Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 ANSP View

civil air navigation services organisation

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 2012 - 2016 ANSP Performance Results

The ANSP View

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

The CANSO Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 is a collective and entirely voluntary benchmarking effort of CANSO Member air navigation service providers (ANSPs) which covers data from the ANSPs’ 2016 fiscal year and trend data between the 2012 and 2016 fiscal years.

Editorial Team Paul Cripwell, NAV CANADA, current Chair of the Global Benchmarking Workgroup (GBWG) Siree Vatanavigkit, Aeronautical Radio of Thailand (AEROTHAI), incoming Chair of the GBWG Helios - CANSO Performance Benchmarking Project Team

Contributors Nigel Fitzhardinge, Airways NZ Kunthinee Karunratanakul, AEROTHAI Krishnan Udayabhanu Rao, Airports Authority of India (AAI) Kanhaya Lal, AAI Carol Teo, Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) Edmund Heng, CAAS Christopher Gregg, Federal Aviation Administration - Air Traffic Organization (FAA-ATO) Dina Dolan, FAA-ATO Aleksandra Damsz, FAA-ATO Kristin Stadum, FAA-ATO Diana Galgoczi, HungaroControl Livia Cseh, HungaroControl Sigurleifur Kristjansson, ISAVIA Aslaug Adalsteinsdottir, ISAVIA Yoshiaki Dei, Japan Air Navigation Service (JANS) Liva Krigere, Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme (LGS) Bill Clark, NAV CANADA Ana Pinto, NAV Portugal Jolanta Wakulicz, Polish Air Navigation Services Agency (PANSA) Mindaugas Gustys, Oro Navigacija Tomas Tamašauskas, Oro Navigacija Audrius Radzevičius, Oro Navigacija Ted Fudge, Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO) Disclaimer This report has been compiled using data provided by participating ANSPs. To facilitate comparability, data for each ANSP has been transformed to be consistent with standard definitions. The resulting data and comparisons have been produced solely for the use of ANSPs, and other interested parties, to assess and appraise performance in air navigation services (ANS) provision. It is not intended that the data from this report is used for any wider purpose, nor does the data provide a definitive assessment of any metric relating to ANSP processes.

December 2017

2

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

THE ANSP VIEW Introduction: The ANSP View....................................................................................................... page 4 Key Performance Indicators ........................................................................................................ page 5 Participants.................................................................................................................................. page 6 Methodology................................................................................................................................ page 8 Continental Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2016..................................................................... page 10 Oceanic Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2016.......................................................................... page 19 Sources........................................................................................................................................ page 26 Acronyms and abbreviations....................................................................................................... page 68

ANNEXES Annex 1: Data definitions............................................................................................................ page 27 Annex 2: Contextual data........................................................................................................... page 29 Annex 3: KPI Data....................................................................................................................... page 56

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - List of participating ANSPs.......................................................................................... page 6 Figure 2 - Participating ANSPs Flight Hours................................................................................ page 7 Figure 3 - CANSO ANS performance framework........................................................................ page 9 Figure 4 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)..................................................................................... page 10 Figrue 5 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)............................... page 11 Figure 6 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, PPP adjusted (USD)........ page 12 Figure 7 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity................................................................................. page 13 Figure 8 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD).............. page 14 Figure 9 - Annual ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD)............................................................ page 15 Figure 10 - Unit ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD) – PPP adjusted..................................... page 16 Figure 11 - Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS................................................................. page 17 Figure 12 - IFR hours per ATCO in OPS...................................................................................... page 18 Figure 13 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)................................................................................... page 19 Figure 14 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)............................. page 20 Figure 15 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) – PPP adjusted..... page 21 Figure 16 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity............................................................................... page 22 Figure 17 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)............ page 23 Figure 18 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)................................................................................... page 24 Figure 19 - Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs......................... page 25

3

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

Introduction: The ANSP View Background This is the second part of CANSO’s Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017.

It contains performance indicators for identified air navigation service providers (ANSPs) for the year 2016, along with trend data between the 2012 and 2016 fiscal years.

ANSPs also provided contextual comments, including any exceptional events during the year or items that may impact the comparability of their data. Additional comments on important events are provided with the contextual data that also provides insights on the results of the participating ANSPs. For the key messages and an overview of the industry as a whole, please see the Executive Summary.

4

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

Key Performance Indicators The following section presents 2016 and 2012-2016 trend data for both continental and oceanic activities in line with the CANSO ANS Performance Framework levels 1-3 (see page [12]), as well as an additional KPI on the employment cost of air traffic controllers (ATCOs) in operations (OPS) as a percentage of total cost.

Indicator

KPI

Numerator

Denominator

Cost Efficiency and Productivity Performance Indicators 1

Figure References Continental

Oceanic

2016 / Trend

2016

Cost per IFR flight hour

Total Cost

IFR flight hours

Figure 4

2A

ATCOs in OPS Employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour

Employment costs for ATCOs in OPS

ATCOs in OPS hours

Figure 5, 6 Figure 14, 15

2B

ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

IFR flight hours

ATCOs in OPS hours

Figure 7

Figure 16

2C

Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour

Costs excluding employment costs for ATCOs in OPS

IFR flight hours

Figure 8

Figure 17

3A

Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS

Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS

ATCOs in OPS

Figure 9, 10

3B

Annual Working hours ATCOs in per ATCO in OPS OPS hours

ATCOs in OPS

Figure 11

3C

Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS

ATCOs in OPS

Figure 12

IFR flight hours

Figure 13

Continental and Oceanic

Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost Efficiency Performance Indicators

2016 / Trend

CO1

Cost per IFR flight hour

Total Cost

IFR flight hours

Figure 18

CO2

Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs

Employment cost for ATCOs in OPS

Total Cost

Figure 19

Notes on this year’s KPIs This year Airways New Zealand provided data for two financial years (July 2016 - June 2017 and July 2015 - June 2016). This allows better alignment with localised reporting and provides more relevant benchmarking opportunities for other ANSPs. As the report’s trend data is between those two submissions, it is however not possible to compare trend data in this year’s report with the same metrics included in last year’s report, which were for July 2014 - June 2015 only.

5

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

Participants The following ANSPs opted into this report:

Region Africa

Americas

Member

Label for Graphics

Air Traffic & Navigation Services

ATNS

Civil Aviation Authority of Uganda

CAUU

Kenya Civil Aviation Authority

KCAA

Corporacion Centroamericana de Servicios de Navegacion COCESNA Federal Aviation Administration – Air Traffic Organization FAA-ATO NAV CANADA

NAV CANADA

Servicios para la Navegación del Espacio Aereo Mexicano SENEAM Asia Pacific

Europe

Aeronautical Radio of Thailand

AEROTHAI

Airports Authority of India

AAI

Airways New Zealand

Airways NZ

Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore

CAAS

Japan Air Navigation Service

JANS

Administration de la Navigation Aérienne

ANA

Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic

ANS CR

Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü

DHMI

Estonian Air Navigation Services

EANS

Finavia

Finavia

HungaroControl Pte.Ltd. Co.

