annexes to the performance review report · more details, examples and a methodology for...

PerformanceReview Report

PRR 4Year 2000

An Assessment ofAir Traffic Management in

Europe during the Calendar Year 2000

PerformanceReview

Commission

April 2001

Annexes to the

COPYRIGHT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER© European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)

EUROCONTROL

This document is published by the Performance Review Commission in the interest of the exchange ofinformation. It may be copied in whole or in part providing that the copyright notice and disclaimer areincluded. The information contained in this document may not be modified without prior written permissionfrom the Performance Review Commission.

The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of EUROCONTROL, whichmakes no warranty, either implied or express, for the information contained in this document, neither does itassume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information.

Printed by EUROCONTROL, 96, rue de la Fusée, B-1130 Brussels, Belgium, Tel: + 32 2 729 3956, Fax: + 32 2 729 9108.

LIST OF ANNEXES

T h e s e A n n e x e s s h o u l d b e r e a d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h V o l u m e I o ft h e P e r f o r m a n c e R e v i e w C o m m i s s i o n ’ s F o u r t h P e r f o r m a n c e

R e v i e w R e p o r t ( P R R 4 )

1 S A F E T Y D E F I N I T I O N S A - 1

2 T O P 2 0 B O T T L E N E C K S ( A T F M E N - R O U T E D E L A Y S ) A - 4

3 A T F M D A T A A - 6

4 E N - R O U T E A T F M D E L A Y M A P S ( E U R O P E A N R E G I O N S ) A - 1 6

5 E N - R O U T E A T F M D E L A Y M A P S ( A C C ) A - 1 7

6 C O S T T A B L E S A - 1 8

7 T O P 3 0 C A P A C I T Y C O N S T R A I N E D A I R P O R T S A - 2 0

8 F O L L O W - U P T O P R C R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S A - 2 1

9 A I R N A V I G A T I O N S E R V I C E P R O V I D E R S ( 2 0 0 0 ) A - 2 8

PRR 4 – ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: SAFETY DEFINITIONS

1. Introduction

In an attempt to compare safety performance based on safety data available in US and inEurope, the PRC has identified a wide variety of definitions referring to safety occurrences.It must be emphasised, however, that it is impossible to compare on equal grounds the twosystems at this stage, and that there is a need to have harmonised definitions within anICAO global agreement.

This annex summarises the main definitions for incidents that have been used by ICAO,EUROCONTROL Member States, the EUROCONTROL Agency and by the FAA.

2. General

Incident: [ICAO Annex 13]: An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with theoperation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operation.

Serious Incident: [ICAO Annex 13]: An incident involving circumstances indicating that anaccident nearly occurred.

Airprox: [ICAO Doc 4444]: The code word used in an air traffic incident report to designateaircraft proximity.

Air proximity: [ICAO Doc 4444]: A situation in which, in the opinion of a pilot or an airtraffic services personnel, the distance between aircraft as well as their relative positionsand speed have been such that the safety of the aircraft involved may have beencompromised … (Four levels of severity are mentioned).

More details, examples and a methodology for classification and reporting can be found inthe ICAO Doc. 9156 Accident/Incident Reporting Manual.

3. Definitions for Separation Minima Infringements

EUROCONTROL Definitions

Separation Minima Infringement (EUROCONTROL - ESARR2): A situation in whichprescribed separation minima1 were not maintained between aircraft.

Inadequate Separation (EUROCONTROL - ESARR2): In the absence of prescribedseparation minima, a situation in which aircraft were perceived to pass too close to eachother for pilots to ensure safe separation.

The “Severity Classification Scheme for Safety Occurrences in ATM” is a guidance materialdocument to be applied to the Safety Measurement of ATM and supports theimplementation of ESARR 2. It allows the classification of occurrences according to theseverity of their effect on the safe operations of aircraft and occupants and it is compatiblewith ICAO ADREP, mapping each severity category of ICAO into an ESARR 2 category.

All documentation relating to ESARR work is available from the Safety RegulationCommission’s web site at http://www.eurocontrol.be/src/index.html.

1 Set out in ICAO Doc 4444 PANS-RAC, national regulations and LoAs.

PRR 4 – ANNEXES A-2

US Definitions

Operational Error (OE), [Definition and reporting procedures in FAA Order 7210.56A, “Airtraffic quality assurance”]: An occurrence attributable to an element of the air traffic controlsystem which results in less than the applicable separation minima between two or moreaircraft, or between an aircraft and terrain or obstacles as required by Handbook2 7110.65and supplemental instructions. Obstacles include vehicles/equipment/personnel on runways,or aircraft lands or departs on a runway closed to aircraft operations after receiving airtraffic authorisation.

Near Mid-Air Collision (NMAC) [Definition and reporting procedures in FAA Order8020.11, “Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification, Investigation and Reporting”]: Anincident associated with the operation of an aircraft in which the possibility of a collisionoccurs as a result of proximity of less than 500 feet to another aircraft, or a report isreceived from a pilot or flight crew member stating that a collision hazard existed betweentwo or more aircraft.

Degree of Hazard (NMAC):Critical: A situation in which collision avoidance was due to chance rather than anact on the part of the pilot. Less than 100 feet of aircraft separation would beconsidered critical.Potential: An incident which would probably have resulted in a collision if no actionhad been taken by either pilot. Closest proximity of less than 500 feet would usuallybe required in this case.No hazard: A situation in which direction and altitude would have made a mid-aircollision improbable regardless of evasive action taken.

Operational Deviation (OD) [Definition and reporting procedures in FAA Order7210.56A, “Air traffic quality assurance”]: An occurrence where applicable separationminima, as referenced in the operational error definition below were maintained, but: (1)less than the applicable separation minima existed between an aircraft and protectedairspace without prior approval, (2) an aircraft penetrated airspace that was delegated toanother position of operation or another facility without prior co-ordination and approval,(3) an aircraft penetrated airspace that was delegated to another position of operation ofanother facility at an altitude or route contrary to the altitude or route requested andapproved in direct co-ordination or as specified in a Letter of Agreement, pre-co-ordinationor internal procedure, (4) an aircraft, vehicle, equipment, or personnel encroached upon alanding area that was delegated to another position of operation without prior co-ordinationand approval.

Pilot Deviation (PD) [Definition and reporting procedures in FAA Order 8020.11]: Theactions of a pilot which result in the violation of a Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) or aNorth American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) Air Defense Identification Zone(ADIZ) tolerance.

US definitions are not compatible with the ICAO ones as the US FAA doesn’t always applyICAO rules. Occurrences reported by US to ICAO have to be manually mapped with theADREP database of safety occurrences, for their inclusion in the said database.

2 The US equivalent of ICAO PANS-RAC Doc. 4444.


4. Definition for Runway Incursions

EUROCONTROL definitions

ESARR 2 where avoiding action was necessary: Any unauthorised presence on a runway ofaircraft, vehicle, person or object where an avoiding action was required to prevent acollision with an aircraft.EATMP Glossary: Any occurrence at an airport that involves an aircraft, vehicle, person orobject on the ground that creates a collision hazard or results in loss of separation with anaircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing or intending to land.(Co-ordination has been undertaken within EUROCONTROL, and with related activitieswithin ICAO and the EC.)

US Definition

FAA order 8020.11A: Any occurrence at an airport involving an aircraft, vehicle, person, orobject on the ground, that creates a collision hazard or results in a loss of separation withan aircraft taking-off, intending to take off, landing or intending to land.


ANNEX 2: TOP 20 BOTTLENECKS IN SUMMER 20003 (ATFM EN-ROUTEDELAYS)4

2000 BottlenecksReferenceLocation

Name

ACCName

State/Provider

En-routedelays insummer

2000

Reasons for Congestion5

LSAZUP2 Zurich Switzerland 573 325 No remedial actions has been planned in the short-term action of theANT/RNDSG group in 1999 and 2000. Traffic not adhering to planned FPL.There is a very high demand aggravated by the mandatory use of UL613 andthe closure of SPR-RLP. Thunderstorm activity in May/June.

