff EURO 16.880 15.080 15.080 15.080 15.080 15.080
Other operating costs EURO 8.147 8.326 8.436 8.563 8.563 8.563
Depreciation EURO 1.266 1.266 1.266 1.266 1.266 1.266
Cost of capital EURO 1.031 942 854 765 676 676
Exceptional items EURO 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total terminal costs EURO 27.324 25.614 25.636 25.674 25.585 25.585
Table 20: HCAA/ANSP-Terminal ANS costs in EURO
Return on equity:
For the calculation of the return on equity, the 10-year Greek Government Bond was used
which was 10.17%
23
Investments:
The list for the main CAPEX projects between 2012 and 2014, deemed crucial for the
improvement of capacity and cost-efficiency, is shown in the table below.
The present economic situation in Greece though, cannot guarantee that these
investments will be implemented in due time.
Name Planned
start date
Planned end
date Budget
k€
1. Athinai/Makedonia ACC main VCS/RCS COM 2011 2014 8.500
2. Four (4) Airport VCS/RCSs COM 2011 2014 2.400
3. HACAS
Hellenic AFTN/CIDIN AMHS COM 2010 2012 1.800
4. Thessaloniki/Makedonia International Airport SMR/A-
SMGCS SUR 2009 2011 3.800
5. Elementary Mode S RADAR SENSOR at Himittos . SUR 2011 2014 1.750
6. UPGRADE OF PALLAS SYSTEM - MAIN FDPS/RDPS /
ODS ATM 2008 2009 1.500
ATM 2011 2014 3.750
7. PATROCLOS Upgrade ATM 2009 2011 2.250
8. CRISTAL ADS B OUT
In cooperation with
EUROCONTROL
SUR 2011 2013 0.6
Table 21: HCAA/ANSP-Investments (capex) in nominal terms in EURO for en-route and terminal ANS
24
3.2 HANSA’s SHARE TO THE NATIONAL TARGETS
HANSA is accountable only for the cost-efficiency target
• Determined en-route ANS costs:
• By nature
<HANSA> Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
Staff EURO
0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5
Other operating costs EURO 12.4 11.2 12.1 12.2 12.4
Total en-route costs EURO
11.8 12.6 12.7 12.9
Table 22: HANSA-Determined en-route ANS costs by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)
• By service
<HANSA> Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
Supervision costs EURO
0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5
Other State costs(incl ECTL) EURO 12.4 11.2 12.1 12.2 12.4
Total costs EURO 12.4 11.8 12.6 12.7 12.9
Table 23: HANSA-Determined en-route ANS costs by service (in nominal terms in EURO)
• Terminal ANS costs:
<HANSA> Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
Staff EURO - 0,1632 0,1544 0,1273 0,1273 0,1273
Other operating costs EURO - 0,0317 0,0418 0,0418 0,0387 0,0387
Depreciation EURO - 0 0 0 0 0
Cost of capital EURO - 0 0 0 0 0
Exceptional items EURO - 0 0 0 0 0
Total terminal costs EURO - 0,1948 0,1962 0,1690 0,1660 0,1660
Table 24: HANSA-Terminal ANS costs in EURO
25
3.3 METSP’s SHARE TO THE NATIONAL TARGETS
METSP is accountable only for the cost-efficiency target.
• Determined en-route ANS costs:
• By nature
<METSP> Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
Staff EURO 6,2 6,0 5,9 5,9 5,9
Other operating costs EURO 2,8 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0
Depreciation EURO 0,6 0,6 0,5 0,5 0,5
Cost of capital EURO 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2
Total en-route costs EURO 9,7 9,8 9,6 9,6 9,6
Table 25: METSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)
• By service
<METSP> Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D
Meteorological services EURO 9,7 9,8 9,6 9,6 9,6
Total costs EURO 9,7 9,8 9,6 9,6 9,6
Table 26: METSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by service (in nominal terms in EURO)
26
4. Military Dimension of the Plan
4.1 PERFORMANCE OF THE FUA APPLICATION
The FUA Concept in Greece, is based on the Protocol of Cooperation between Ministry of
Defence and Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks.
The implementation of the FUA Concept in Greece took place on January 2007 when the
first AUP was published.
The FUA Concept is based on three Levels:
a) Strategic ASM - Level 1,
b) Pre-Tactical ASM - Level 2, and
c) Tactical ASM - Level 3.
The three ASM Levels correspond with civil/military co-ordination tasks. Each Level is
related directly to, and impacts on, the others.
1. Strategic ASM at Level 1 consists of a joint civil and military process
within a high-level civil/military National body, which formulates the
National ASM policy and carries out the necessary strategic planning
work, taking into account National and international airspace
users requirements.
2. Pre-Tactical ASM at Level 2 consists of the day-to-day management and
temporary allocation of airspace through the AMC.
AMC is a joint civil/military ASM focal-point which has the authority to
define ASM structures. Collects and analyses all airspace requests and
decides the daily airspace allocation. Every day, the AMC promulgate the
Airspace Use Plan (AUP) and amends, if needed, the Updated Use Plan
(UUP) to the CFMU –CADF.
A hard copy of AUP or UUP is distributed to the appropriate sectors
of ATH/MAK/ACC .
3. Tactical ASM Level 3 consists of the real-time activation, or real-time
reallocation of the airspace allocated at Level 2 and the resolution of
specific airspace problems between civil and military ATS units
: ATH/MAK/ACC and responsible Military units.
Conditional Routes (CDRs) are established by the Level 1, allocated at Level 2 and utilised in
a flexible manner at Level 3.
CDRs are “non-permanent” parts of the published ATS route network. CDRs are
established to offer more direct and alternative routes, through areas of Military TMAs and
areas of temporary reservation for military activities.