HungaroControl

Isavia Ltd

ISAVIA

Luftfartsverket

LFV

Latvijas gaisa satiksme

LGS

Letové Prevádzkové Služby

LPS

Navegação Aérea de Portugal - NAV Portugal, E.P.E

NAV Portugal

SE Oro Navigacija

Oro Navigacija

PANSA Polish Air Navigation Services Agency

PANSA

Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration

ROMATSA

Sakaeronavigatsia Ltd

Sakaeronavigatsia

Slovenia Control

Slovenia Control

Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services SMATSA IIc

SMATSA

Figure 1 - List of participating ANSPs

Note: ANSPs have the option to opt-in or opt-out of The ANSP View, which is why this list of participating ANSPs differs slightly from the participants list in the Executive Summary.

6

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP

Total IFR Flight Hours 2016 (Continental)

Growth IFR Flight Hours (Continental)

FAA-ATO

23,798,765

2%

AAI

3,075,221

15%

NAV CANADA

2,901,807

1%

JANS

2,261,685

4%

SENEAM

1,407,217

DHMI

1251491

-1%

AEROTHAI

748,521

11%

LFV

431,832

0%

CAAS

430,087

5%

PANSA

426,110

6%

NAV Portugal

398,024

11%

ROMATSA

338,782

-3%

ATNS

284,204

Airways NZ

265,211

ANS CR

251,992

4%

HungaroControl

238,135

3%

SMATSA

237,951

5%

Finavia

105,306

-6%

LPS

97,738

4%

LGS

78,990

2%

KCAA

73,758

1%

EANS

67,869

1%

Oro Navigacija

54,469

-2%

Sakaeronavigatsia

50,914

0%

Slovenia Control

50,608

1%

Isavia

30,124

11%

ANA

21,600

CAAU

18,448

Total IFR Flight Hours 2016 (Oceanic)

Growth IFR Flight Hours (Oceanic)

1,985,454

5%

618,626

7%

5%

8,879

-10%

3%

117,212

9%

260,088

11%

COCESNA Figure 2 - Participating ANSPs Flight Hours

7

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

Methodology Data collection: CANSO ANSP Members provided data for this analysis. Data submission has been greatly simplified this year. The submission of data has initially focussed on the data required for this report, while additional data to support the trial KPIs is being collected on a different schedule.

ANSPs are able to revise data submitted in previous years. The data submission workbook includes validation calculations that ANSPs are encouraged to consult in the data collection phase.

Growth rates: Data is presented from 2016 and then for the one-year and four-year trends. The four-year trend1 is calculated as the compound annual growth rate (CAGR)2. The use of a CAGR shows clearly the overall trend between 2012 and 2016. However, it masks the fluctuations that may have taken place over the intervening years, which are also important in understanding performance trends. In addition, if 2012 was an outlier, this trend may not be representative of the trend over this timeframe.

The entire dataset is available to all participating ANSPs to enable closer analysis and evaluation of performance trends.

The trend analysis is presented above the 2016 KPI data, and is based on the data submitted in the ANSP’s chosen currency. As a result, it is impossible to reverse engineer the USD metrics in 2016’s report, using this report.

Data processing: Data has been processed by Helios. It was subject to a one-step quality check for significant changes, potential errors or omissions and is subject to continued revision by participating Members.

PPP correction: Salaries and the cost of living vary extensively around the world. One way to correct for this is by using purchasing power parity (PPP).

Employment costs for ATCOs in OPS are corrected using the International Monetary Fund (IMF) PPP conversion rates. There are, of course, limitations to this approach, as the cost of living can vary widely within a country and may be higher or lower in the region where ANS offices are located.

Separation of continental and oceanic data: Information is provided both for continental and oceanic air navigation services, where applicable.

Each of these environments has different challenges associated with providing ANS. For example, it is more straightforward to provide ground infrastructure for communications and surveillance services in continental airspace than it is over vast oceans.

Q1 and Q3: The first quartile (Q1) is defined as the middle number between the smallest number and the median of the data set and the third quartile (Q3) is the middle value between the median and the highest value of the data set. The median is defined as the value separating the upper half of the data from the lower half.

Exchange rate conversion: ANSPs submit data in their chosen currency. For KPI comparison, data is presented in USD. 2016 KPI data is converted using the Bank of England 2016 exchange rates (average rate during the year) – where available – and supplemented with the data available at currency and foreign exchange rate website, XE.com.

For ANSPs that operate in a currency other than the USD, the assumption of lower cost may be caused in part by the strengthening USD. Between 2012 and 2016, the USD appreciated against most other world currencies, meaning each USD buys more foreign currency. This change in the relative value of the dollar effectively lowers the price that ANSPs incur in USD.

The four-year trend uses five years of data and four years in growth terms.

The compound annual growth rate is calculated by taking the nth root of the total percentage growth rate, where n is the number of years in the period being considered.

1 2

8

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

CANSO ANS Performance Framework The cost efficiency and productivity indicators for continental and oceanic services in line with the CANSO ANS Performance Framework.

Figure 3 – CANSO ANS performance framework

It is important to note the dependence of the higher tier metrics on the lower tier ones. This can be established as follows:

1=

2A + 2C 2B

2A= 3A 3B 2B= 3C 3B

9

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

Continental Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2016 2016 Continental – Cost efficiency Indicator 1: Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours

Figure 4 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)

The 2016 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 416.

The main driver behind CAAS’ increase in this metric was an influx of ATCOs employed in preparation for Singapore’s new three-runway system and anticipated increase in traffic at Changi Airport. This led to increased employment and training costs.

It should be noted that, regarding depreciation, JANS accounts for the cost of facilities, systems and equipment related to air navigation services, and this affects this indicator as well as indicators 2C, CO1 and CO2.

Isavia’s costs were driven up by a new salary agreement with the ATCOs, which resulted in an increase in total salary cost of approximately 25% for 2016 compared with 2015.

10

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

2016 Continental - Cost efficiency Indicator 2A: ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS hours

Figure 5 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)

The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour is USD 80.

AAI’s reduction in this metric is due to a policy decision to increase the working hours of ATCOs in OPS, which drove a 16% increase in ATCO hours.

The increase in ANS CR’s metric is a result of bonuses that were paid to ATCOs due to their higher workload and additional effort resulting from the increase in air traffic recorded in 2016 in the airspace of the Czech Republic. All the bonuses were paid in accordance with a collective agreement. Moreover, the increase in air traffic led to more overtime work by ATCOs in 2016.

11

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

The reason for the significant change in Sakaeronavigatsia’s metric from last year is a decrease in ATCO hours, driven by a new order issued by the Georgian Civil Aviation Agency decreasing annual working hours from 1728 to 1452, coupled with an increase in ATCO employment costs. This was a result of inflation in 2016 and, an increase in the number of employees; 12 ATCOs were recruited in FY2016.

Isavia’s increase is driven by the new salary agreement that was mentioned after Figure 4.

The increase in DHMI’s ATCO costs last year was due to the decision taken by the Ministry of Labor and Social Security during the Collective Labor Agreement Debates regarding an additional payment to staff of all public entities. This decision was also binding on DHMI due to which payment was made to all staff including ATCOs

Figure 6 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, PPP adjusted (USD)

The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour, after PPP adjustment is USD 127.

12

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

2016 Continental - Productivity Indicator 2B: ATCOs in OPS hour productivity Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours

Figure 7 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS hour productivity is 0.71.