EBMAWSL MaastrichtUAC

EUROCONTROL

485 308 Non-implementation of the upper level sector split due to many constraints(e.g. staff and VHF frequency availability). WSL is a single sector with acapacity of 50. There is a very high demand, all traffic departing UK to theEast/Southeast and vice versa.

EDUUWUR Karlsruhe Germany 474 591 Implementation of EAM04 in May and thunderstorm activity in May/Juneexacerbated the situation.

EDUUFFM Karlsruhe Germany 441 061 'FFM is one of the busiest European ATC sectors. 'FFM is 2 sectors, with atotal capacity of 60, collapsed into 1 with a capacity of 44.

LECMDGO Madrid Spain 350 392 One sector. Capacity 37/hour. The vertical splitting was not implemented inearly summer as it had been planned.

EGTTLUE London UK 331 223 One sector (FL275-UNL) capacity 30/hour. Very high complexity andimportant evolving traffic in a large level band. Also affected by the NorthAtlantic traffic flows.

LIPPNU6 Padova Italy 324 771 Complexity of the airspace structure in the BZO area. Failure to open 7thsector. Staffing issue. There are currently no scenarios designed to alleviatethe sector.

MERUE Paris France 323 457 1 holding stack north of Paris for Arrivals to LFPG from the West/NW/SW.Capacity 20. There is very high demand due to the creation of additionalrunways at Paris CDG airport.

EGTTS14 London UK 277 047 Arrival to London (one of the densest sectors in ECAC).

LFEUE Reims France 275 903 One sector, capacity 30/35 per hour. Very large military areas, very highdemand above capacity (up to 60 ).

LSAGISE Geneva Switzerland 275 722 Two sectors collapsed: capacity 28/30. The 2 elementary sectors are IE(capacity 30/35) and IS (capacity 26/30). Due to staff constraints, the twosectors (Lower East-IE and Lower South-IS) had to be collapsed for longperiods, causing the delays.

LIPPNL6 Padova Italy 268 422 Collapsed sector. Complexity of the traffic due to many airports generatingtraffic and important military areas.

LSAGKU3 Geneva Switzerland 233 932 Ks sectors (re-designed in 2000).EHDELMD Maastricht EUROCONT

ROL224 777 Large and complex sector (London departures to the NE associated to S14)

and N-S traffic (Scandinavian countries to France). Many CDR and week-endroutes.

LSAZESL Zurich Switzerland 220 207 Capacity decreased from 34 to 32 in May 2000 due to initial implementation ofAirspace restructuring in Zurich. Further improvements require a civil-militaryco-ordination.

EBMALNL MaastrichtUAC

EUROCONTROL

205 875 Delays due to the complexity of the sector (arrivals/departures from/toDusseldorf, Brussels, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, airways crossings). Capacitydecreased from 45 in Nov 2000 to 35 in Jan 2001 due to co-ordinationproblems with Germany.

EBMALUX MaastrichtUAC

EUROCONTROL l

198 030 Similar to EBMALNL. Capacity decreased from 37 to 27 in Winter 2001.

LIPPSL6 Padova Italy 187 859 Failure to open a 7th sector in 2000.LFMYY Marseille France 171 184 Collapsed sector (staff constraints ).LFMNNR Marseille France 160 883 Arrival/departing traffic to/from Marseille FIR. The delays are not attributable

to Marseille ACC, but to the interaction of approach/tower ATC units and theairports.

3 Reference: “ATFM operations – Summer 2000 report-May/October 2000 Report”, CFMU

4 A regulation is considered as "en-route" if it relates to an en-route sector. It should be noted that in some cases aregulation may be applied to en-route sectors in order to protect a downstream airport (e.g. MERUE, EGTTS14).

5 The reasons for congestion were prepared by AMN, CFMU and PRU taking into account the actual documentation(e.g. LCIPs, CHIEF, RNDSG, etc.)


1999 Bottlenecks

ReferenceLocationName

ACCName

State/Provider

En-routeDelays inSummer1999(min)

En-routeDelays inSummer2000(min)

Reasons for Improvement or Deterioration

LSAZUACsectors

Zurich Switzerland 1 364 868 917 943 ATFM strategy and new ACC configuration implemented in May 2000.

LIPPNL1 Padova Italy 726 297 268 422 Opening of 2 new sectors in May 2000.LIMMWSL Milano Italy 710 204 155 506 2 sectors instead of one.LSAGKIN Geneva Switzerland 684 749 549 762 3 sectors instead of 1.EDUUFFM Karlsruhe Germany 635 254 441 061 Delegation of airspace and transfer of route UL602 from Rhein to

Berlin UAC. Delegation of OR5/6 from Frankfurt to Berlin.

LSAZWSL Zurich Switzerland 487 200 109 882 De-concentration of lower traffic through specialised and de-conflictedarrival/departure routes. Reduction of the total demand on Zurichsectors through direct hand over between Basel/Reims andBasel/Karlsruhe. Balanced distribution of the total traffic demand intofour sectors (instead of three).

LFEBRUT(UR)

Reims France 637 647 86 281 Resectorisation in Reims, through the creation of a new sector (XR).Redefinition of route network in the area.

LFFTE Paris France 459 442 32 266 Creation of segregated and specialised routes. Resectorisationthrough the creation of specialised sectors.

LIPPNU1 Padova Italy 473 519 324 771 End of Kosovo crisis. ATC sector capacity increase.

LFMMF1 Marseille France 445 713 5953 The transfer of 2 sectors in Bordeaux allowed the opening of theelementary sectors M and F. Realignment of UH sector in Bordeauxand M in Marseille.

LECBCEN Barcelona Spain 424 094 50 569 Increased number of sectors simultaneously opened.

LIPPSL1 Padova Italy 392 978 187 859 End of Kosovo crisis.ATC sector capacity increase.

LECBECO Barcelona Spain 362 617 91 012 Increased number of sectors simultaneously opened.

LFEUE Reims France 348 141 275 903 Reduced military activity during peak traffic demand.LSAZESL Zurich Switzerland 341 571 220 207 De-concentration of lower traffic through specialised and de-conflicted

arrival/departure routes. Reduction of the total demand on Zurichsectors through direct hand over between Basel/Reims andBasel/Karlsruhe. Balanced distribution of the total traffic demand intofour sectors (instead of three).

EBMALUX Maastricht Eurocontrol 329 570 198 030 Earlier opening time and changed traffic patterns after Kosovo crisis.LSAGINS Geneva Switzerland 285 576 337 741 Structural reasons; the INS suite has been a bottleneck at least since

1998. Two sectors collapsed: capacity 28/30. The 2 elementarysectors are IE (capacity 30/35) and IS (capacity 26/30). Due to theshortage of staff, the two sectors (Lower East-IE and Lower South-IS)had to be collapsed for long periods, causing delays. However, evenwhen the two elementary sectors are opened, delays occur.

EGTTS14 London UK 281 197 277 047 The CLW suite has been a bottleneck since 1998, but the situation israther stable..

LFMK1 Marseille France 276 854 106 125 In 2000 the K suite was further split into 4 sectors (E1, K1, E2, K2).Staff shortage and civil-military issues between Milan and Marseille.

EBMALNL Maastricht Eurocontrol 271 662 205 875 Capacity was reduced during Kosovo crisis.

Small change from 1999 to 2000 +/- 25% of ATFM delay

Improving from 1999 to 2000 < -25% of ATFM delay

There was no deterioration in ATFM delays above 25% from 1999 to 2000.