The performance of the FUA application is in conformity with:
• COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2150/2005,
• EUROCONTROL Specification for the application of FUA.
• EUROCONTROL Handbook for Airspace Management.
According to our statistical data, the daily use of CDRs corresponds at about 4% of the total
traffic (1500 flights per day) in average during working days. This percentage is increased to
about 6% of the total traffic during weekends and national holidays.
27
It is estimated that every CDR is used by 20 flights per day, in average. In total, for the 9
CDRs available, it is estimated that there are about 180 flights per day, using the CDRs, in
average. This results in a saving of about 10NM per CDR, per flight, in total 1800NM per
day.
4.2 ADDITIONAL KPI’s
There are no KPI’s set regarding FUA application for the first reference period.
29
5. Analysis of Sensitivity
5.1 EXTERNAL ASSUMPTIONS
• Since 2010, Greek government has adopted austerity measures which have
resulted in cuts in wages and increase in operating costs (mainly due to rises in
VAT, fuel prices, electricity, telecommunications, water et.c.). This procedure is still
on-going and it is expected to affect the cost base at least for the year 2012, given
the fact that all accountable entities in this Performance Plan are part of the Public
Sector. As a result, it is not feasible to make any credible assumptions as to how
these measures will affect total costs.
• Given the present situation regarding the en-route ATFM delays, if traffic growth is
going to be substantially bigger than the one forecasted, the capacity target is
expected to deteriorate.
5.2 COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS PLANS
There are no previous Performance Plans for comparison.
31
6. Implementation of the Performance Plan
• HANSA will monitor the performance of the accountable entities against the
targets set out in the present Performance Plan, starting six months after the
commencement of RP1, i.e. July 2012, and every six months from then on. This
monitoring will not necessarily be accompanied by any formal reporting.
• HANSA will also periodically analyse the KPIs to assess progress against targets
and any reduction in performance that is identified will be discussed with the
appropriate stakeholders with a view to agreeing on the necessary corrective action
to be taken.
• For the purposes of formal reporting, as required by the Performance Scheme
Regulation, the proposed schedule is as follows, in the year following the end of
each of the years 2012, 2013 and 2014:
1. April 2013, 2014, 2015
The accountable entities report the actual performance of the previous year
and the revised plan for the remaining years of the reporting period. Any
deviations between the forecasted figures in this performance plan and the
actual figures should be explained.
Costs that are deemed uncontrollable by the accountable entities must be set
out clearly so they can be excluded from the cost-risk sharing.
2. May 2013, 2014, 2015
HANSA reviews the submissions by the Accountable Entities and seeks
explanations and clarifications from them of any deviations. HANSA evaluates
any requests for carry-overs of changes deemed uncontrollable, according to
the article 11a, paragraph 8c, of the Charging Scheme Regulation. HANSA will
decide whether the alert mechanism should be invoked, according to article 18
paragraph 2 of the Performance Scheme Regulation.
After the review, HANSA prepares the Annual Progress Report and submits it
to the State for adoption.
3. June 2013, 2014, 2015
State reviews the Annual Progress Report and HANSA makes any amendments
deemed necessary. The State approves the Annual Progress Report and
submits it to the Performance Review Body for approval.
32
ANNEXES
33
ANNEX A
Table 1 - Total Costs-En-route
Charging zone name Greece
Period of reference : 2012-2014
Consolidation - all entities
Forecast Costs* Determined Costs
Actual costs
Cost details
2010F* 2011F* 2012 2013 2014
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
1. Detail by nature (in nominal terms)
1.1 Staff 122,0 118,5 119,6 119,6 119,6
121,4 119,8
1.2 Other operating costs 33,5 32,5 34,3 34,7 35,0
33,2 33,0
1.3 Depreciation 7,4 7,2 7,5 7,6 7,6
7,3 7,3
1.4 Cost of capital 3,4 3,5 3,6 3,6 3,7
3,4 3,5
1.5 Exceptional items 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
0,0 0,0
1.6 Total costs 166,3 161,7 165,0 165,5 165,9
165,4 163,6
Total % n/n-1 -2,8% 2,0% 0,3% 0,2%
-1,1%
Staff % n/n-1 -2,9% 0,9% 0,0% 0,0%
-1,3%
Other op. % n/n-1 -2,9% 5,4% 1,1% 0,8%
-0,6%
2. Detail by service (in nominal terms)
2.1 Air Traffic Management 139,9 140,4 141,2 141,7 141,8
140,1 140,4
2.2 Communication 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
0,0 0,0
2.3 Navigation 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
0,0 0,0
2.4 Surveillance 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
0,0 0,0
2.5 Search and rescue 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
0,0 0,0
2.6 Aeronautical Information 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
0,0 0,0
2.7 Meteorological services 10,7 8,7 9,6 9,6 9,6
9,7 9,8
2.8 Supervision costs 3,3 1,6 2,1 2,1 2,1
3,3 2,2
2.9 Other State costs 12,6 11,1 12,1 12,2 12,4
12,4 11,2
2.10 Total costs 166,3 161,7 165,0 165,5 165,9
165,4 163,6
Total % n/n-1 -2,8% 2,0% 0,3% 0,2%
-1,1%
ATM % n/n-1 0,4% 0,6% 0,3% 0,1%
0,3%
CNS % n/n-1
3. Complementary information on the cost of capital and on the cost of common projects (in nominal terms)
Average asset base
3.1 Net book val. fixed assets 137,2 123,0 105,0 105,0 105,0
137,2 123,0