Within Europe, traffic growth continued in 2016 with a shift towards the South-West axis. Consequently, one of the highest increases in overall traffic was observed in Portugal and NAV Portugal faced an increase in en-route traffic and high arrival/departures at airports of both FIRs. This has driven the increase in this metric.

For Isavia, the increase is a result of traffic increasing, while ATCO hours went down due to industrial action.

13

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

2016 Continental - Cost efficiency Indicator 2C: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs / IFR flight hours

Figure 8 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)

The 2016 average cost excluding ATCOs in operations employment cost per IFR flight hour is USD 296.

ATNS’ decrease in this metric is due to a deliberate cost containment decision, made in anticipation of zero increase in tariffs.

14

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

2016 Continental - Cost efficiency Indicator 3A: Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / No. ATCOs in OPS

Figure 9 - Annual ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD)

The 2016 average unit ATCO in OPS employment cost is USD 121,021.

The increase in employment cost for NAV CANADA is related to the increase in traffic that resulted in an increase in the number of shifts required to meet this demand and the use of overtime to fill these shifts.

15

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

Figure 10 - Unit ATCO in OPS employment cost (USD) – PPP adjusted

The 2016 average unit ATCO in OPS employment cost, after PPP adjustment, is USD 192,241.

16

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

2016 Continental - Productivity Indicator 3B: Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: ATCOs in OPS hours / No. ATCOs in OPS

Figure 11 - Annual Working hours per ATCO in OPS

The 2016 average annual working hours per ATCO in OPS is 1,593 hours.

The reduction in Sakaeronavigatsia’s metric is due to a new order issued by the Georgian Civil Aviation Agency decreasing annual working hours from 1728 to 1452.

AAI’s change in this metric is due to the policy decision to increase the working hours of ATCOs in OPS. The change in Isavia’s metric is due to industrial action.

The 3% growth in AEROTHAI’s metric corresponds to the 11% growth in IFR flight hours.

17

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

2016 Continental - Productivity Indicator 3C: Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: IFR flight hours / No. ATCOs in OPS

Figure 12 - IFR hours per ATCO in OPS

The 2016 average annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS is 1,101 IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS. NAV Portugal’s increase in this metric was, as before, driven by a significant increase in traffic.

18

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

Oceanic Cost Efficiency and Productivity: 2016 2016 Oceanic - Cost efficiency Indicator 1: Cost per IFR flight hour (USD) Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours

Figure 13 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)

The 2016 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 90. For comparison, this figure for continental flights is USD 416.

19

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

2016 Cost efficiency - Oceanic Indicator 2A: ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs hour (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS Hours

Figure 14 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD)

The 2016 oceanic average employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is USD 122. For comparison, the figure for continental airspace is USD 79. This figure is, however, skewed by the smaller number of ANSPs participating in this report that service oceanic airspace. For comparison, the average figure for continental airspace for the ANSPs above is USD 113.

The explanation for Isavia’s increase is the same as for the continental indicator: the new salary agreement with the controllers.

Note, the fact that FAA-ATO ATCO in OPS employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is higher for oceanic than continental stems from the higher cost of living in the areas that cover oceanic traffic.

20

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

Figure 15 - ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCOs in OPS hour (USD) – PPP adjusted

The 2016 oceanic average employment cost per ATCO in OPS hour is USD 118. For comparison, the average figure for continental airspace is USD 127.

21

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

2016 Oceanic - Productivity Indicator 2B: ATCOs in OPS hour productivity Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours

Figure 16 - ATCOs in OPS hour productivity

The 2016 average ATCOs in OPS hour productivity is 4.1 IFR flight hours per ATCO in OPS hours, significantly higher than the continental figure of 0.71.

As would be expected, traffic volumes in oceanic airspaces vary considerably between flight information regions (FIR). NAV CANADA and FAA-ATO exhibit the higher volumes, while ATNS has very little oceanic traffic but must still provide basic coverage at all times.

22

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

2016 Oceanic - Cost efficiency Indicator 2C: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs / IFR flight hours

Figure 17 - Cost excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR flight hour (USD)

The 2016 average cost excluding ATCOs in operations employment cost per IFR flight hour is USD 65.

ATNS is not included on this graph, as it does not separately calculate costs for oceanic flights, and thus it is impossible to obtain an accurate picture of what costs – excluding ATCO costs – for oceanic flights.

23

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

Joint Continental and Oceanic Cost efficiency: 2016 2016 Continental and Oceanic - Cost efficiency Indicator CO1: Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs /IFR flight hours

Figure 18 - Cost per IFR flight hour (USD)

The 2016 average cost per IFR flight hour is USD 409. Compare this average value to that from Figure 4 – Cost per IFR flight hour (continental) – where the average value is USD 416, which, as last year, reflects the influence of a small number of ANSPs that have oceanic services with significantly lower unit costs.

24

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

2016 Continental and Oceanic - Cost efficiency Indicator CO2: Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / Total costs

Figure 19 - Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs

The 2016 average employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs is 29%.

25

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

Sources Definitions: EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V2.6 EUROCONTROL Specification for Economic Information Disclosure V3.0 Exchange rate data:

www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/index.asp?Travel=NIxIRx&levels=2&XNotes=Y&A 3790XNode3790.x=7&A3790XNode3790.y=5&Nodes=&SectionRequired=I&HideNums=1&ExtraInfo=true#BM www.xe.com/currencytables/ IMF World Economic Outlook database: www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/index.aspx

26

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

Annex 1: Data Definitions

Contextual Data Element Definitions Data Element

Definitions

IFR hours per sq. km

This is the result of dividing the number of IFR hours for the current year of data by surface area (in square kilometres).

Sq. km – oceanic and continental

The size (the surface area) of the airspace for which an ANSP is responsible. This should include the area where ANS have been delegated to the ANSP by another provider, and exclude the area in which ANS have been delegated to another ANSP. The sq. km here should be consistent with ACC coverage with respect to total area. Differentiation for facilities controlling only upper or lower airspace will be addressed by item 3 below. (Source: PRU D1).

% surveillance coverage @ 30,000ft Surveillance coverage from radar and ADS-B. radar and ADS-B only % surveillance coverage @ 30,000ft Surveillance coverage from radar, ADS-B and ADS-C. radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs

A Flight Information Region is airspace of defined dimensions within which flight information service and alerting service are provided.

Number of ACC facilities

ACC facilities are the ATC units providing ATC services to enroute traffic in control areas under its jurisdiction. Part of an ACC may also provide approach services.

Number of co-located ACC and An ACC unit is described above. An approach control unit approach facilities is an ATC unit providing ATC services to arriving, departing and over-flying flights within the airspace in the vicinity of an airport.

Number of stand-alone approach Definition of an approach control unit is above. facilities Number of co-located approach and Definition of an approach control unit is above. A tower control tower facilities unit is an ATC unit at an airport responsible for the provision of ATC services in respect of flights that are landing and taking off and other traffic that is on the active runway(s).

Number of co-located approach, tower For definitions see above. and ACC facilities Number of stand-alone towers

Definition of a tower control unit is above.

27

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

Input Data Definitions Data Element

Definitions

Total Costs

The sum of operating costs, depreciation/amortisation and cost of capital related to providing continental and oceanic ATC/ ATFM services. Meteorological costs and EUROCONTROL costs (if applicable) are not included.