ANNEX 3: ATFM DATA

SUMMER YEAR%delayedflights

Avg.delayperdelayedflight

Avg.delayperflight

Avg.en-routedelayperflight

Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays

Flightvariationfrompreviousyear

Delayvariationfrompreviousyear

En-routedelayvariationfrompreviousyear

%delayedflights


Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




CFMU Area Year

min. min. min. '000 '000 '000 '000 min. min. min. '000 '000 '000 '000

CFMU Area 1997 19% 19.5 3.7 2.9 3863 724 14141 11328 15% 18.9 2.9 2.2 7177 1106 20931 15489

CFMU Area 1998 22% 22.8 5.0 4.1 4052 886 20180 16586 5% 43% 46% 17% 21.2 3.6 2.9 7550 1291 27387 21618 5% 31% 40%

CFMU Area 1999 25% 25.7 6.3 5.5 4364 1075 27612 24121 8% 37% 45% 21% 25.1 5.4 4.5 8053 1727 43263 36295 7% 58% 68%

CFMU Area 2000 21% 21.2 4.5 3.6 4531 961 20386 16113 4% -26% -33% 19% 20.3 3.8 2.9 8443 1569 31838 24382 5% -27% -33%



Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




%delayedflights


Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




ACC ACC Name Year


EBBU BRUSSELS 1997 1% 27.6 0.3 0.0 256 3.2 89 13 1% 28.5 0.3 0.1 485 4.9 138 27

1998 2% 23.7 0.4 0.1 282 4.5 106 30 10% 19% 135% 1% 24.0 0.3 0.1 528 7.3 176 52 9% 27% 94%

1999 3% 20.7 0.6 0.1 305 9.0 187 20 8% 75% -34% 3% 23.7 0.7 0.1 575 16.7 395 29 9% 124% -44%

2000 2% 23.6 0.6 0.3 308 7.5 177 84 1% -5% 324% 2% 23.1 0.6 0.2 586 14.3 330 119 2% -17% 313%

EDBB BERLIN 1997 0% 38.3 0.0 0.0 195 0.1 2 0 0% 38.4 0.0 0.0 356 0.1 4 0

1998 0% 13.1 0.1 0.0 202 0.9 11 0 4% 392% 0% 13.1 0.0 0.0 371 0.9 11 0 4% 204%

1999 1% 23.8 0.2 0.2 262 1.9 44 43 30% 296% 1% 23.1 0.1 0.1 456 2.4 54 53 23% 390%

2000 1% 22.1 0.1 0.1 269 1.7 38 34 2% -13% -22% 0% 21.1 0.1 0.1 491 2.4 50 45 7% -9% -15%

EDFF FRANKFURT 1997 1% 15.3 0.2 0.2 393 5.6 86 72 1% 18.2 0.2 0.1 739 9.0 163 98

1998 3% 16.7 0.4 0.3 412 11.0 184 132 5% 113% 84% 2% 18.0 0.4 0.2 775 15.7 284 157 5% 74% 61%

1999 8% 21.5 1.7 0.8 440 35.8 768 373 7% 318% 182% 8% 22.1 1.7 0.6 824 61.9 1369 516 6% 383% 229%

2000 10% 18.9 2.0 0.8 451 47.1 892 352 3% 16% -5% 12% 18.2 2.1 0.8 846 98.4 1791 696 2% 30% 34%

EDLL DUSSELDORF 1997 4% 12.4 0.5 0.1 259 11.4 142 17 4% 13.3 0.5 0.1 485 18.1 240 37

1998 3% 15.1 0.4 0.4 269 7.8 118 105 4% -17% 537% 3% 15.6 0.4 0.3 505 13.1 205 172 4% -15% 367%




Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




%delayedflights


Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




ACC ACC Name Year


1999 2% 22.8 0.5 0.4 284 5.8 131 117 6% 12% 12% 2% 23.3 0.4 0.4 529 10.2 237 192 5% 16% 12%

2000 3% 15.8 0.5 0.5 295 10.0 158 135 4% 21% 15% 4% 18.4 0.7 0.6 546 19.6 361 323 3% 52% 68%

EDMM MUNCHEN 1997 2% 15.8 0.3 0.3 424 7.1 112 107 1% 16.2 0.2 0.2 750 10.7 173 154

1998 1% 15.6 0.2 0.1 434 4.3 67 59 2% -40% -45% 1% 17.7 0.1 0.1 772 6.1 108 68 3% -37% -56%

1999 1% 19.3 0.1 0.1 429 3.2 62 52 -1% -8% -12% 1% 22.2 0.2 0.1 773 6.9 154 75 0% 42% 10%

2000 3% 20.7 0.6 0.5 486 15.2 314 258 13% 404% 396% 2% 20.5 0.4 0.3 859 18.6 381 277 11% 147% 269%

EDUU KARLSRUHE 1997 7% 15.9 1.2 1.2 393 29.1 462 462 7% 14.9 1.0 1.0 698 45.5 676 676

1998 16% 16.6 2.6 2.6 411 65.4 1087 1087 4% 135% 135% 11% 16.0 1.8 1.8 731 80.4 1285 1285 5% 90% 90%

1999 11% 19.5 2.2 2.2 431 49.3 962 962 5% -11% -11% 8% 18.7 1.6 1.6 777 65.6 1225 1225 6% -5% -5%

2000 14% 16.5 2.2 2.2 488 65.9 1089 1089 13% 13% 13% 10% 15.9 1.7 1.7 865 89.8 1428 1428 11% 16% 16%

EDWW BREMEN 1997 0% 9.4 0.0 0.0 173 0.0 0 0 0% 12.0 0.0 0.0 325 0.3 3 0

1998 0% 24.5 0.0 0.0 179 0.1 1 0 3% 421% -33% 0% 17.5 0.0 0.0 334 0.4 7 0 3% 121% 8%

1999 1% 28.1 0.2 0.1 191 1.1 31 25 7% 1% 24.0 0.1 0.1 358 2.2 53 41 7% 655%

2000 2% 18.3 0.3 0.1 210 4.0 73 17 10% 136% -29% 1% 18.1 0.2 0.1 386 4.5 81 20 8% 51% -51%

EDYY MAASTRICHT 1997 5% 14.2 0.7 0.7 534 27.3 388 388 4% 13.6 0.5 0.5 996 38.8 528 528

1998 4% 17.1 0.6 0.6 592 21.6 370 370 11% -5% -5% 3% 15.7 0.5 0.5 1095 34.5 540 540 10% 2% 2%

1999 10% 20.2 2.0 2.0 633 62.0 1253 1253 7% 239% 239% 7% 19.4 1.4 1.4 1170 83.9 1629 1629 7% 201% 201%

2000 11% 18.3 2.0 2.0 660 71.1 1302 1302 4% 4% 4% 9% 17.2 1.5 1.5 1223 107.3 1850 1850 4% 13% 13%

EFES TAMPERE 1997 0% 11.6 0.0 0.0 78 0.0 0 0 1% 23.3 0.1 0.0 157 0.9 21 3

1998 4% 19.4 0.9 0.8 91 4.1 79 71 16% 4% 20.3 0.7 0.6 181 6.6 133 100 15% 523%

1999 2% 22.8 0.5 0.3 98 2.1 47 31 8% -41% -56% 2% 21.4 0.3 0.2 178 2.9 62 33 -1% -53% -67%

2000 1% 18.1 0.3 0.0 95 1.3 24 1 -3% -49% -98% 1% 21.5 0.3 0.1 191 2.3 50 11 7% -19% -66%

EFPS ROVANIEMI 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 11 0.0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 23 0.0 0 0