3.2 Adjustments total assets 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
0,0 0,0
3.3 Net current assets 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
0,0 0,0
3.4 Total asset base 137,2 123,0 105,0 105,0 105,0
137,2 123,0
Cost of capital %
3.5 Cost of capital pre tax rate
3.6 Return on equity 4,0% 4,1% 4,1% 4,1% 4,1%
4,0% 4,1%
3.7 Average interest on debts
Cost of common projects
3.8 Common Project 1
34
4. Complementary information on inflation and on total costs in real terms
4.1 Inflation % (1) 4,7% 2,5% 0,5% 0,7% 1,0%
4,7% 2,5%
4.2 Price index - Base 100 in 2009 104,7 107,3 107,9 108,6 109,6
104,7 107,4
4.3 Total costs real terms (2) 158,7 150,7 153,0 152,5 151,4
158,0 152,4
Total % n/n-1 -5,2% 1,5% -0,3% -0,7%
-3,5%
5. Deduction of costs allocated to exempted VFR flights (in nominal terms)
5.1 Total costs 166,3 161,7 165,0 165,5 165,9
165,4 163,6
5.2 Costs for exempted VFR flights 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5
0,5 0,5
5.3 Total costs after deduction (3) 165,8 161,2 164,5 165,0 165,4
164,9 163,1
Costs and asset base items in '000 000 Euro - Service units in '000 000
(1) Forecast inflation used for establishing the determined costs in nominal terms - actual inflation recorded by EUROSTAT
(2) Determined costs (performance plan) in real terms - actual costs in real terms - base 100 in 2009
(3) Determined costs (after deduction of VFR costs) reported at line 1.1 - Reporting Table 2 (in nominal terms)
*Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F)
35
Table 1 - Total Costs
Charging zone name Greece
Period of reference : 2012-2014
HCAA/ ANSP
Forecast Costs* Determined Costs
Actual costs
Cost details
2010F* 2011F* 2012 2013 2014
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
1. Detail by nature (in nominal terms)
1.1 Staff 122,0 118,5 113,2 113,2 113,2
115,3 113,2
1.2 Other operating costs 20,9 21,5 19,2 19,5 19,5
18,1 18,9
1.3 Depreciation 7,4 7,2 7,0 7,1 7,2
6,8 6,7
1.4 Cost of capital 3,4 3,5 3,4 3,4 3,5
3,2 3,3
1.5 Exceptional items
1.6 Total costs 153,8 150,7 142,8 143,3 143,4
143,3 142,0
Total % n/n-1 -2,0% -11,7% 0,3% 0,1%
-0,9%
Staff % n/n-1 -2,9% -4,5% 0,0% 0,0%
-1,8%
Other op. % n/n-1 -2,5% -41,0% 1,7% 0,0%
4,4%
2. Detail by service (in nominal terms)
2.1 Air Traffic Management 139,9 140,4 141,2 141,7 141,8
140,1 140,4
2.2 Communication
2.3 Navigation
2.4 Surveillance
2.5 Search and rescue
2.6 Aeronautical Information
2.7 Meteorological services 10,7 8,7 0,0 0,0 0,0
0,0 0,0
2.8 Supervision costs 3,3 1,6 1,6 1,6 1,6
3,3 1,6
2.9 Other State costs
2.10 Total costs 153,8 150,7 142,8 143,3 143,4
143,3 142,0
Total % n/n-1 -2,0% -5,2% 0,3% 0,1%
-0,9%
ATM % n/n-1 0,4% 0,6% 0,3% 0,1%
0,3%
CNS % n/n-1
3. Complementary information on the cost of capital and on the cost of common projects (in nominal terms)
Average asset base
3.1 Net book val. fixed assets 137,2 123,0 105,0 105,0 105,0
137,2 123,0
3.2 Adjustments total assets 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
0,0 0,0
3.3 Net current assets 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
0,0 0,0
3.4 Total asset base 137,2 123,0 105,0 105,0 105,0
137,2 123,0
Cost of capital %
3.5 Cost of capital pre tax rate 2,5% 2,8% 3,2% 3,3% 3,3%
2,5% 2,8%
3.6 Return on equity 4,0% 4,1% 4,1% 4,1% 4,1%
4,0% 4,1%
3.7 Average interest on debts
Cost of common projects
3.8 Common Project 1
4. Complementary information on inflation and on total costs in real terms
4.1 Inflation % (1) 4,7% 2,5% 0,5% 0,7% 1,0%
4,7% 2,5%
4.2 Price index - Base 100 in 2009 104,7 107,3 107,9 108,6 109,6
104,7 107,4
4.3 Total costs real terms (2) 146,9 140,4 132,4 132,0 130,8
136,9 132,3
Total % n/n-1 -4,4% -5,7% -0,3% -0,9%
-3,4%
36
Costs and asset base items in '000 000 Euro - Service units in '000 000
(1) Forecast inflation used for establishing the determined costs in nominal terms - actual inflation recorded by EUROSTAT
(2) Determined costs (performance plan) in real terms - actual costs in real terms - base 100 in 2009
(3) Determined costs (after deduction of VFR costs) reported at line 1.1 - Reporting Table 2 (in nominal terms)
*Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F)
5. Deduction of costs allocated to exempted VFR flights (in nominal terms)
5.1 Total costs 153,8 150,7 142,8 143,3 143,4
143,3 142,0
5.2 Costs for exempted VFR flights 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5
0,5 0,5
5.3 Total costs after deduction (3) 153,3 150,1 142,3 142,7 142,8
142,8 141,5
37
Table 1 - Total Costs
Charging zone name Greece
Period of reference : 2012-2014
MET Service Provider
Forecast Costs* Determined Costs
Actual costs
Cost details
2010F* 2011F* 2012 2013 2014
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
1. Detail by nature (in nominal terms)
1.1 Staff 5,9 5,9 5,9
6,2 6,0
1.2 Other operating costs 3,0 3,0 3,0
2,8 3,0
1.3 Depreciation 0,5 0,5 0,5
0,6 0,6
1.4 Cost of capital 0,2 0,2 0,2
0,2 0,2
1.5 Exceptional items
1.6 Total costs 9,6 9,6 9,6
9,7 9,8
Total % n/n-1
Staff % n/n-1
Other op. % n/n-1
2. Detail by service (in nominal terms)
2.1 Air Traffic Management
2.2 Communication
2.3 Navigation
2.4 Surveillance
2.5 Search and rescue
2.6 Aeronautical Information
2.7 Meteorological services 9,6 9,6 9,6
9,7 9,8
2.8 Supervision costs
2.9 Other State costs
2.10 Total costs 9,6 9,6 9,6
9,7 9,8
Total % n/n-1
ATM % n/n-1
CNS % n/n-1
3. Complementary information on the cost of capital and on the cost of common projects (in nominal terms)
Average asset base
3.1 Net book val. fixed assets
3.2 Adjustments total assets
3.3 Net current assets
3.4 Total asset base
Cost of capital %
3.5 Cost of capital pre tax rate
3.6 Return on equity
3.7 Average interest on debts
Cost of common projects