IFR flight hours

Total number of controlled IFR flight hours in continental and oceanic airspace.

ATCO hours

Total annual working hours for ATCOs in operations – including breaks and overtime. Holiday is not included.

ATCO employment cost

Total employment costs including gross wages and salaries, payments for overtime and other bonuses, employer contribution to social security scheme and taxes, pension contributions and other benefits for ‘ATCOs in operations’.

This excludes: mission related expenditures, including travel expenditures and training fees, as these are considered operating costs.

Other costs

Total Costs - ATCO in OPS employment costs.

Number of ATCOs

The number of FTE ATCOs – whose employment costs were included in ‘ATCO employment cost’ – participating in an activity that is either directly related to the control of traffic or is a necessary requirement for ATCOs to be able to control traffic.

28

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

Annex 2: Contextual Data ANSP: AEROTHAI In your opinion, what are the main The traffic growth along with limitations in airspace drivers or issues for performance infrastructure are the main drivers for operational/airspace organisation improvements, air traffic flow management and within your region? increased safety measures.

What are the main initiatives you Thailand Modernization CNS/ATM System (TMCS) project are undertaking to improve your which is a nation-wide ANS infrastructure enhancement, and deployment of service improvement projects in accordance performance? with applicable Aviation System Block Upgrades (ASBU) strategies and APAC Seamless ATM Plan.

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.

Slower traffic growth rate compare to 2015 was due to the limited capacity of the airspace and infrastructure. AEROTHAI is working on enhancing capacity while maintaining and improving safety standard.

Legal status: A company established as a public-private partnership to provide the services on behalf of the government, and part-owned by the government.

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.9624

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

777,760

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

Number of FIRs

Comments

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

1

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

0

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

1

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

6

Number of stand-alone towers

14

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

29

The number of co-located approach/ tower and stand-alone towers and their respective numbers of ATCOs do not reflect actual facilities. These numbers are split by the currently available data, of which some physical stand-alone towers may be represented

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Airports Authority of India In your opinion, what are the main Traffic growth, availability of technology, and government drivers or issues for performance initiatives for structural reform in civil aviation by converting it into mass transportation. within your region?

What are the main initiatives you Technological upgradation, human capital improvements, are undertaking to improve your optimisation of resources. performance?

Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

Oceanic

3,570,000

6,400,000

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

0%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

100%

1

3

Comments

IFR hours per sq. km.

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

Number of FIRs

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

0

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

0

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

49

Number of stand-alone towers

7

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

12

30

ADS-C

Partially continental, partially oceanic

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Airways New Zealand In your opinion, what are the main Upgrading of aircraft sizes and a recent increase in total traffic. drivers or issues for performance within your region?

What are the main initiatives you Continuing increase in capital spend. Ongoing development are undertaking to improve your of ops strategy programme to provide resilience and service using a 1 centre, 2 locations concept. performance?

Were there any factors that impacted No exceptional events. your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

Oceanic

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.3073

0.0041

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

863,100

28,790,000

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

100%

Oceanic: FANS1A equipped aircraft

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

100%

Oceanic: FANS1A equipped aircraft

1

1

Number of ACC facilities

0

1

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

1

0

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

0

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

7

0

Number of stand-alone towers

10

0

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

0

Number of FIRs

Facilities

31

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Administration de la navigation aérienne In your opinion, what are the main Single European Sky (SES) performance targets and regulation; drivers or issues for performance functional airspace block (FAB) performance targets and projects; and European SES Implementation Plan (ESSIP). within your region?

What are the main initiatives you Annual setting / reviewing of KPI´s and PI´s as per service areas are undertaking to improve your in KPAs: safety, capacity, environment, and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF); specific targets and actions are monitored. performance?

Were there any factors that impacted 2015 = first year of applying SES performance plan and your individual ANSP performance establishing a full set of KPIs helped to improve performance. in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.

Legal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions

Contextual data element Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

Continental 5.4 4,000

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

0%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

0%

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

0

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

0

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

1

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

1

Number of stand-alone towers

0

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

32

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

Yes, objectives are stated in the corporate Business Plan developed currently for years 2015 to 2019. Objectives cover 4 KPAs: safety, environment, capacity and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF).

In your opinion, what are the main EU regulations on Performance and Charging Scheme. drivers or issues for performance within your region?

What are the main initiatives you Internal performance monitoring system with predefined are undertaking to improve your objectives to be met. performance?

Were there any factors that impacted No factors or exceptional events were noticed in 2016. your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

IFR hours per sq. km.

3.3353

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

76,300

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

1

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

1

Number of stand-alone approach facilities Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

3

Number of stand-alone towers

1

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

33

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Air Traffic & Navigation Services Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

To provide safe, expeditious and efficient air traffic management solutions and associated services, whilst ensuring long-term economic, social and environmental sustainability.

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

Oceanic

0.0304

0.0008

9,279,080

12,720,920

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

0%

0%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

95%

0%

2

1

Number of ACC facilities

0

0

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

0

0

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

0

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

9

0

Number of stand-alone towers

10

0

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

2

0

IFR hours per sq. km.

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

Number of FIRs

Comments

Oceanic services are provided by ATSO and not ATCO

Facilities

34

Oceanic is provided in one the centres

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.

Contextual data element Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

Continental 0.512 840,000

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

69%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

1

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

0

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

1

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

0

Number of stand-alone towers

2

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

35

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Civil Aviation Authority of Uganda Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

Yes. It aims at delivering a range of services to ensure the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic within the Ugandan airspace.

In your opinion, what are the main Business, tourism and UN operations. drivers or issues for performance within your region?

What are the main initiatives you Airspace redesign, installation/modification of ANS facilities, are undertaking to improve your training of staff and airport expansion to comply with ICAO ASBU and implementation of performance based navigation performance?

(PBN).

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual data element Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

Continental

Comments

0.07 249,690

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100% radar coverage within 180 nautical miles (NM) radius from NN and 90% coverage outside 180NM

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100% radar coverage within 180 NM NN and 90% radar coverage beyond 180 NM NN

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

1

Located at Entebbe

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

None

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

1

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

1

Number of stand-alone towers

2

Entebbe airport

Entebbe and Gulu airports

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

36

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.

Overflights continued to rise in a context of important changes in traffic patterns due to airspace closures in Iraq and Syria.

New procedures for approach, arrival and departure were implemented at 8 airports.

Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

IFR hours per sq. km.

1.2744

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

982,000

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs

2

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

2

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

2

Number of stand-alone approach facilities Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

44

Number of stand-alone towers Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

37

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Federal Aviation Administration – Air Traffic Organization Legal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions.

Contextual data element Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

Continental

Oceanic

1.6045

0.0327

14,832,411

60,628,411

Comments

100%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs

21

5

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

21

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

3

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

27

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

132

Number of stand-alone towers

131

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

1

38

Excludes federal contract towers

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Finavia

Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

SES-regulation/performance requirements.

In your opinion what are the main 1. FAB co-operation projects, 2. For Finavia rostering principles drivers or issues for performance review, 3. Investment / procurement programmes, 4. Staff reductions. within your region?

What are the main initiatives you Preparation of corporatisation (separate ANS and airports are undertaking to improve your businesses in individual companies in 2017). performance?