1998 0% 0.0 0.0 12 0.0 0 0 11% 0% 0.0 0.0 26 0.0 0 0 10%

1999 0% 0.0 0.0 15 0.0 0 0 24% 0% 0.0 0.0 29 0.0 0 0 14%

2000 0% 0.0 0.0 14 0.0 0 0 -3% 0% 0.0 0.0 32 0.0 0 0 7%

EGCC MANCHESTER 1997 3% 7.8 0.2 0.2 171 4.4 34 31 2% 8.8 0.2 0.2 313 7.1 62 54

1998 0% 10.0 0.0 0.0 188 0.4 4 3 10% -87% -91% 1% 9.3 0.1 0.1 339 3.1 29 25 8% -54% -54%




Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




%delayedflights


Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




ACC ACC Name Year


1999 1% 11.2 0.1 0.1 199 2.5 28 19 5% 538% 568% 1% 13.3 0.1 0.1 360 4.0 52 31 6% 83% 24%

2000 1% 11.7 0.1 0.1 235 2.1 25 15 18% -10% -20% 3% 10.9 0.3 0.2 419 11.0 121 85 16% 130% 177%

EGPX SCOTTISH 1997 0% 17.1 0.0 0.0 239 0.3 5 5 0% 15.0 0.0 0.0 436 0.7 11 11

1998 0% 18.3 0.0 0.0 251 0.4 7 5 5% 38% 6% 0% 18.2 0.0 0.0 465 0.7 13 6 7% 14% -44%

1999 0% 17.9 0.1 0.0 283 0.9 17 14 13% 137% 154% 0% 18.6 0.1 0.0 508 1.6 29 18 9% 132% 206%

2000 2% 18.5 0.3 0.3 268 4.4 80 78 -6% 381% 469% 1% 18.5 0.2 0.2 503 5.6 104 99 -1% 256% 443%

EGTT LONDON 1997 14% 15.9 2.2 1.8 776 107.7 1717 1411 12% 16.2 2.0 1.4 1405 170.4 2759 1999

1998 16% 19.0 3.0 2.8 836 130.1 2468 2321 8% 44% 64% 14% 17.6 2.4 2.1 1520 206.0 3618 3231 8% 31% 62%

1999 12% 20.1 2.3 2.1 902 103.8 2091 1933 8% -15% -17% 10% 19.0 1.8 1.6 1643 157.8 3003 2662 8% -17% -18%

2000 13% 21.8 2.8 2.5 941 120.9 2638 2369 4% 26% 23% 11% 20.8 2.2 1.9 1715 184.1 3826 3192 4% 27% 20%

EHAA AMSTERDAM 1997 5% 14.3 0.7 0.4 239 12.1 173 98 6% 19.7 1.1 0.4 455 25.6 503 160

1998 15% 23.8 3.7 1.3 256 39.4 937 345 7% 443% 253% 12% 25.4 3.0 0.9 486 57.1 1451 425 7% 188% 166%

1999 3% 22.8 0.6 0.1 269 7.1 161 36 5% -83% -90% 4% 27.0 1.0 0.1 507 19.2 520 57 4% -64% -87%

2000 6% 29.0 1.8 0.4 282 17.5 507 105 5% 215% 193% 5% 30.7 1.6 0.3 535 28.5 874 149 5% 68% 159%

EIDW DUBLIN 1997 0% 15.0 0.0 0.0 83 0.2 4 1 0% 15.0 0.0 0.0 150 0.2 4 1

1998 0% 22.6 0.1 0.0 90 0.4 8 0 8% 129% -100% 1% 16.8 0.1 0.0 161 1.0 16 7 7% 338% 951%

1999 1% 13.4 0.2 0.2 94 1.1 15 14 5% 81% 1% 13.2 0.1 0.1 169 1.8 24 20 5% 52% 197%

2000 1% 19.2 0.2 0.1 100 0.9 17 8 6% 9% -46% 1% 20.1 0.1 0.1 180 1.3 27 9 6% 10% -54%

EISN SHANNON 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 130 0.0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 229 0.0 0 0

1998 0% 0.0 0.0 140 0.0 0 0 8% 0% 0.0 0.0 250 0.0 0 0 9%

1999 0% 4.0 0.0 0.0 159 0.0 0 0 13% 0% 0.0 0.0 278 0.0 0 0 11%

2000 0% 50.4 0.0 0.0 162 0.0 0 0 2% 0% 0.0 0.0 291 0.0 1 0 4%

EKDK COPENHAGEN 1997 1% 16.3 0.2 0.1 219 2.7 45 11 2% 16.8 0.3 0.0 420 8.5 144 19

1998 1% 19.0 0.1 0.0 224 1.5 28 11 2% -37% 1% 1% 18.5 0.2 0.0 431 5.0 92 12 2% -36% -38%

1999 1% 17.4 0.1 0.0 241 1.6 29 11 8% 2% -2% 1% 20.5 0.2 0.0 458 4.4 90 11 6% -2% -2%

2000 0% 24.1 0.1 0.0 244 0.9 21 2 1% -29% -81% 1% 19.6 0.1 0.0 473 3.5 69 3 3% -23% -74%

ENBD BODO 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 48 0.0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 93 0.0 0 0

1998 0% 0.0 0.0 47 0.0 0 0 -2% 0% 0.0 0.0 93 0.0 0 0 1%




Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




%delayedflights


Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




ACC ACC Name Year


1999 0% 10.0 0.0 0.0 58 0.0 0 0 24% 0% 10.0 0.0 0.0 105 0.0 0 0 12%

2000 0% 12.8 0.0 0.0 59 0.0 0 0 2% 285% -100% 0% 12.8 0.0 0.0 116 0.0 0 0 10% 284% -100%

ENOS OSLO 1997 0% 14.5 0.0 0.0 118 0.2 3 0 0% 24.7 0.1 0.0 226 1.0 25 3

1998 6% 31.5 1.8 1.1 121 6.7 212 130 2% 4% 28.7 1.1 0.6 238 9.0 258 140 5%

1999 5% 23.4 1.2 0.3 155 8.2 192 39 28% -10% -70% 5% 26.0 1.4 0.2 288 15.8 410 67 21% 59% -52%

2000 0% 19.9 0.1 0.0 139 0.5 10 5 -10% -95% -88% 1% 14.8 0.2 0.0 268 3.1 45 5 -7% -89% -92%

ENSV STAVANGER 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 54 0.0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 102 0.0 0 0

1998 0% 14.5 0.0 0.0 55 0.0 0 0 2% 0% 14.5 0.0 0.0 108 0.0 0 0 5%

1999 4% 14.0 0.5 0.5 81 2.8 40 40 46% 2% 14.0 0.3 0.3 143 2.8 40 40 33%

2000 1% 18.8 0.2 0.1 69 0.6 12 6 -15% -71% -84% 1% 21.0 0.2 0.1 132 1.0 22 14 -8% -46% -66%

ENTR TRONDHEIM 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 38 0.0 0 0 0% 27.6 0.0 0.0 74 0.0 1 1

1998 0% 0.0 0.0 39 0.0 0 0 2% 0% 0.0 0.0 80 0.0 0 0 7% -100% -100%

1999 0% 0.0 0.0 54 0.0 0 0 38% 0% 25.1 0.0 0.0 101 0.0 1 0 27%

2000 0% 0.0 0.0 53 0.0 0 0 -2% 0% 30.3 0.0 0.0 101 0.0 0 0 0% -78% -100%

EPWW WARSZAW 1997 4% 23.6 0.9 0.9 113 4.4 105 104 3% 23.8 0.6 0.6 196 5.1 121 121

1998 3% 20.3 0.6 0.6 120 3.4 70 70 6% -33% -33% 2% 20.2 0.3 0.3 210 3.6 73 73 7% -40% -40%

1999 9% 26.1 2.3 2.3 136 11.8 308 308 13% 341% 341% 5% 26.1 1.3 1.3 235 11.9 310 310 12% 326% 327%

2000 5% 20.8 1.1 1.1 138 7.1 148 145 1% -52% -53% 4% 20.9 0.8 0.7 245 8.8 185 171 4% -40% -45%

