Performance Review Commission, and performance management of the European ATM system Keith C. Williams, Chairman PRC

1
Performance Review Commission, and performance
management of the European ATM systemKeith C.
Williams, Chairman PRC
2
Origin of performance review

• 1997 European ATM Institutional Strategy
• Moving from solutions-based to performance-oriente
  d strategy
• Includes the creation of a strong, transparent,
  independent European performance review and
  target setting system
• Performance Review Commission (PRC) advises on
  ATM matters
• Performance indicators
• Proposed performance targets
• Guidelines for economic regulation
• Incorporated in EUROCONTROL Revised Convention
• 1998 Creation of PRC (12 independent members)
• Supported by permanent Performance Review Unit
  (10 p)
• 2004 Performance Review is part of Single
  European Sky regulations

3
Role of Performance review

• Feedback information for policy makers, ANS
  management, stakeholders
• Closes the performance loop
• Least intrusive form of regulation

4
PRC documents

• Performance Review Reports
• Demand for ANS Traffic
• Provision of ANS
• Safety
• Capacity/Delays
• Flight efficiency
• Cost-effectiveness
• Special items
• ATM Cost-Effectiveness reports (ACE)
• ANSP Benchmarking
• Factual data
• Cross-ANSP comparisons
• Trend analysis
• Special reports
• E.g. Fragmentation, Civil/Military

37 States 9.6 M flights
Available on the web
www.eurocontrol.int/prc
5
How the PRC analyses ANS performance
ANS Key Performance Areas
Performance Indicators
Performance Drivers
Aviation performance
Safety Management
Accidents Incidents
Safety
Legislative, Cultural Env.
Safety maturity
Traffic demand
Capacity Delays
Ground Delays
Airline Performance
Capacity
Horizontal Flight efficiency
Airspace design use
Flight Efficiency
ANS Performance
Vertical Flight Efficiency
Civil/Military use of airspace
Airport Performance
Productivity
Complexity
ANSP costs (88)
Cost Effectiveness
ATCO Unit Costs
Cost of living
Other costs (12)
Support Costs
Fragmentation
6
Safety

• Agreed performance objectives
• Number of accidents, severe incidents shouldnt
  increase
• Interim target agreed safety management maturity
  in all States/ANSPs by end 2008
• Mechanisms to deliver performance
• Regulations In place complete and uniform
  application is an issue
• Safety management Maturity improving
• Progress to date
• Many actions in progress
• Incident reporting
• Information flow to be firmed up
• Legal and cultural impediments
• Key Performance Indicators being developed
• Limited trend information
• Severe incidents dont appear to increase

7
ATM capacity and delays

• Focus on ground delays
• Airborne delays assessed under flight-efficiency
• Agreed performance objectives
• Sufficient en-route capacity to accommodate
  demand in typical busy hours
• ATFM En-route delay lt 1 min/flight (near optimum)
• Performance management
• Capacity planning and management coordinated
  through EUROCONTROL
• Magnitude
• ATFM delay cost En-route 550M, Airport 500M
• Progress to date
• ATM-related delays 21 of Air transport delays
• Major improvements since 1999, but challenge due
  to sustained traffic growth
• Main Issues
• Matching capacity and demand efficiently
• Main issue is airport capacity (outside ATM)

Managed by ATM 21
Key Performance Indicator
8
ATFM Delays Target setting

• Trade-off delay/cost of capacity
• Target setting based on understanding of optimum

9
Flight Efficiency

• No agreed performance objective yet
• Safety remains paramount
• Trade-off with capacity
• Progress to date
• Coordination of airspace design useunder
  EUROCONTROL
• Focus has been on capacity so far
• Very slow improvement in flight efficiency
• Magnitude
• Economic impact of Route extension 2 200M
  p.a.
• Direct link with environmental impact (Emissions)
• Vertical and terminal airspace inefficiencies to
  be added
• Issues to be resolved
• Flight-efficiency is a major ATM issue
• Airspace design is the main underlying issue
• Continental dimension of airspace design issues
• Civil-military aspects

PRC uses same framework as ANSEP
Key Performance Indicator

10
ANSP benchmarking

• ANSP benchmarking
• First PRC report in 2003
• Requires
• Information disclosure
• Validation
• Stability in time
• Institutionalised benchmarking ? Voluntary
  benchmarking
• ANSEP performance framework draws on PRC
  experience

PRC uses same framework as ANSEP
11
Cost-effectiveness

• PRC proposed target -3 p.a. in real unit cost
  terms
• Mechanism to deliver performance
• User pressure, PRC benchmarking
• Co-ordinated planning under EUROCONTROL
• States, ANSP initiatives
• Progress to date
• Progressive improvement in unit cost since 2003
• gt 2 billion euro saved from 2003 to 2008 if trend
  remains
• Break in trend coincides with first benchmarking
  report
• Unit cost approximately twice higher than in US
• Main causes
• Low average productivity
• Fragmentation of service provision
• Weak governance of monopoly ANSPs in many States
• Magnitude
• High cost of user charges (7.2 billion euro in
  2005)
• In spite of progressive improvements,
  Cost-effectiveness is a major ATM issue
  (billions of euro)

Key Performance Indicator
12
Conclusions

• High stakes in ANS performance (billions of or
  per annum)
• Experience with performance-oriented approach in
  Europe since 1998
• Prerequisites for efficient performance-oriented
  strategies
• Reliable information flow
• Target setting, performance monitoring
• Adequate regulation
• Performance management processes
• Independent performance review (with permanent
  support)
• Strong governance of monopoly service providers
• Accountability for performance

13
(No Transcript)