1. 1 Performance indicators, targets, steering Technical Interchange meeting Toulouse, 15-17 May 2002 Xavier FRON Head Performance Review Unit

2. 2 ECAC institutional strategy A Performance oriented strategy PRC role –Measure performance (KPI) Safety, delays, cost –Propose performance targets –Recommendations to meet targets

3. 3 European IFR traffic demand In 10 years Flights: +60% (4.8%p.a.) Distance: +80% (6% p.a.) In 2001 Flights: -0.6% Distance: +0.2%

4. 4 Key Performance Areas Cost - Effectivenes s Total unit costs do not increase (routes charges + delays) Capacity - Delay Meet traffic demand Safety Total numbers of incidents, accidents capped ATM 2000+

5. 5 ATM 2000+ target set But no reliable performance indicator Safety target Actual risk? Cannot assess if target being met

6. 6 Air transport delays Departure delays

7. 7 Traffic-delay-capacity relationship Traffic/delay relationship Very non-linear response Capacity gain => large delay reduction

8. 8 Measuring capacity Effective capacity: traffic handled at optimal delay

9. 9 Effective capacity (yearly) 2001: ATFM en-route delay cost to airspace users ~ 1100-1700 M

10. 10 Effective capacity (monthly)

11. 11 Cost of capacity Linear relationship

12. 12 Delay/capacity targets Capacity/demand ratio 0.70.8 0.911.1 1.21.3 Yearly costs Delay costs Capacity costs Total economic cost of ATM Optimum 4000 M 1500 M Agreed ECAC delay target: 1 minute per flight

13. 13 ECAC capacity target: Meet traffic demand...

14. 14 Delay target Key performance indicator (ECAC)

15. 15 Reaching Delay/capacity targets ECAC delay target ACC capacity targets ECAC delay forecast ACC capacity commitments

16. 16 Simple ACC capacity model T (Flights/h) Time6h 22h Capacity D=(T- T 0 )/2 T 0 *S S T0T0 Delay TT0T0

17. 17 ACC capacity Week-endsWeek days To reach system delay target Individual ACC capacity targets

18. 18 ECAC economic objective Total cost should not increase Is this adequate?

19. 19 Cost targets No absolute reference Continental benchmarking Initial US/Europe comparison –IFR flights x 2 –Total cost x ~1.15 –Similar number of air traffic controllers

20. 20 Breakdown of cost effectiveness

21. 21 ECAC cost target (qualitative) t Efficiency frontier Frontier shift Catch up Present trend Desirable trend Unit cost

22. 22 ANSP cost-effectiveness 2001 route charges: 4800 million Euro –Is this appropriate? Substantial variance in unit rates Min=21, Max=114 Euro –Is this justified? Unit costs (per km) rising in real terms –ATM system less cost-effective ? –Indication of investment for future capacity ?

23. 23 Key Performance Indicator (State view)

24. 24 Benchmarking

25. 25 Benchmarking Unit cost model takes weighted density and climb/descent into account

26. 26 Cost-effectiveness KPI Working Paper (www.eurocontrol.int/prc) Inputs(Resources) Outputs Controlled traffic Capacity Efficiency of allocation Cost- effectivenes s Cost / controlled flight hours Productive efficiency ATM costs / sectors hours open Flight hours controlled / ATCO

27. 27 Information disclosure An obligation to disclose information about monopoly ATM activities Separation of accounts ATM and non-ATM En-route from other ATM Yearly disclosure of information Contextual Financial Operational Forward-looking Independently Audited

28. 28 Information disclosure Status Developed with 17 ANSPs in 2001 Cost-effectiveness analysis framework (KPIs) Specification (V2) has been adopted 2000 data submitted and analysed (voluntary basis) 2001 data due by 15 July 2002

29. 29 European ATM performance summary Safety No reliable safety indicator Capacity ATFM Delay costs in 2001: 1.1-1.7 billion Improvement anticipated in 2002 Be prepared for future traffic growth Cost effectiveness En-route + terminal charges ~ 6.2 billion Unit cost: 70% above US Potential net savings ~ 1-2 billion

30. 30 Soft regulation Safety –European safety indicator needed Capacity/costs –ECAC target –Publication by ANSPs of own performance targets, accountability, autonomy, incentives –Consolidation by EUROCONTROL –Loop in case of divergence Hard regulation or alternative if insufficient

31. 31 Success test for the ECAC Institutional strategy t Cost Risk ATFM delay