ESMM MALMO 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 204 0.0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 385 0.0 0 0

1998 3% 26.3 0.7 0.6 213 5.7 149 119 4% 1% 26.2 0.4 0.3 406 5.7 150 119 6%

1999 0% 16.2 0.0 0.0 233 0.6 9 9 9% -94% -92% 0% 17.4 0.0 0.0 438 0.6 11 9 8% -93% -92%

2000 0% 6.0 0.0 0.0 238 0.0 0 0 2% -98% -98% 0% 6.0 0.0 0.0 456 0.0 0 0 4% -99% -98%

ESOS STOCKHOLM 1997 1% 15.5 0.2 0.0 186 1.9 29 2 1% 16.7 0.2 0.0 365 5.4 90 3

1998 5% 25.6 1.4 0.9 192 10.4 267 180 3% 4% 23.1 0.9 0.5 380 14.0 325 180 4%

1999 0% 18.4 0.0 0.0 201 0.3 5 1 5% -98% -99% 1% 24.0 0.1 0.0 389 2.2 54 3 2% -83% -99%

2000 0% 29.9 0.1 0.0 201 0.6 17 2 0% 228% 12% 0% 26.2 0.1 0.0 400 1.9 51 2 3% -7% -26%

ESUN SUNDSVALL 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 38 0.0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 76 0.0 0 0

1998 0% 0.0 0.0 35 0.0 0 0 -7% 0% 22.2 0.0 0.0 75 0.2 3 3 -2%




Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




%delayedflights


Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




ACC ACC Name Year


1999 0% 0.0 0.0 45 0.0 0 0 28% 0% 0.0 0.0 86 0.0 0 0 14% -100% -100%

2000 0% 0.0 0.0 41 0.0 0 0 -9% 0% 29.8 0.0 0.0 86 0.1 2 2 0%

GCCC CANARIAS 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 97 0.0 0 0 1% 23.3 0.2 0.2 203 1.9 43 34

1998 1% 64.9 0.6 0.2 104 1.0 63 24 7% 3% 31.7 0.9 0.6 217 6.4 203 137 7% 367% 301%

1999 5% 27.7 1.4 0.6 121 5.9 164 73 16% 161% 199% 6% 27.7 1.8 1.1 242 15.7 435 274 12% 114% 100%

2000 1% 18.4 0.2 0.1 123 1.3 23 18 2% -86% -75% 3% 24.2 0.7 0.6 250 7.3 176 141 3% -60% -49%

LAAA TIRANA ACC 2000 9% 22.4 2.0 2.0 50 4.5 100 100 6% 22.3 1.4 1.4 77 4.9 109 109

LBSR SOFIA 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 101 0.0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 152 0.0 0 0

1998 0% 0.0 0.0 106 0.0 0 0 6% 0% 0.0 0.0 161 0.0 0 0 6%

1999 0% 0.0 0.0 158 0.0 0 0 48% 0% 335.0 0.0 0.0 225 0.0 2 2 40%

2000 0% 0.0 0.0 118 0.0 0 0 -25% 0% 0.0 0.0 187 0.0 0 0 -17% -100% -100%

LBWR VARNA 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 82 0.0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 135 0.0 0 0

1998 0% 0.0 0.0 78 0.0 0 0 -6% 0% 0.0 0.0 125 0.0 0 0 -8%

1999 0% 0.0 0.0 87 0.0 0 0 12% 0% 0.0 0.0 138 0.0 0 0 11%

2000 0% 0.0 0.0 77 0.0 0 0 -12% 0% 0.0 0.0 126 0.0 0 0 -9%

LCCC NICOSIA 1997 0% 20.4 0.1 0.1 89 0.3 5 5 0% 19.4 0.0 0.0 160 0.3 6 6

1998 5% 28.2 1.3 1.3 94 4.5 127 127 6% 2258% 2258% 3% 27.5 0.8 0.8 169 5.1 140 140 5% 2085% 2085%

1999 4% 26.4 1.1 1.1 107 4.5 119 119 14% -6% -6% 3% 25.3 0.8 0.8 190 5.9 150 150 13% 7% 7%

2000 3% 22.2 0.6 0.6 118 3.3 73 73 10% -39% -39% 3% 22.5 0.7 0.7 211 6.5 147 147 11% -2% -2%

LDZO ZAGREB 1997 0% 19.1 0.0 0.0 45 0.0 0 0 0% 19.1 0.0 0.0 76 0.0 0 0

1998 3% 22.4 0.6 0.6 67 1.8 39 39 49% 9210% 2% 22.4 0.4 0.4 111 1.8 39 39 47% 9210%

1999 0% 26.3 0.1 0.0 39 0.1 3 0 -41% -93% -100% 0% 24.7 0.1 0.0 73 0.1 4 1 -34% -91% -98%

2000 1% 20.2 0.2 0.2 110 0.9 18 18 182% 572% 1% 20.3 0.1 0.1 164 0.9 18 18 123% 401% 1937%

LECB BARCELONA 1997 8% 19.8 1.6 0.8 260 21.0 417 221 8% 20.3 1.7 0.8 433 35.2 715 356

1998 8% 25.3 2.0 1.5 274 21.1 535 412 5% 28% 87% 6% 23.3 1.4 1.0 451 27.1 632 452 4% -12% 27%

1999 14% 34.7 4.8 4.6 307 42.8 1488 1399 12% 178% 239% 13% 32.4 4.2 3.6 507 65.9 2132 1822 12% 237% 303%

2000 8% 20.0 1.6 0.9 329 25.5 510 309 7% -66% -78% 8% 18.4 1.4 0.8 549 41.7 767 443 8% -64% -76%

LECM MADRID 1997 11% 16.2 1.8 0.8 303 34.4 556 244 15% 17.7 2.6 0.9 586 85.6 1514 542




Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




%delayedflights


Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




ACC ACC Name Year


1998 7% 25.7 1.9 1.3 326 24.4 628 422 8% 13% 73% 8% 23.4 1.8 1.1 630 48.7 1139 700 8% -25% 29%

1999 13% 24.1 3.0 2.6 371 46.3 1117 971 14% 78% 130% 17% 24.7 4.1 3.5 704 117.3 2900 2485 12% 155% 255%

2000 16% 20.2 3.3 2.9 405 66.7 1349 1193 9% 21% 23% 16% 18.9 3.0 2.7 774 124.4 2347 2061 10% -19% -17%

LECP PALMA 1997 4% 18.6 0.8 0.2 131 5.8 107 23 3% 18.7 0.6 0.2 190 6.4 120 31

1998 2% 55.1 1.3 0.8 144 3.3 182 122 10% 70% 431% 2% 48.6 1.0 0.6 208 4.1 199 127 10% 66% 311%

1999 1% 38.5 0.6 0.3 156 2.3 90 41 8% -51% -66% 1% 37.1 0.4 0.2 226 2.6 98 45 9% -51% -64%

2000 1% 41.3 0.4 0.1 164 1.7 70 15 5% -22% -64% 1% 38.1 0.3 0.1 239 2.1 81 21 6% -18% -54%

LECS SEVILLA 1997 0% 29.9 0.1 0.0 118 0.4 12 4 0% 28.7 0.1 0.1 223 0.9 25 18

1998 2% 41.9 0.7 0.6 124 2.0 86 76 6% 643% 1822% 1% 36.7 0.4 0.4 238 2.8 104 95 7% 315% 440%

1999 3% 29.2 0.8 0.8 140 4.0 118 115 12% 37% 51% 3% 29.9 0.9 0.8 259 7.3 220 202 9% 111% 112%

2000 2% 23.2 0.5 0.5 145 3.1 71 71 4% -40% -38% 2% 22.4 0.4 0.4 276 4.4 98 98 6% -55% -52%