Were there any factors that impacted Less traffic than expected resulting in less income. your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.2562

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

411,000

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

0%

Number of FIRs

Comments

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

1

ACC facilities at two sites (Tampere and Helsinki) operated dynamically by common management.

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

1

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

5

Number of stand-alone towers

18

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

1

39

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co In your opinion, what are the main The main driver of European performance is the performance drivers or issues for performance scheme. The ANSPs have to bear cost and traffic risk, however they do not have influence on traffic. Continuously changing within your region? legal framework.

What are the main initiatives you Effective resource allocation due to extra traffic and flexible are undertaking to improve your sectorisation in order to minimise delay and overtime of ATCOs. performance?

Were there any factors that impacted Increased traffic due to the Ukrainian situation. your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

Comments

IFR hours per sq. km.

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

104,000

Hungarian airspace and the upper airspace over Kosovo

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

0%

0% ADS-B and ADS-C coverage but 100% radar coverage at 30,000ft

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

0%

0% ADS-B and ADS-C coverage but 100% radar coverage at 30,000ft

Number of FIRs

2

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

0

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

1

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

0

Number of stand-alone towers

1

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

40

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Isavia Ltd In your opinion, what are the main Safety. drivers or issues for performance within your region?

What are the main initiatives you Upgrading of our flight data processing system (FDPS) and are undertaking to improve your associated systems. performance?

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

IFR hours per sq. km.

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

Oceanic

Comments

0.0632

Combined oceanic and continental

5,400,000

Combined oceanic and continental

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

30%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

80%

1

2

BIRD/BGGL

1

1

Combined continental/oceanic/ approach

Number of FIRs

Facilities Number of ACC facilities Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach facilities Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

1

Number of stand-alone towers

2

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

41

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Japan Air Navigation Service In your opinion what are the main Drivers: Accommodating increasing air traffic demand drivers or issues for performance particularly in Tokyo metropolitan region Issues: Restrictions on airspace/flight routes due to noise within your region? abatement.

What are the main initiatives you Implementation of integrated ATC data processing system and are undertaking to improve your airspace reformation. performance?

Were there any factors that impacted The (actual) flight hours in Fukuoka FIR have increased 4% your individual ANSP performance compared to the previous year. In particular, the international in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in flights and over flights have grown 7% and 9% respectively. the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.

Legal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions.

Contextual data element Operational data IFR hours per sq. km.

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

Continental

Comments

0.2692 8,400,000

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs

100%

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

4

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

0

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

14

Number of stand-alone towers

19

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

42

Radar except oceanic sectors.

ADS-B: Installation ongoing ADS-C: Applicable within oceanic sectors.

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Kenya Civil Aviation Authority

Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

To plan, develop, manage, regulate and operate a safe, economically sustainable and efficient civil aviation system in Kenya, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act, 2013.

In your opinion, what are the main To provide a safe, efficient and effective civil aviation. drivers or issues for performance within your region?

What are the main initiatives you Implementation of SMS, upgrade of communication, are undertaking to improve your navigation and surveillance (CNS) equipment. performance?

Were there any factors that impacted N/A your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.

Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

IFR hours per sq. km.

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

796,844

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100% radar

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

12.5% ADS-C

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

1

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

1

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

3

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

3

Number of stand-alone towers

5

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

1

43

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Luftfartsverket (LFV)

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.6887

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

627,000

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

2

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

2

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

1

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

21

Number of stand-alone towers Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

44

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Latvijas gaisa satiksme

Does your ANSP have stated Volatility of traffic, uncertainty with traffic to/from Russian Federation. Territory, cost-effectiveness pressures. objectives? If so, what are they?

Were there any factors that impacted No. your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

IFR hours per sq. km.

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

95,200

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

0

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

1

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

0

Number of stand-alone towers

1

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

45

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Letové Prevádzkové Služby (LPS SR) Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

LPS pursues the following objectives: 1. To maintain the level of safety unchanged with the growing volume of traffic in the Slovak airspace.

2. To create an operational environment, mature enough to meet a long-term demand for air transport and maintain a safe, fast and orderly flow of air traffic at the same time 3. To minimise LPS SR’s negative impact on flight efficiency in Europe by minimizing ATFM delays in Slovak airspace.

4. To ensure economic efficiency of air traffic management in Slovakia 5. To minimise the negative impact of air traffic on the quality of environment

In your opinion, what are the main Severe impact of highly seasonal nature of air traffic volume in drivers or issues for performance Slovak airspace peaking in the summer period. within your region?

What are the main initiatives you The projects related to improvement of voice communication are undertaking to improve your capabilities have been launched. performance?

Procurement of the radio system for 8,33 kHz air - ground voice channel spacing and VoIP implementation started in 2015 and the pilot project for optimisation of voice communication systems and IP networks was initiated in 2016.

Were there any factors that impacted The Government elections followed by the change of Head of your individual ANSP performance the Ministry of Transport. in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.

Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

IFR hours per sq. km.

2.0069

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

48,700

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

1

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

0

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

2

Number of stand-alone towers

3

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0 46

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: NAV CANADA

Legal status: A private sector company that is owned and/or operated by private interests to provide the service on behalf of the government, either by statute or contract.

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

Oceanic

0.1860

0.2015

15,601,538

3,070,462

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

20%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

100%

7

1

IFR hours per sq. km.

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

Number of FIRs

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

7

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

0

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

0

Number of stand-alone towers

41

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

47

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: NAV Portugal

Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

Yes. We have a 5-year Business Plan with objectives and targets.

In your opinion, what are the main SES Regulations time frame and associated requirements and drivers or issues for performance targets. within your region?

What are the main initiatives you Developments in continental KPIs reflect the positive effects of are undertaking to improve your cost containment efforts coupled with increased productivity. performance?

Were there any factors that impacted Portuguese FIRs suffered significant and unexpected traffic your individual ANSP performance increases again in 2016. in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.

Legal status: A company established as a public-private partnership to provide the service on behalf of the government, and part-owned by the government.

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

Oceanic

Comments

Lisboa & Santa Maria FIRs

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.5840

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

671,000

5,180,000

90.8%

26.3%

1

1

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

1

1

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

1

0

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

0

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

7

0

Number of stand-alone towers

3

0

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

0

48

Continental: radar Oceanic: radar + ADS-B

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Oro navigacija

In your opinion, what are the main Performance scheme, political situation (for example sanctions drivers or issues for performance for Russia). within your region?

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

IFR hours per sq. km.

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

74,700

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

1

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities Number of stand-alone approach facilities Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

3

Number of stand-alone towers

1

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

49

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: PANSA Polish Air Navigation Services Agency Does your ANSP have stated Objectives related to the Performance Plan/SES Regulations and 4 key performance areas: safety, capacity, costobjectives? If so, what are they? effectiveness and environment.

In your opinion, what are the main SES Regulations, FABs Performance Plans requirements, drivers or issues for performance Performance and Charging Scheme regulations; changes in traffic paths due to the Ukrainian situation. 2016 traffic growth within your region? (movements) 7.5% compared to 2.8% base forecast and 4.5% high forecast (statistics and forecast data for 2016).