3.8 Common Project 1
4. Complementary information on inflation and on total costs in real terms
4.1 Inflation % (1) 1,9% 1,5% 0,5% 0,7% 1,0%
4,7% 2,5%
4.2 Price index - Base 100 in 2009 101,9 103,4 103,9 104,6 105,6
104,7 107,4
4.3 Total costs real terms (2) 0,0 0,0 9,2 9,2 9,1
9,3 9,1
Total % n/n-1
38
5. Deduction of costs allocated to exempted VFR flights (in nominal terms)
5.1 Total costs 9,6 9,6 9,6
9,7 9,8
5.2 Costs for exempted VFR flights
5.3 Total costs after deduction (3) 9,6 9,6 9,6
9,7 9,8
Costs and asset base items in '000 000 Euro - Service units in '000 000
(1) Forecast inflation used for establishing the determined costs in nominal terms - actual inflation recorded by EUROSTAT
(2) Determined costs (performance plan) in real terms - actual costs in real terms - base 100 in 2009
(3) Determined costs (after deduction of VFR costs) reported at line 1.1 - Reporting Table 2 (in nominal terms)
*Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F)
39
Table 1 - Total Costs
Charging zone name Greece
Period of reference : 2012-2014
State - NSA
Forecast Costs* Determined Costs
Actual costs
Cost details
2010F* 2011F* 2012 2013 2014
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
1. Detail by nature (in nominal terms)
1.1 Staff 0,5 0,5 0,5
0,6
1.2 Other operating costs 12,6 11,1 12,1 12,2 12,4
12,4 11,2
1.3 Depreciation
1.4 Cost of capital
1.5 Exceptional items
1.6 Total costs 12,6 11,1 12,6 12,7 12,9
11,8
Total % n/n-1
Staff % n/n-1
Other op. % n/n-1
2. Detail by service (in nominal terms)
2.1 Air Traffic Management
2.2 Communication
2.3 Navigation
2.4 Surveillance
2.5 Search and rescue
2.6 Aeronautical Information
2.7 Meteorological services
2.8 Supervision costs 0,5 0,5 0,5
0,6
2.9 Other State costs (inc.ECTL) 12,6 11,1 12,1 12,2 12,4
12,4 11,2
2.10 Total costs 12,6 11,1 12,6 12,7 12,9
12,4 11,8
Total % n/n-1
ATM % n/n-1
CNS % n/n-1
3. Complementary information on the cost of capital and on the cost of common projects (in nominal terms)
Average asset base
3.1 Net book val. fixed assets
3.2 Adjustments total assets
3.3 Net current assets
3.4 Total asset base
Cost of capital %
3.5 Cost of capital pre tax rate
3.6 Return on equity
3.7 Average interest on debts
Cost of common projects
3.8 Common Project 1
4. Complementary information on inflation and on total costs in real terms
4.1 Inflation % (1) 4,7% 2,5% 0,5% 0,7% 1,0%
4,7% 2,5%
4.2 Price index - Base 100 in 2009 104,7 107,3 107,9 108,6 109,6
104,7 107,4
4.3 Total costs real terms (2) 12,0 10,3 11,7 11,7 11,8
11,8 11,0
Total % n/n-1 -14,2% 13,6% -0,6% 0,9%
40
5. Deduction of costs allocated to exempted VFR flights (in nominal terms)
5.1 Total costs 12,6 11,1 12,6 12,7 12,9
12,4 11,8
5.2 Costs for exempted VFR flights
5.3 Total costs after deduction (3) 12,6 11,1 12,6 12,7 12,9
12,4 11,8
Costs and asset base items in '000 000 Euro - Service units in '000 000
(1) Forecast inflation used for establishing the determined costs in nominal terms - actual inflation recorded by EUROSTAT
(2) Determined costs (performance plan) in real terms - actual costs in real terms - base 100 in 2009
(3) Determined costs (after deduction of VFR costs) reported at line 1.1 - Reporting Table 2 (in nominal terms)
*Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F)
41
Table 2 - Unit rate calculation
Charging zone name : Greece
Period of reference : 2012-2014
Consolidation - all entities
Unit rate calculation 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
1. Determined costs in nominal terms and inflation adjustment
1.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. - Table 1 165,8 161,2 164,5 165,0 165,4
1.2 Actual inflation rate - Table 1 4,7%
1.3 Forecast inflation rate - Table 1 4,7% 2,5% 0,5% 0,7% 1,0%
1.4 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : year n amount to be carried over
2. Forecast and actual total service units
2.1 Forecast total service units (performance plan) 4,4 4,6 4,7 4,9 5,0
2.2 Actual total service units 4,5
2.3 Actual / forecast total service units (in %)
3. Costs subject to traffic risk sharing (ANSP)
3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1) 153,3 150,1 142,3 142,7 142,8
3.2 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : amount carried over to year n
3.3 Traffic - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
3.4 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : add. revenue carried over to year n
3.5 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2: revenues losses carried over to year n
3.6 Uncontrollable costs - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
3.7 Bonus or penalty for performance - Article 1.11.2
3.8 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 5,7 10,1 1,6 0,0 0,0
3.9 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 171,5 171,3 142,3 142,7 142,8
3.10 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : add. rev. year n to be carried-over
3.11 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : revenue loss year n to be carried-over
Parameters for traffic risk sharing
3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article 1.4.2 70% 70% 70%
3.13 % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article 1.4.2 70% 70% 70%
4. Costs not subject to traffic risk sharing - Article 11a (2)
4.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (Table 1) 12,6 11,1 22,2 22,3 22,6
4.2 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : amount carried over to year n
4.3 Traffic - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
4.4 Uncontrollable costs - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
4.5 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