LFBB BORDEAUX 1997 2% 17.8 0.3 0.3 316 4.8 85 83 1% 16.6 0.2 0.2 571 8.0 132 130

1998 1% 20.7 0.2 0.2 340 4.0 82 81 8% -4% -2% 1% 19.3 0.2 0.2 617 5.0 97 93 8% -27% -29%

1999 2% 27.4 0.7 0.7 368 9.1 248 241 8% 203% 195% 2% 26.2 0.5 0.5 659 12.8 336 325 7% 246% 249%

2000 7% 23.4 1.6 1.6 385 26.3 615 609 4% 148% 153% 5% 22.0 1.0 1.0 695 31.9 702 691 5% 109% 112%

LFEE REIMS 1997 19% 19.6 3.8 3.7 346 66.3 1299 1275 17% 18.6 3.2 3.2 638 110.4 2055 2023

1998 22% 21.5 4.7 4.4 342 75.1 1613 1520 -1% 24% 19% 18% 19.9 3.6 3.4 640 116.7 2326 2208 0% 13% 9%

1999 21% 25.2 5.3 4.8 369 77.7 1960 1784 8% 22% 17% 21% 24.1 5.0 4.6 683 142.8 3445 3111 7% 48% 41%

2000 14% 20.2 2.7 2.5 371 50.4 1018 937 1% -48% -47% 14% 19.3 2.6 2.3 696 94.3 1820 1614 2% -47% -48%

LFFF PARIS 1997 13% 19.7 2.5 2.3 538 68.0 1342 1227 11% 19.5 2.1 1.8 1019 108.8 2128 1794

1998 12% 19.0 2.3 2.1 558 67.3 1280 1196 4% -5% -3% 11% 19.1 2.1 1.8 1065 118.5 2264 1901 5% 6% 6%

1999 9% 23.5 2.1 1.8 603 54.9 1290 1114 8% 1% -7% 9% 22.7 2.0 1.7 1131 100.7 2290 1912 6% 1% 1%

2000 6% 26.2 1.6 1.1 626 38.7 1015 690 4% -21% -38% 6% 24.1 1.5 1.1 1195 75.9 1828 1261 5% -20% -34%

LFMM MARSEILLE 1997 12% 20.7 2.6 2.4 412 50.9 1055 985 10% 19.7 2.0 1.8 735 74.0 1462 1356

1998 10% 24.0 2.3 1.9 437 42.5 1020 829 6% -3% -16% 7% 22.8 1.7 1.2 789 58.8 1339 977 7% -8% -28%

1999 17% 30.7 5.3 5.0 500 86.8 2666 2507 15% 161% 202% 14% 28.7 4.0 3.6 887 122.3 3513 3214 13% 162% 229%

2000 12% 21.8 2.6 2.2 504 59.5 1297 1095 1% -51% -56% 9% 21.3 1.9 1.5 908 79.1 1686 1359 2% -52% -58%

LFRR BREST 1997 2% 16.6 0.3 0.3 238 4.0 66 66 1% 16.0 0.2 0.2 435 6.3 101 101




Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




%delayedflights


Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




ACC ACC Name Year


1998 6% 22.2 1.4 1.4 304 18.8 417 417 28% 529% 529% 5% 20.3 1.0 1.0 545 27.7 561 561 25% 455% 455%

1999 1% 34.2 0.3 0.3 375 3.5 119 119 23% -71% -72% 1% 30.2 0.2 0.2 659 5.2 158 157 21% -72% -72%

2000 2% 27.2 0.6 0.6 399 8.4 229 229 6% 93% 93% 1% 27.4 0.4 0.4 707 9.2 253 253 7% 60% 60%

LGGG ATHINAI 1997 36% 30.9 11.2 5.7 184 66.7 2057 1046 23% 30.5 7.2 3.6 296 69.4 2114 1050

1998 38% 37.2 14.1 8.2 186 70.2 2613 1531 1% 27% 46% 24% 36.8 9.0 5.2 294 71.9 2645 1538 -1% 25% 46%

1999 16% 37.8 6.0 2.4 216 34.1 1292 528 16% -51% -66% 11% 37.7 4.2 1.7 336 37.4 1411 572 14% -47% -63%

2000 14% 29.0 3.9 0.2 234 31.7 920 41 8% -29% -92% 10% 28.2 2.9 0.1 369 37.5 1056 53 9% -25% -91%

LGMD MAKEDONIA 1997 12% 29.6 3.5 3.3 98 11.6 343 325 8% 29.6 2.3 2.2 153 12.0 355 336

1998 19% 42.0 8.1 7.3 103 19.9 837 746 5% 144% 130% 13% 41.7 5.3 4.7 161 20.2 843 749 5% 137% 123%

1999 5% 38.7 1.9 1.1 99 5.0 192 104 -4% -77% -86% 3% 37.6 1.3 0.7 155 5.4 203 111 -4% -76% -85%

2000 3% 35.0 1.0 0.1 120 3.3 117 17 21% -39% -84% 2% 34.9 0.8 0.1 183 3.9 138 22 18% -32% -81%

LHCC BUDAPEST 1997 11% 21.2 2.3 2.3 257 27.7 587 587 7% 20.5 1.5 1.5 416 30.4 623 623

1998 7% 18.7 1.4 1.4 246 18.4 344 344 -4% -41% -41% 5% 18.2 0.9 0.9 400 20.8 378 378 -4% -39% -39%

1999 5% 23.7 1.3 1.3 249 13.3 316 316 1% -8% -8% 4% 23.0 0.9 0.9 401 15.1 348 346 0% -8% -8%

2000 1% 20.0 0.2 0.2 249 2.5 50 50 0% -84% -84% 1% 19.2 0.1 0.1 413 2.9 56 56 3% -84% -84%

LIBB BRINDISI 1997 2% 21.8 0.3 0.3 86 1.3 29 29 1% 20.7 0.3 0.3 137 1.8 38 38

1998 1% 27.4 0.2 0.2 95 0.7 20 20 10% -29% -29% 1% 26.5 0.2 0.2 147 0.8 22 22 7% -42% -42%

1999 4% 30.0 1.2 1.2 134 5.4 163 163 41% 704% 704% 3% 29.6 0.8 0.8 206 5.6 167 167 40% 653% 653%

2000 3% 24.2 0.7 0.7 126 3.8 92 92 -6% -44% -44% 2% 23.5 0.5 0.5 212 4.5 105 101 3% -37% -40%

LIMM MILANO 1997 12% 20.1 2.4 2.0 302 35.5 716 603 9% 20.3 1.8 1.2 557 50.5 1026 684

1998 13% 24.0 3.0 2.3 323 40.5 971 737 7% 36% 22% 9% 22.5 2.1 1.5 595 54.9 1238 904 7% 21% 32%

1999 11% 34.9 3.7 3.3 392 41.2 1439 1294 21% 48% 76% 10% 33.1 3.3 3.0 707 70.2 2324 2099 19% 88% 132%

2000 11% 22.2 2.4 1.6 365 38.8 862 574 -7% -40% -56% 8% 22.1 1.7 1.1 691 52.3 1155 742 -3% -50% -65%

LIPP PADOVA 1997 9% 22.3 1.9 1.9 193 16.5 367 357 6% 21.5 1.3 1.3 326 19.5 420 410

1998 14% 22.7 3.1 2.9 214 29.4 666 613 11% 82% 72% 10% 22.3 2.2 2.1 359 35.6 792 738 10% 89% 80%

1999 27% 34.9 9.3 9.2 268 71.4 2493 2473 25% 274% 303% 25% 33.6 8.3 8.2 446 109.6 3686 3648 24% 365% 394%

2000 17% 24.3 4.2 4.1 268 46.6 1133 1098 0% -55% -56% 18% 23.8 4.2 4.1 461 81.0 1926 1883 3% -48% -49%