What are the main initiatives you As a part of improving the comprehensive airspace are undertaking to improve your management, the first stage of the vertical split in FIR Warsaw was implemented. It is based on current GAT ACC sectors in performance? two layers. The expected outcome of implementing a vertical split: separation of air traffic flows, reducing delays, shortening the flight paths, reducing CO2 emissions and improving the competitiveness offered by the Polish Air Navigation Services Agency services for users of Polish airspace.

Were there any factors that impacted your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic

Revision of the Baltic Functional Airspace Block Performance Plan for Air Navigation Services for second reference period (2015-2019) concerns only the cost-efficiency KPA. Following partial closure of the Ukrainian airspace, Poland lost a lot of overflying heavy traffic (A380, B747, B777) going from North/ West to the South/East, crossing southern half of Warsaw FIR. Poland is still experiencing an increase in lighter traffic; however, there is a significant discrepancy between the dynamics of service units and movements due to the abovementioned change in aircraft structure and routes used.

Legal status: State body, acting as a legal entity with an autonomous budget.

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

IFR hours per sq. km.

1.2760

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

334,000

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

0%

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

1

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

1

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

3

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

0

Number of stand-alone towers

15

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

50

Comments

Radar only

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

Yes.

In your opinion, what are the main Main issues: variability of traffic, EU/national regulatory drivers or issues for performance constraints, significant deviation of inflation (actual vs. forecast). within your region?

What are the main initiatives you Performance Scheme Regulation and associated KPAs/KPIs. are undertaking to improve your performance?

Legal status: A government entity empowered to manage and use the revenues it generates through charges for the services it provides.

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental Oceanic

IFR hours per sq. km.

1.3338

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

254,000

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only Number of FIRs

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

1

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

0

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

2

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

0

Number of stand-alone towers

16

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

51

Comments

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Sakaeronavigatsia In your opinion, what are the main Geopolitical situation. drivers or issues for performance within your region?

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government)

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

Comments

IFR hours per sq. km.

0.5701

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

89,300

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

Radar only

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

Radar only

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

1

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

1

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

1

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

0

Number of stand-alone towers

0

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

52

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Servicios a la Navegación en el Espacio Aéreo Mexicano Does your ANSP have stated objectives? If so, what are they?

Safety and efficiency in operations.

In your opinion, what are the main Politics - SENEAM is subject to the government budget. The drivers or issues for performance within budget is based on previous years and does not take into your region? consideration the cost of living increase.

What are the main initiatives you Implementing new technologies and standards. are undertaking to improve your performance?

Were there any factors that impacted No. your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.

Legal status: A government department or authority that is subject to government accounting and treasury rules, and staff are employed under civil service pay and conditions.

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

Oceanic

Comments

4,039,820

2,915,843

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

90%

0%

Approximate

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

0%

0%

Approximate

1

1

IFR hours per sq. km.

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

Number of FIRs

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

0

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

4

2 APP facilities radar 2 APP facilities non-radar

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

32

4 located within the ACC are not included

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

23

Number of stand-alone towers

0

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

4

53

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Slovenia Control In your opinion, what are the main Changes in traffic flows. drivers or issues for performance within your region?

What are the main initiatives you Providing capacity and cost control. are undertaking to improve your performance?

Were there any factors that impacted No. your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.

Legal status: A corporatised entity with special status, not governed by normal commercial law but by a specific founding law or statute (and wholly owned by the government).

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

IFR hours per sq. km.

2.5304

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

20,000

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

0

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

1

Number of stand-alone approach facilities

0

Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

2

Number of stand-alone towers

2

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

0

54

Comments Total IFR flight-hours controlled by the ANSP used

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

ANSP: Serbia and Montenegro Air Traffic Services SMATSA LLC

In your opinion, what are the main SES requirements. drivers or issues for performance within your region?

Were there any factors that impacted No. your individual ANSP performance in your fiscal year 2015, as shown in the KPIs in this report? For example, exceptional events in the year related to traffic.

Legal status: Limited liability company, 100% state-owned (92% owned by Serbia and 8% owned by Montenegro).

Integrated civil/military ANSP.

Contextual data element Operational data

Continental

IFR hours per sq. km.

1.8446

Sq. km. – oceanic and continental

129,000

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar and ADS-B only

100%

Percentage surveillance coverage at 30,000ft - radar, ADS-B and ADS-C only

100%

Number of FIRs

1

Facilities Number of ACC facilities

1

Number of co-located ACC and approach facilities

1

Number of stand-alone approach facilities Number of co-located approach and tower facilities

7

Number of stand-alone towers

1

Number of co-located ACC, approach and tower facilities

55

Comments

The size (the surface area) of the airspace for which SMATSA is responsible includes the airspace of Bosnia & Hercegovina within which SMATSA provides ATC services.

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

Annex 3: KPI Data 1: Continental Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs (USD) / IFR flight hours

ANSP

KPI

2015-2016

4 yr CAGR

FAA-ATO

453.28

0.00%

-1.20%

AAI

62.65

1.34%

NAV CANADA

315.54

-2.48%

JANS

551.46

-4.26%

SENEAM

100.71

DHMI

402.25

15.69%

AEROTHAI

333.63

-5.53%

LFV

507.53

-4.71%

-0.12%

CAAS

355.59

13.20%

10.52%

PANSA

410.43

-1.93%

1.47%

NAV Portugal

339.68

-10.23%

-8.66%

ROMATSA

528.07

9.60%

1.29%

ATNS

267.71

-1.68%

5.47%

Airways NZ

374.07

-1.21%

0.57%

ANS CR

533.85

-0.36%

1.44%

1.09%

HungaroControl

451.49

2.56%

-1.79%

SMATSA

338.45

-7.74%

-1.21%

Finavia

658.47

2.61%

5.57%

LPS

674.80

-1.35%

-1.51%

LGS

312.62

-2.84%

5.00%

KCAA

200.12

-9.75%

EANS

298.88

3.72%

6.96%

Oro navigacija

566.32

10.81%

2.56%

Sakaeronavigatsia

504.00

7.35%

6.14%

Slovenia Control

717.00

1.75%

2.63%

Isavia

159.76

22.91%

ANA

800.17

56

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

2A: Continental ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS hours

ANSP

KPI

2015-2016

4 yr CAGR

FAA-ATO

119.31

1.51%

2.73%

AAI

16.25

-6.27%

NAV CANADA

113.76

7.39%

JANS

40.39

-0.10%

SENEAM

36.08

DHMI

68.95

25.61%

AEROTHAI

28.18

6.49%

LFV

123.68

PANSA

106.68

3.45%

NAV Portugal

121.68

-4.87%

-7.25%

ROMATSA

109.13

9.27%

12.35%

ATNS

34.24

13.44%

7.27%

Airways NZ

91.32

-1.79%

3.84%

ANS CR

110.82

13.20%

7.54%

HungaroControl

110.82

6.80%

5.01%

SMATSA

60.70

8.20%

4.01%

Finavia

104.86

-0.94%

6.70%

LPS

113.15

-0.40%

6.67%

LGS

42.61

0.16%

6.19%

KCAA

22.39

-0.73%

EANS

66.77

1.36%

11.17%

Oro navigacija

50.87

2.26%

4.29%

Sakaeronavigatsia

20.04

22.33%

19.13%

Slovenia Control

96.08

3.18%

3.47%

Isavia

126.44

46.15%

ANA

132.51

57

3.79%

6.63% 0.54%

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

2A: Continental ATCOs in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD), PPP adjusted