4.6 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 12,6 11,1 22,2 22,3 22,6
42
5. Other revenues - applied unit rate (in national currency)
5.1 Revenues from other sources - Article 1.3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate 172 171 166 165 165
5.3 Year n unit rate (in national currency) 38,93 37,57 35,36 33,95 32,81
5.4 ANSP component of the unit rate 36,08 34,43 29,44 28,23 27,13
5.5 MET component of the unit rate 0,00 0,00 1,97 1,90 1,83
5.6 NSA-State component of the unit rate 2,85 2,38 2,58 2,51 2,46
5.7 Year n unit rate that would have applied without other revenues 38,93 37,57 35,36 33,95 32,81
Costs, revenues and other amounts in '000 000 Euro - Service units in '000 000
(1) Over/under recoveries incurred up to the year of entry into force of the determined cost method
43
Table 2 - Unit rate calculation
Charging zone name : Greece
Period of reference : 2012-2014
HCAA/ ANSP
Unit rate calculation 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
1. Determined costs in nominal terms and inflation adjustment
1.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. - Table 1 153,3 150,1 142,3 142,7 142,8
1.2 Actual inflation rate - Table 1 4,7%
1.3 Forecast inflation rate - Table 1 4,7% 2,5% 0,5% 0,7% 1,0%
1.4 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : year n amount to be carried over
2. Forecast and actual total service units
2.1 Forecast total service units (performance plan) 4,4 4,7 4,9 5,1 5,3
2.2 Actual total service units 4,5
2.3 Actual / forecast total service units (in %)
3. Costs subject to traffic risk sharing (ANSP)
3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1) 153,3 150,1 142,3 142,7 142,8
3.2 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : amount carried over to year n
3.3 Traffic - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
3.4 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : add. revenue carried over to year n
3.5 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2: revenues losses carried over to year n
3.6 Uncontrollable costs - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
3.7 Bonus or penalty for performance - Article 1.11.2
3.8 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 5,7 10,1 1,6 0,0 0,0
3.9 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 159,0 160,3 143,9 142,7 142,8
3.10 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : add. rev. year n to be carried-over
3.11 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : revenue loss year n to be carried-over
Parameters for traffic risk sharing
3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article 1.4.2 70% 70% 70%
3.13 % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article 1.4.2 70% 70% 70%
4. Costs not subject to traffic risk sharing - Article 11a (2)
4.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (Table 1)
4.2 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : amount carried over to year n
4.3 Traffic - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
4.4 Uncontrollable costs - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
4.5 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n
4.6 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate
44
5. Other revenues - applied unit rate (in national currency)
5.1 Revenues from other sources - Article 1.3
5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate 159,0 160 144 143 143
5.3 Year n unit rate (in national currency) 36,08 34,43 29,44 28,23 27,13
5.4 ANSP component of the unit rate
5.5 MET component of the unit rate
5.6 NSA-State component of the unit rate
5.7 Year n unit rate that would have applied without other revenues 36,08 34,43 29,44 28,23 27,13
Costs, revenues and other amounts in '000 000 Euro - Service units in '000 000
(1) Over/under recoveries incurred up to the year of entry into force of the determined cost method
45
Table 2 - Unit rate calculation
Charging zone name : Greece
Period of reference : 2012-2014
MET Service Provider
Unit rate calculation 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
1. Determined costs in nominal terms and inflation adjustment
1.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. - Table 1 0,0 0,0 9,6 9,6 9,6
1.2 Actual inflation rate - Table 1 4,7%
1.3 Forecast inflation rate - Table 1 4,7% 2,5% 0,5% 0,7% 1,0%
1.4 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : year n amount to be carried over
2. Forecast and actual total service units
2.1 Forecast total service units (performance plan) 4,4 4,7 4,9 5,1 5,3
2.2 Actual total service units 4,5
2.3 Actual / forecast total service units (in %)
3. Costs subject to traffic risk sharing (ANSP)
3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1)
3.2 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : amount carried over to year n
3.3 Traffic - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
3.4 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : add. revenue carried over to year n
3.5 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2: revenues losses carried over to year n
3.6 Uncontrollable costs - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
3.7 Bonus or penalty for performance - Article 1.11.2
3.8 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n
3.9 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate
3.10 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : add. rev. year n to be carried-over
3.11 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : revenue loss year n to be carried-over
Parameters for traffic risk sharing
3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article 1.4.2
3.13 % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article 1.4.2