LIRR ROMA 1997 5% 18.3 1.0 0.7 313 17.0 311 229 4% 17.8 0.7 0.5 568 22.0 391 258




Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




%delayedflights


Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




ACC ACC Name Year


1998 2% 25.4 0.6 0.3 331 7.9 201 103 6% -35% -55% 2% 21.4 0.4 0.2 593 12.2 261 111 4% -33% -57%

1999 5% 23.2 1.2 0.7 393 20.1 467 257 19% 133% 149% 5% 25.4 1.3 0.7 691 34.6 880 451 17% 237% 308%

2000 3% 21.7 0.6 0.2 433 11.2 243 93 10% -48% -64% 2% 22.3 0.5 0.1 756 17.4 388 99 9% -56% -78%

LJLA LJUBLJANA 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 42 0.0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 69 0.0 0 0

1998 0% 0.0 0.0 64 0.0 0 0 51% 0% 0.0 0.0 106 0.0 0 0 54%

1999 1% 15.5 0.1 0.1 42 0.3 4 4 -35% 0% 15.5 0.1 0.1 77 0.3 4 4 -28%

2000 0% 0.0 0.0 89 0.0 0 0 114% 0% 0.0 0.0 135 0.0 0 0 76%

LKAA PRAHA 1997 0% 13.9 0.0 0.0 131 0.0 0 0 0% 13.9 0.0 0.0 226 0.0 0 0

1998 0% 22.6 0.0 0.0 140 0.0 1 1 6% 0% 22.6 0.0 0.0 245 0.0 1 1 8%

1999 18% 20.1 3.7 3.7 176 32.3 650 650 26% 13% 20.0 2.6 2.6 301 39.8 796 796 23%

2000 4% 17.7 0.6 0.6 174 6.3 111 111 -1% -83% -83% 5% 16.9 0.9 0.9 307 16.5 278 278 2% -65% -65%

LMMM MALTA 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 27 0.0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 46 0.0 0 0

1998 0% 0.0 0.0 27 0.0 0 0 3% 0% 0.0 0.0 48 0.0 0 0 6%

1999 0% 0.1 0.0 32 0.0 2 0 17% 0% 89.4 0.0 0.0 55 0.0 2 0 14%

2000 0% 0.0 0.0 34 0.0 0 0 6% 0% 31.3 0.0 0.0 60 0.0 1 1 8%

LOVV WIEN 1997 0% 31.9 0.0 0.0 291 0.3 10 10 0% 26.7 0.0 0.0 501 0.7 19 19

1998 1% 20.0 0.2 0.2 289 2.9 58 57 -1% 461% 451% 1% 18.9 0.2 0.1 501 4.8 90 75 0% 364% 288%

1999 2% 14.5 0.3 0.0 248 4.8 69 1 -14% 20% -98% 2% 15.4 0.2 0.0 446 6.9 107 3 -11% 19% -96%

2000 1% 13.6 0.1 0.0 314 2.4 33 0 26% -52% -59% 1% 15.3 0.1 0.0 534 4.8 73 1 19% -32% -67%

LPPC LISBOA 1997 5% 18.3 0.9 0.9 124 6.0 109 106 7% 19.2 1.3 1.2 236 15.6 299 277

1998 8% 19.3 1.6 1.6 142 12.0 230 225 15% 111% 112% 9% 19.5 1.8 1.8 269 25.2 492 485 14% 64% 75%

1999 6% 26.0 1.5 1.3 157 8.8 230 201 11% 0% -10% 6% 26.2 1.7 1.5 299 19.1 499 462 11% 2% -5%

2000 3% 21.0 0.6 0.6 160 4.9 103 102 2% -55% -49% 4% 21.7 0.8 0.8 306 11.5 250 247 2% -50% -47%

LQSB SARAJEVO 1997 1% 18.9 0.1 0.1 17 0.1 2 2 1% 15.3 0.1 0.1 31 0.2 4 4

1998 1% 26.4 0.2 0.2 37 0.3 7 7 119% 229% 229% 1% 19.4 0.2 0.2 64 0.6 11 11 109% 208% 208%

1999 0% 0.0 0.0 13 0.0 0 0 -64% -100% -100% 0% 18.3 0.1 0.1 32 0.1 3 3 -49% -77% -77%

2000 0% 0.0 0.0 11 0.0 0 0 -20% 0% 0.0 0.0 23 0.0 0 0 -29% -100% -100%

LRAR ARAD 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 166 0.0 0 0




Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




%delayedflights


Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




ACC ACC Name Year


1998 0% 0.0 0.0 113 0.0 0 0 12% 0% 0.0 0.0 181 0.0 0 0 9%

1999 0% 0.0 0.0 187 0.0 0 0 66% 0% 0.0 0.0 276 0.0 0 0 52%

2000 0% 0.0 0.0 132 0.0 0 0 -29% 0% 0.0 0.0 224 0.0 0 0 -19%

LRBB BUCURESTI 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 133 0.0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 216 0.0 0 0

1998 0% 0.0 0.0 141 0.0 0 0 6% 0% 0.0 0.0 225 0.0 0 0 4%

1999 0% 0.0 0.0 235 0.0 4 4 66% 0% 0.0 0.0 353 0.0 4 4 57%

2000 0% 0.0 0.0 165 0.0 0 0 -30% 0% 0.0 0.0 281 0.0 0 0 -21%

LRBC BACAU 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 13 0.0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 0 0

1998 0% 0.0 0.0 11 0.0 0 0 -12% 0% 0.0 0.0 17 0.0 0 0 -10%

1999 0% 0.0 0.0 15 0.0 0 0 31% 0% 0.0 0.0 22 0.0 0 0 34%

2000 0% 0.0 0.0 12 0.0 0 0 -15% 0% 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 0 0 -9%

LRCK CONSTANTA 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 34 0.0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 51 0.0 0 0

1998 0% 0.0 0.0 35 0.0 0 0 3% 0% 0.0 0.0 57 0.0 0 0 12%

1999 0% 0.0 0.0 44 0.0 0 0 26% 0% 0.0 0.0 76 0.0 0 0 32%

2000 0% 0.0 0.0 36 0.0 0 0 -19% 0% 0.0 0.0 68 0.0 0 0 -11%

LRCL CLUJ-NAPOCA 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 29 0.0 0 0

1998 0% 0.0 0.0 25 0.0 0 0 27% 0% 0.0 0.0 41 0.0 0 0 39%

1999 0% 0.0 0.0 75 0.0 0 0 197% 0% 0.0 0.0 110 0.0 0 0 169%

2000 0% 0.0 0.0 59 0.0 0 0 -21% 0% 0.0 0.0 96 0.0 0 0 -13%

LSAG GENEVE 1997 13% 20.5 2.7 2.7 260 34.2 701 701 9% 19.5 1.8 1.8 475 45.1 879 875

1998 19% 19.9 3.8 3.8 281 53.4 1063 1063 8% 52% 52% 15% 18.6 2.8 2.8 510 75.4 1406 1402 7% 60% 60%

1999 20% 26.8 5.3 5.3 292 57.8 1546 1545 4% 45% 45% 18% 26.7 4.9 4.9 532 97.9 2616 2610 4% 86% 86%

2000 18% 21.0 3.9 3.8 300 55.0 1155 1151 3% -25% -26% 17% 19.4 3.3 3.2 553 94.1 1825 1775 4% -30% -32%

LSAZ ZURICH 1997 9% 16.3 1.5 1.2 335 30.3 492 417 7% 15.8 1.1 0.9 623 44.2 696 552

1998 12% 19.5 2.4 2.2 362 44.4 865 779 8% 76% 87% 11% 18.2 2.0 1.7 667 72.7 1323 1120 7% 90% 103%

1999 31% 22.2 6.9 6.4 388 120.0 2660 2483 7% 207% 219% 27% 22.3 6.1 5.4 711 195.2 4346 3866 7% 228% 245%