ANSP FAA-ATO

KPI

KPI PPP

119.31

119.31

AAI

16.25

59.72

NAV CANADA

113.76

121.20

JANS

40.39

43.06

SENEAM

36.08

81.55

DHMI

68.95

162.07

AEROTHAI

28.18

79.93

LFV

123.68

121.85

PANSA

106.68

235.38

NAV Portugal

121.68

178.76

ROMATSA

109.13

253.57

ATNS

34.24

84.96

Airways NZ

91.32

86.28

ANS CR

110.82

200.18

HungaroControl

110.82

234.65

SMATSA

60.70

159.64

Finavia

104.86

102.98

LPS

113.15

211.47

LGS

42.61

76.63

KCAA

22.39

50.96

EANS

66.77

108.46

Oro navigacija

50.87

100.25

Sakaeronavigatsia

20.04

52.86

Slovenia Control

96.07

145.63

Isavia

126.45

105.78

ANA

132.51

130.70

58

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

2B: Continental ATCOs in OPS hour productivity Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours

ANSP

KPI

2015-2016

4 yr CAGR

FAA-ATO

1.08

3.38%

3.03%

AAI

0.85

-1.09%

NAV CANADA

1.19

1.98%

JANS

0.90

6.79%

SENEAM

0.79

DHMI

0.81

0.07%

AEROTHAI

0.32

5.31%

LFV

0.52

-0.27%

0.60%

CAAS

0.65

-4.14%

-4.60%

2.37%

PANSA

0.77

4.88%

-1.05%

NAV Portugal

0.90

13.25%

5.54%

ROMATSA

0.64

1.70%

4.13%

ATNS

0.50

7.47%

-0.44%

Airways NZ

0.68

8.08%

7.08%

ANS CR

0.88

3.80%

2.47%

HungaroControl

0.89

6.49%

5.27%

SMATSA

0.76

11.13%

1.66%

Finavia

0.39

-5.77%

-3.87%

LPS

0.73

2.03%

4.42% -2.70%

LGS

0.68

1.51%

KCAA

0.33

-7.13%

EANS

0.76

-3.00%

4.78%

Oro navigacija

0.41

1.72%

-0.35%

Sakaeronavigatsia

0.36

10.44%

2.88%

Slovenia Control

0.40

3.16%

1.02%

Isavia

1.51

25.04%

ANA

0.44

59

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

2C: Continental Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs / IFR flight hours

ANSP

KPI

2015-2016

4 yr CAGR

FAA-ATO

342.61

0.60%

-1.49%

AAI

43.46

4.54%

NAV CANADA

220.27

-5.50%

JANS

506.77

-4.06%

SENEAM

55.08

DHMI

316.89

13.30%

AEROTHAI

245.52

-7.71%

LFV

268.36

PANSA

271.73

NAV Portugal ROMATSA

0.96%

-4.34% -2.22%

1.40%

204.43

-5.96%

-5.95%

356.30

10.68%

-1.26%

ATNS

199.32

-3.94%

4.74%

Airways NZ

240.68

3.80%

2.89%

ANS CR

407.43

-2.96%

0.46%

HungaroControl

327.51

3.45%

-2.35%

SMATSA

258.60

-9.21%

-2.19%

Finavia

390.76

0.95%

2.53%

LPS

519.10

-1.04%

-2.50%

LGS

250.04

-3.21%

4.08%

KCAA

131.47

-16.53%

EANS

211.40

3.40%

7.32%

Oro navigacija

441.40

14.12%

2.01%

Sakaeronavigatsia

448.17

6.59%

5.19%

Slovenia Control

474.66

2.66%

2.74%

Isavia

75.92

30.34%

ANA

500.30

ANA

0.44

60

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

3A: Continental Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / No. ATCOs in OPS

ANSP

KPI

2015-2016

4 yr CAGR

FAA-ATO

216432

2.82%

3.20%

AAI

31728

-1.18%

NAV CANADA

187174

8.63%

JANS

81382

-0.10%

SENEAM

72065

DHMI

82748

16.95%

AEROTHAI

86093

9.34%

LFV

219277

PANSA

115662

0.20%

NAV Portugal

218826

-5.29%

-7.40%

ROMATSA

131960

6.30%

11.32%

ATNS

56177

12.14%

7.13%

Airways NZ

124560

-1.79%

3.84%

ANS CR

167668

13.35%

7.86%

HungaroControl

172659

5.81%

4.41%

SMATSA

70892

4.62%

2.80%

Finavia

154899

1.27%

6.40%

LPS

170992

-1.04%

7.01%

LGS

53731

0.24%

8.36%

KCAA

32248

-0.73%

EANS

104159

1.36%

9.30%

Oro navigacija

82812

2.40%

5.27%

Sakaeronavigatsia

27870

10.35%

11.88%

Slovenia Control

136271

2.62%

3.45%

Isavia

210458

30.36%

ANA

137814

61

5.01%

8.93% 0.27%

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

3A: Continental Annual employment cost per ATCO in OPS (USD), PPP adjusted

ANSP

KPI

KPI PPP

FAA-ATO

216432

216432

AAI

31728

116593

NAV CANADA

187174

199410

JANS

81382

86759

SENEAM

72065

162907

DHMI

82748

194493

AEROTHAI

86093

244193

LFV

219277

216037

PANSA

115662

255199

NAV Portugal

218826

321480

ROMATSA

131960

306610

ATNS

56177

139382

Airways NZ

124560

117691

ANS CR

167668

302868

HungaroControl

172659

365573

SMATSA

70892

186464

Finavia

154899

152120

LPS

170992

319576

LGS

53731

96636

KCAA

32248

73379

EANS

104159

169201

Oro navigacija

82812

163182

Sakaeronavigatsia

27870

73535

Slovenia Control

136271

206558

Isavia

210458

176068

ANA

137814

135930

62

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

3B: Continental Annual working hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: ATCOs in OPS hours / No. ATCOs in OPS

ANSP

KPI

2015-2016

4 yr CAGR

FAA-ATO

1814

1.28%

0.46%

AAI

1952

5.43%

NAV CANADA

1645

1.15%

JANS

2015

0.00%

SENEAM

1998

DHMI

1200

-6.90%

AEROTHAI

3055

2.68%

LFV

1773

0.23%

2.15%

CAAS

1819

0.00%

0.00%

PANSA

1084

-3.14%

-0.26%

NAV Portugal

1798

-0.44%

-0.16%

ROMATSA

1209

-2.72%

-0.91%

ATNS

1641

-1.15%

-0.13%

Airways NZ

1364

0.00%

0.00%

ANS CR

1513

0.13%

0.30%

HungaroControl

1558

-0.93%

-0.57%

SMATSA

1168

-3.31%

-1.16%

Finavia

1477

2.23%

-0.28%

LPS

1511

-0.64%

0.32% 2.04%

1.18%

LGS

1261

0.08%

KCAA

1440

0.00%

EANS

1560

0.00%

-1.69%

Oro navigacija

1628

0.14%

0.94%

Sakaeronavigatsia

1391

-9.79%

-6.08%

Slovenia Control

1418

-0.54%

-0.01%

Isavia

1664

-10.80%

ANA

1040

63

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

3C: Continental Annual IFR hours per ATCO in OPS Formula: IFR flight hours / No. ATCOs in OPS