4. Costs not subject to traffic risk sharing - Article 11a (2)
4.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (Table 1) 0,0 0,0 9,6 9,6 9,6
4.2 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : amount carried over to year n
4.3 Traffic - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
4.4 Uncontrollable costs - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
4.5 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
4.6 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 0,0 0,0 9,6 9,6 9,6
46
Costs, revenues and other amounts in '000 000 Euro - Service units in '000 000
(1) Over/under recoveries incurred up to the year of entry into force of the determined cost method
5. Other revenues - applied unit rate (in national currency)
5.1 Revenues from other sources - Article 1.3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate 0,0 0,0 9,6 9,6 9,6
5.3 Year n unit rate (in national currency) 0,00 0,00 1,97 1,90 1,83
5.4 ANSP component of the unit rate
5.5 MET component of the unit rate
5.6 NSA-State component of the unit rate
5.7 Year n unit rate that would have applied without other revenues 0,00 0,00 1,97 1,90 1,83
47
Table 2 - Unit rate calculation
Charging zone name : Greece
Period of reference : 2012-2014
State - NSA
Unit rate calculation 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
1. Determined costs in nominal terms and inflation adjustment
1.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. - Table 1 12,6 11,1 12,6 12,7 12,9
1.2 Actual inflation rate - Table 1 4,7%
1.3 Forecast inflation rate - Table 1 4,7% 2,5% 0,5% 0,7% 1,0%
1.4 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : year n amount to be carried over
2. Forecast and actual total service units
2.1 Forecast total service units (performance plan) 4,4 4,7 4,9 5,1 5,3
2.2 Actual total service units 4,5
2.3 Actual / forecast total service units (in %)
3. Costs subject to traffic risk sharing (ANSP)
3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1)
3.2 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : amount carried over to year n
3.3 Traffic - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
3.4 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : add. revenue carried over to year n
3.5 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2: revenues losses carried over to year n
3.6 Uncontrollable costs - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
3.7 Bonus or penalty for performance - Article 1.11.2
3.8 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n
3.9 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate
3.10 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : add. rev. year n to be carried-over
3.11 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : revenue loss year n to be carried-over
Parameters for traffic risk sharing
3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article 1.4.2
3.13 % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article 1.4.2
4. Costs not subject to traffic risk sharing - Article 11a (2)
4.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (Table 1) 12,6 11,1 12,6 12,7 12,9
4.2 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : amount carried over to year n
4.3 Traffic - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
4.4 Uncontrollable costs - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n
4.5 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
4.6 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 12,6 11,1 12,6 12,7 12,9
48
5. Other revenues - applied unit rate (in national currency)
5.1 Revenues from other sources - Article 1.3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate 12,6 11,1 12,6 12,7 12,9
5.3 Year n unit rate (in national currency) 2,85 2,38 2,58 2,51 2,46
5.4 ANSP component of the unit rate
5.5 MET component of the unit rate
5.6 NSA-State component of the unit rate
5.7 Year n unit rate that would have applied without other revenues 2,85 2,38 2,58 2,51 2,46
Costs, revenues and other amounts in '000 000 Euro - Service units in '000 000
(1) Over/under recoveries incurred up to the year of entry into force of the determined cost method
49
Total costs-Terminal
Organisation: HCAA
Charging zone: Greece - Terminal
2008
A 2009
A 2010
A 2011
F 2012
F 2013
P 2014
P
Detail by nature (in '000 euro)
Staff 16.880 15.080 15.080 15.080 15.080 15.080
-10,7% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0,0%
Other operating costs 8.147 8.326 8.436 8.563 8.563 8.563
2,2% 1,3% 1,5% 0,0% 0,0%
Depreciation 1.266 1.266 1.266 1.266 1.266 1.266
0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%
Cost of capital 1.031 942 854 765 676 676
-8,6% -9,3% -10,4% -11,6% 0,0%
Exceptional items
Total costs 27.324 25.614 25.636 25.674 25.585 25.585
-6,3% 0,1% 0,1% -0,3% 0,0%
Detail by services (in '000 euro)
Air traffic management 11.981 13.056 13.078 13.068 13.075 13.075
9,0% 0,2% -0,1% 0,1% 0,0%
Communication 3.797 3.628 3.650 3.640 3.647 3.647
-4,4% 0,6% -0,3% 0,2% 0,0%
Navigation 3.936 2.897 2.773 2.763 2.770 2.770
-26,4% -4,3% -0,4% 0,3% 0,0%
Surveillance 3.136 2.751 2.773 2.763 2.770 2.770
-12,3% 0,8% -0,4% 0,3% 0,0%
Search and rescue
Aeronautical information 2.273 1.879 1.890 1.885 1.889 1.889
-17,3% 0,6% -0,3% 0,2% 0,0%
Meteorological services 1.433 889 953 1.038 913 913
-38,0% 7,3% 8,9% -12,1% 0,0%
Supervision costs 769 515 520 518 519 519
-33,0% 0,9% -0,4% 0,3% 0,0%
Other State costs
Total costs 27.324 25.614 25.636 25.674 25.585 25.585
-6,3% 0,1% 0,1% -0,3% 0,0%
50
Complementary information on inflation and on the cost of capital (in '000 euro)
Inflation rate 4,3% 2,5% 4,7% 2,5% 0,5% 0,7% 1,0%
Average operating capital
Of which, average long term assets
Cost of capital before tax (%)
Return on equity (%)
Average interest on debts (%)
51
ANNEX B
STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION MATERIAL
HELLENIC AIR NAVIGATION SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY
PERFORMANCE PLAN OF GREECE (RP 1; 2012-2014)
STAKEHOLDERS’ CONSULTATION MEETING - HCAA HQ, 7-6-2011
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
No. NAME MEMBER OF E-MAIL TEL
1 AMMANN NICOLE SWISS AIRLINES [email protected] +41793122222
2 ANASTASOPOULOU
KALLIRROY
HANSA [email protected] +210 8984133
3 ANDRIKOPOULOU
CONSTANTINA
HCAA/ANSP (DIRECTOR
OF COMMUNICATIONS
DIVISION)
[email protected] +210 8916495
4 BINA EVA HCAA/ANSP [email protected] +210 9972729
5 CHORTARIA
CHRYSSOULA
HCAA/ANSP [email protected] +210 9972729
6 DANNER MARIO AUSTRIAN AIRLINES [email protected] +43 6641 80111 12311
7 GARGARETA NIKI HCAA/ANSP [email protected] +210 8916316
8 GAVANOZIS SPYROS CNS DIRECTOR [email protected] +210 8916521
9 IAKOVAKIS GEORGE HANSA [email protected] +210 8984132
10 KONTOGIANNIS
GERASIMOS
HCAA/ANSP (GENERAL
DIRECTOR)
[email protected] +210 8916545
11 KORYFIDOU ELPIDA HCAA/ANSP(ATS
DIRECTOR)
[email protected] +210 8947100
12 MALIKOUTIS EVANGELOS HANSA [email protected] +210 8984104
13 MARGETOS ODYSSEAS HCAA/ANSP [email protected] +210 9972787, 9645558275
14 O'TOOLE LAURIE IATA (Assistant Director
airport & ATC charges)
[email protected] +41 227702733
15 PANAGIOTOPOULOS
MICHAEL
HANSA (ACTING
DIRECTOR)
+210 8984101
16 PAPAGEORGIOU
EFSTATHIA
HCAA/ANSP [email protected] +210 8916339
17 PASIOPOULOS GEORGIOS CNS UNIT [email protected] +210 8916161
52
18 PECH JACQUES AIR FRANCE [email protected] +33141565715
19 SAREMY TORKAN IATA (Country Manager
Greece & Cyprus)
[email protected] +210 9769516, 6976793325
20 SOTIROPOULOS
ANGELOS
HCAA/ANSP [email protected] +6944527031
21 SYRMA THEODORA HANSA [email protected] +210 8984108
22 TANISKIDOU DIMITRA HCAA/ANSP FMP
MANAGER ACC's
[email protected] +210 9972656
23 TSIOUTRA KLEONIKI METSP [email protected] +210 9699163
24 ZEINI KONSTANTINA METSP [email protected] +210 9699012
53
HELLENIC AIR NAVIGATION SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY
MINUTES OF THE STAKEHOLDERS’ CONSULTATION
FOR THE NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN OF GREECE
REFERENCE PERIOD 1
2012-2014
HCAA HQ, 7 JUNE 2011
54
• The Acting Director of the Hellenic Air Navigation Supervisory
Authority (HANSA), Mr. Michael Panagiotopoulos, opened the
Stakeholders’ Consultation meeting at 9:30 a.m. on 7 June 2011 and
welcomed the attendees (see list as ANNEX).He commented on the fact
that this was the first time such a meeting took place, its importance
for every stakeholder concerned and hoped for a fruitful outcome of
the meeting.
• The Deputy Governor of HCAA, Mr. Gregory Nanidis, also welcomed
those attending and expressed, as former Director of HANSA, the view
that the work done on the Performance Plan was at a very good level
and invited the Airlines’ representatives to feel free to contact him for
any issue that might arise.
• Mrs. Kallirroy Anastasopoulou, on behalf of HANSA, made a brief
introduction to the Greek Performance Plan and presented a set of
slides regarding the key features of the Performance Plan and the
targets set at national level for both the Capacity and Cost-efficiency
performance areas.
• The Assistant Director of IATA, Mr. Laurie O’Toole, thanked everybody and
praised Greece for the excellent work done on the Performance Plan which
was precise and to the point. He also made a reference to the difficulties
regarding the economic situation of Greece. He enquired if the decrease in
the unit rate, which he found very good and welcomed, would not
subsequently be affected by uncontrollable costs. He also stressed out that
the forecasts for the capacity target were too high and not acceptable by IATA
as the delays mean extra revenue loss for the users.
• Mrs. Theodora Syrma of HANSA, responded that the biggest impact on
the unit rate was expected to come from wage cuts and limitations in
investments.
• Mrs. Niki Gargareta from the HCAA/ANSP/Economics and Supply
Division stated that the costs presented reflected the present situation
and there was no possibility to make any other forecasts.
• Mrs. Dimitra Taniskidou the FMP Manager from HCAA/ANSP,
commented that the figures for the ATFM delays were based on the
fact that traffic has increased dramatically but no new staff
recruitments nor any investments for the improvement of the capacity
target were foreseen. As a result, these figures could deteriorate.
• HANSA explained that there is a strong inverse correlation between
the unit rate and the delays.
• On behalf of IATA it was said that the rising figure of ATFM delays
would raise serious concerns from the side of the PRB and commented
on the decreasing number of staff. It was also noted that no investment
plan was included in the Performance Plan.
55
• Mr. Panagiotopoulos and Mr. Malikoutis from HANSA agreed that the
continuous decrease in staff was a major issue and asked IATA for
support on this subject. They also pointed out that under the present
economic conditions there was no plan (at that moment) for new staff
recruitment.
• Mr. Spyros Gavanozis from the HCAA/ANSP/Electronics Division
agreed with HANSA and also requested the support of IATA and IACA
for new staff and investments.
• Mr. Jacques Pech from Air France congratulated HCAA for the good results
on cost efficiency, but thought there should not be any trade-offs between
cost efficiency and capacity : the increase of delays is not acceptable. There
should be at least stabilization.