ANSP

KPI

2015-2016

4 yr CAGR

FAA-ATO

1955.54

4.70%

3.51%

AAI

1653.35

4.27%

NAV CANADA

1964.66

3.15%

JANS

1821.00

6.79%

SENEAM

1579.37

DHMI

969.40

-6.84%

AEROTHAI

977.18

8.13%

LFV

916.84

-0.04%

2.77%

CAAS

1175.10

-4.14%

-4.60%

3.58%

PANSA

833.87

1.59%

-1.31%

NAV Portugal

1617.98

12.75%

5.37%

ROMATSA

768.21

-1.07%

3.17%

ATNS

821.40

6.23%

-0.57%

Airways NZ

933.84

8.08%

7.08%

ANS CR

1326.27

3.94%

2.78%

HungaroControl

1392.60

5.50%

4.67%

SMATSA

887.88

7.45%

0.48%

Finavia

578.61

-3.67%

-4.14%

LPS

1098.18

1.37%

4.75%

LGS

858.59

1.59%

-0.71%

KCAA

469.80

-7.13%

EANS

1190.68

-3.00%

3.01%

Oro navigacija

662.88

1.86%

0.58%

Sakaeronavigatsia

499.15

-0.37%

-3.38%

Slovenia Control

562.31

2.61%

1.00%

Isavia

2510.33

11.54%

ANA

459.57

CAAU

200.52

64

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

1: Oceanic Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs / IFR flight hours

ANSP

KPI

2015-2016

4 yr CAGR

FAA-ATO

96.15

-2.71%

-2.18%

NAV CANADA

54.08

-10.99%

-1.29%

Airways NZ

49.53

-3.81%

-4.88%

Isavia

160.96

4.95%

2A: Oceanic ATCO in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / ATCOs in OPS Hours

ANSP

KPI

2015-2016

4 yr CAGR

FAA-ATO

157.57

-0.69%

2.67%

NAV CANADA

115.38

3.51%

1.32%

Airways NZ

100.17

-1.69%

3.04%

Isavia

114.22

27.93%

2A: Oceanic ATCO in OPS employment cost per ATCO hour (USD), PPP adjusted ANSP

KPI

KPI PPP

FAA-ATO

157.57

157.5672

NAV CANADA

115.38

122.9196

Airways NZ

100.17

94.64606

Isavia

114.22

95.55947

2B: Oceanic ATCO in OPS hour productivity Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours

ANSP

KPI

2015-2016

4 yr CAGR

FAA-ATO

6.18

3.81%

4.56%

NAV CANADA

6.79

3.94%

4.39%

ATNS

0.16

14.09%

-14.09%

Airways NZ

3.85

13.93%

1.51%

Isavia

3.36

-1.71%

65

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

2C: Oceanic Costs excluding ATCOs in OPS employment costs per IFR hour (USD) Formula: IFR flight hours / ATCOs in OPS hours

ANSP

KPI

2015-2016

4 yr CAGR

FAA-ATO

70.67

-2.10%

-2.31%

NAV CANADA

37.08

-15.12%

-0.49%

Airways NZ

23.51

10.19%

-10.10%

Isavia

126.97

-0.22%

CO1: Combined Cost per IFR hour (USD) Formula: Total costs /IFR flight hours

ANSP

KPI

2015-2016

4 yr CAGR

FAA-ATO

425.78

-0.26%

-1.40%

AAI

62.65

1.34%

NAV CANADA

269.60

-3.58%

JANS

551.46

-4.26%

SENEAM

100.71

DHMI

402.25

15.69%

AEROTHAI

333.63

-5.53%

LFV

507.53

-4.71%

-0.12%

CAAS

355.59

13.20%

10.52%

PANSA

410.43

-1.93%

1.47%

NAV Portugal

339.68

-10.23%

-8.66%

0.75%

ROMATSA

528.07

9.60%

1.29%

ATNS

259.60

-1.20%

5.55%

Airways NZ

274.60

-2.64%

1.59%

ANS CR

533.85

-0.36%

1.44%

HungaroControl

451.49

2.56%

-1.79%

SMATSA

338.45

-7.74%

-1.21%

Finavia

658.47

2.61%

5.57%

LPS

674.80

-1.35%

-1.51%

LGS

312.62

-2.84%

5.00%

KCAA

200.12

-9.75%

EANS

298.88

3.72%

6.96%

Oro navigacija

566.32

10.81%

2.56%

Sakaeronavigatsia

504.00

7.35%

6.14%

Slovenia Control

717.00

1.75%

2.63%

Isavia

160.83

6.54%

ANA

800.17

66

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

CO2: Employment cost of ATCOs in OPS as a percentage of total costs (USD) Formula: ATCOs in OPS employment costs / Total costs

ANSP

KPI

2015-2016

4 yr CAGR

FAA-ATO

24%

-1.81%

0.91%

AAI

31%

-6.49%

NAV CANADA

30%

8.12%

JANS

8%

-2.29%

SENEAM

45%

DHMI

21%

8.50%

AEROTHAI

26%

7.05%

LFV

47%

PANSA

34%

0.58%

0.13%

NAV Portugal

40%

-6.42%

-3.79%

ROMATSA

33%

-1.97%

6.52%

ATNS

26%

3.39%

1.76%

Airways NZ

37%

-8.14%

-2.92%

0.22%

6.12%

ANS CR

24%

9.45%

3.46%

HungaroControl

27%

-2.21%

1.57%

SMATSA

24%

5.53%

3.57%

Finavia

41%

2.46%

5.13%

LPS

23%

-1.04%

3.73%

LGS

20%

1.56%

3.94%

KCAA

34%

18.44%

EANS

29%

0.75%

-0.80%

Oro navigacija

22%

-9.28%

2.04%

Sakaeronavigatsia

11%

3.18%

9.09%

Slovenia Control

34%

-1.70%

-0.20%

Isavia

24%

19.27%

ANA

37%

COCESNA

29%

67

Global Air Navigation Services Performance Report 2017 | The ANSP View

Annex 2: Contextual Data ACC Area control centre ADS-B Automatic dependent surveillance - broadcast ADS-C Automatic dependent surveillance - contract AG Annual growth ANS Air navigation services ANSP Air navigation service provider ASBU Aviation System Block Upgrades ATC Air traffic control ATCO Air traffic controller ATFM Air traffic flow management ATM Air traffic management APP Approach ATSO Air traffic services officer CAGR Compound annual growth rate CAP Capacity CEF Connecting Europe facility CNS Communication, navigation and surveillance ENV Environment FAB Functional airspace block FDPS Flight data processing system FIR Flight information region GAT General air traffic IFR Instrument flight rules IMF International monetary fund KPI Key performance indicator OPS Operations PBN Performance based navigation PPP Purchasing power parity Q1 First quartile Q3 Third quartile SAF Safety SES Single European sky STATFOR Statistics and Forecasts

68

civil air navigation services organisation

TRANSFORMING

GLOBAL ATM PERFORMANCE