• Mrs.Dimitra Taniskidou, the FMP Manager from HCAA/ANSP stressed
that traffic continued to increase throughout the years while staff was
decreasing mainly due to retirements. Existing ACC staff has done its
best to manage the traffic but with no investments and no recruitments
it would come as no surprise if even these high ATFM delays would rise
instead of decrease. Support from the Government would be essential
to improve the situation.
• IATA understood that the existing system would need renovation and
asked for a proposal on behalf of HCAA.
• Mrs. Dimitra Taniskidou the FMP Manager from HCAA/ANSP said that
adequate investments were essential for the provision of good services
but as these would take some time to implement it would be crucial to
invest in the human factor. Employees should be rewarded in order to
perform better.
• IATA pointed out that the delays target was as critical as the cost-
efficiency target also for EC and the PRB.
• Mr. Spyros Gavanozis from the HCAA/ANSP/Electronics Division said
that a selection of five of the most crucial investments was made and
this information was available through the LSSIP Greece but pressure
should be put to the relevant Ministries so that these investments could
be implemented.
• IATA advised that these five investments should be included in the
Performance Plan with an explanation of the benefits they would
provide in each target and their relevance with SESAR ATM Master
Plan.
• Mrs. Constantina Andrikopoulou from the HCAA/ANSP
Communications Division summarized the existing situation by pointing
out that HCAA was part of the public sector and this should be taken
into consideration because it meant reduction in salaries across the
56
board, no investments because of the economic situation in Greece
and no possibility for new recruits. She also confirmed that HCAA has
made an effort to expedite approval for the initiation of five major
projects within the next 3 years, which would improve capacity and
cost-efficiency. The relevant information has been included in the
Performance Review Report. However, the procurement budget is
frozen for the time being.
• IATA believes that the targets set at EU-wide level were relatively easy to
achieve by all States, especially the cost-efficiency target in real terms in view
the forecast traffic increase and allowance for inflation.
• Mrs. Theodora Syrma from HANSA said that the targets were decided
when there was a more favorable economic situation throughout
Europe. Given the current financial difficulties these targets might not
met by all the States and that would mean the activation of the alert
mechanisms. Changes in the Performance Plans would also be
probable.
• Mr. Angelos Malikoutis form HANSA pointed out that the human factor
was the most important element, as well as technological investments
& equipment for ATS.
• IATA requested the following information:
o How the cost of capital was calculated
o If the latest Service Units forecast was taken into consideration
o The relationship between the determined costs and possible
changes
o Why investments were not included in the Performance Plan
while they were provided in the LSSIP Greece.
• Mrs. Niki Gargareta from the HCAA/ANSP/Economics and Supply
Division answered that for the calculation of the cost of capital the
government bond rate was taken into account which was around
10,17%.
• Mrs. Elpida Koryfidou from the HCAA/ANSP/ATS Division said that
details on investments were not provided because it was not certain
that they would be made but they were available and they would be
inserted in the Performance Plan.
• IATA commented that if FABs were implemented as originally envisaged it
would be to the benefit of everyone concerned. While FABs were producing
very welcome operational savings in delay and fuel terms, unfortunately they
were not providing real savings that were expected of them. IATA was
disappointed because lots of talking and meeting about FABs had taken place
but without tangible real savings and efficiency results so far. In the second
57
reference period EC targets were likely to more ambitious and they would be
met better if FABs were implemented.
• Mrs. Constantina Andrikopoulou from the HCAA/ANSP/
Communications Division said that the geographical position of Greece
should be considered as it is adjacent to countries not bound by EU
regulations or even EUR Regional procedures and this particularity
affects the efforts that need to be made in terms of personnel,
procedures and systems to achieve interoperability. This has an
impact on both capacity and cost-effectiveness.
• Regarding the terminal charges IATA wanted to know if Greece would
subsidize them as it did the two previous years, a measure that was
very welcomed from the users.
• Mrs. Theodora Syrma from HANSA responded that the same proposal
for a 50% subsidy on the terminal charges for the year 2012 was made
to the relevant Ministries and the answer was still pending but was
expected around the end of July. This measure was considered very
important given the crucial contribution of tourism in the economy of
Greece.
• IATA pointed out that a weakness of the Performance Plan of Greece was the
lack of investments. The cost-efficiency target was welcomed but the ATFM
delays were unacceptable taking into consideration the rising prices in fuel.
• Mr. Michael Panagiotopoulos from HANSA said that that with a small
rise in the unit rate the benefits on capacity would be multiple.
• Mrs. Dimitra Taniskidou the FMP Manager from HCAA/ANSP said that
regarding the capacity target two elements should be considered, the
staff reduction and the lack of investments.
• IATA stated that, according to the Performance Scheme Regulation, EC and
PRB would comment on the performance plan recommending what has to be
done. IATA was reporting its views and requirments of all the NPPs to the
EC/PRB.
• Mrs. Theodora Syrma from HANSA noted that the measures
undertaken by the Greek government under the agreement with the
IMF and EU have an impact on delays and it’s up to the EU to either
consider these delays acceptable under the current financial
circumstances or propose and enable appropriate measures to
alleviate the problem.
• IATA asked about the status of the privatization of the Airports and
hoped that if this should happen there would not be imposition of fees
as high as in AIA.
• Mr. Jacques Pech from Air France said that for Air France the routes
towards Greece were increasing because of an increasing market, but
58
also due to the reasonable cost of navigation charges in Greece. But
the increase from Air France and all other airlines should be helped by
good performances in capacity from HCAA. Therefore he requests that
the delays issue be dealt.
• Mrs. Nicole Ammann from Swiss Air said that it was clear that
increases in traffic should be dealt with by adequate investments.
• Mr. Laurie O’Toole from IATA thanked everybody for the good
cooperation.
• Mr. Michael Panagiotopoulos from HANSA thanked the participants
and closed the consultation meeting at 12:00 on 7 June 2011.