2000 20% 19.3 3.8 3.3 411 81.9 1579 1371 6% -41% -45% 20% 18.6 3.6 3.1 758 148.5 2757 2316 6% -37% -40%

LTAA ANKARA 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 152 0.0 0 0 0% 45.1 0.0 0.0 266 0.0 1 0




Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




%delayedflights


Avg.delayperflight


Totalflights

Totaldelayedflights

Totaldelays

En-routedelays




ACC ACC Name Year


1998 0% 0.0 0.0 156 0.0 0 0 3% 0% 0.0 0.0 273 0.0 0 0 2%

1999 0% 0.0 0.0 158 0.0 0 0 1% 0% 0.0 0.0 280 0.0 0 0 3%

2000 0% 0.0 0.0 157 0.0 0 0 -1% 0% 0.0 0.0 284 0.0 0 0 1%

LTBB ISTANBUL 1997 0% 39.7 0.1 0.0 211 0.5 20 4 0% 37.7 0.1 0.0 355 0.6 23 6

1998 0% 42.6 0.0 0.0 211 0.1 4 1 0% 0% 38.0 0.0 0.0 353 0.1 6 1 -1%

1999 0% 11.7 0.0 0.0 200 0.0 0 0 -5% 0% 11.7 0.0 0.0 341 0.0 0 0 -3%

2000 0% 8.7 0.0 0.0 205 0.0 0 0 3% 0% 9.5 0.0 0.0 348 0.0 0 0 2%

LUKK KICHINAU 2000 0% 0.0 0.0 7 0.0 0 0 0% 0.0 0.0 13 0.0 0 0

LWSS SKOPJE 1997 0% 0.0 0.0 58 0.0 0 0 0% 13.9 0.0 0.0 93 0.0 0 0

1998 0% 0.0 0.0 61 0.0 1 1 5% 0% 44.9 0.0 0.0 99 0.0 1 1 6%

1999 0% 0.0 0.0 15 0.0 0 0 -75% 0% 0.0 0.0 39 0.0 0 0 -60%

2000 1% 0.2 0.2 62 0.6 10 10 307% 1% 18.1 0.1 0.1 90 0.6 10 10 128%

LZBB BRATISLAVA 1997 2% 21.0 0.5 0.5 84 1.9 41 41 2% 21.0 0.3 0.3 127 1.9 41 41

1998 1% 17.8 0.3 0.3 87 1.2 22 22 4% -46% -46% 1% 17.8 0.2 0.2 134 1.2 22 22 5% -46% -46%

1999 8% 27.4 2.2 2.2 133 10.5 289 289 53% 1207% 1207% 7% 28.3 1.9 1.9 202 13.9 392 392 51% 1675% 1675%

2000 0% 14.0 0.0 0.0 105 0.1 1 1 -21% -100% -100% 0% 14.0 0.0 0.0 168 0.1 1 1 -17% -100% -100%


ANNEX 4: EN-ROUTE ATFM DELAY MAPS (EUROPEAN REGIONS)


ANNEX 5: EN-ROUTE ATFM DELAY MAPS (ACC)


ANNEX 6: COST TABLES

The unit rates for 2000 were approved by the enlarged Commission. These unit rateswere used to calculate route charges in 2000. Costs in respect of Santa Maria FIR areexcluded.

Cost Bases and National Unit Rates for 2000

Eurocontrol CostsNational Costs

Maastricht General (3)

Reductionsfor

ExemptedFlights

Reduced CostBase

Balance forYear 1998

CostsChargeable to

Users

ChargeableService Units

NationalUnit

Rates

EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EURStates

1 2a 2b 3 4=1+2-3 5 6=4-5 7 8=6/7

Austria 118 439 000 0 9 669 941 3 084 888 125 024 053 -7 978 441 133 002 494 2 100 000 63.33

Belgium-Lux 77 890 896 29 445 979 9 347 600 2 087 107 114 597 368 6 045 843 108 551 525 1 821 000 59.61

Bulgaria 74 588 326 0 4 428 962 60 140 78 957 148 6 374 849 72 582 299 1 256 440 57.77

Croatia (1) 11 943 969 0 669 337 0 12 613 306 0 12 613 306 215 100 58.64

Cyprus 22 234 495 0 1 239 752 289 062 23 185 185 811 272 22 373 914 962 500 23.25

Czech Republic 27 820 513 0 1 833 896 631 500 29 022 908 2 850 584 26 172 325 720 000 36.35

Denmark 66 114 409 0 4 937 127 1 538 811 69 512 725 4 679 342 64 833 383 1 245 000 52.08

France 750 575 297 0 56 188 857 22 500 507 784 263 646 31 843 504 752 420 142 13 834 620 54.39

FYROM (1) 6 465 435 0 495 531 0 6 960 966 0 6 960 966 119 000 58.50

Germany (1) 514 882 173 37 636 244 53 642 756 0 606 161 173 52 581 768 553 579 404 9 150 000 60.50

Greece 97 404 143 0 4 914 940 4 892 547 97 426 536 5 560 533 91 866 003 3 005 000 30.57

Hungary 42 973 528 0 2 277 655 372 979 44 878 204 1 168 616 43 709 588 1 636 400 26.71

Ireland 53 508 000 0 3 409 857 1 394 027 55 523 830 1 648 577 53 875 253 2 611 000 20.63

Italy 403 480 610 0 32 861 281 27 338 002 409 003 889 12 738 214 396 265 675 6 257 050 63.33

Malta 8 461 932 0 419 106 47 667 8 833 371 -35 863 8 869 234 264 812 33.49

Netherlands 70 380 645 18 084 787 8 549 449 2 285 699 94 729 181 -1 194 088 95 923 270 2 024 000 47.39

Norway 57 577 309 0 4 148 963 204 836 61 521 436 -1 778 967 63 300 404 1 308 000 48.39

Portugal 76 348 759 0 4 106 913 1 420 717 79 034 955 2 488 473 76 546 482 2 022 000 37.86

Romania (1) 85 687 940 0 3 760 242 0 89 448 182 857 249 88 590 933 2 225 000 39.82

Slovak Republic 20 410 217 0 1 226 193 145 387 21 491 023 1 260 943 20 230 080 369 549 54.74

Slovenia (1) 9 479 520 0 604 622 0 10 084 142 9 405 900 149 300 63.00

Spain-Canarias 60 578 204 0 3 910 781 766 704 63 722 281 1 541 865 62 180 416 1 418 140 43.85

Spain-Continental 276 067 079 0 19 093 811 8 768 454 286 392 436 4 648 580 281 743 856 6 339 534 44.44

Sweden 108 034 236 0 7 769 481 751 012 115 052 705 5 889 006 109 163 699 2 457 124 44.43

Switzerland 83 787 160 0 7 882 886 1 981 872 89 688 174 2 008 325 87 679 849 1 220 858 71.82

Turkey 140 892 997 0 10 104 147 546 231 150 450 913 -3 248 875 153 699 787 3 931 000 39.10

United Kingdom (2) 679 790 619 0 46 416 505 1 614 902 724 592 222 -10 442 754 735 034 976 9 016 000 81.53

Grand Total 3 945 817 411 85 167 010 303 910 581 82 723 051 4 252 171 958 120 318 555 4 131 175 163 77 678 427 53.18

(1) Total service units.(2) Civil costs and civil service units.Source: Final estimates of the route charges Cost Bases and Unit Rates for 2000 (WP/CE/R/99/58/2667/FIN)


The following data were used to conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis.

National Costs

1996Actual

1997Actual

1998Actual

1999Actual

2000Forecast

Variation2000/1999

Avg annualincrease

1996 - 2000States

('000 Euro) ('000 Euro) ('000 Euro) ('000 Euro) ('000 Euro) % %

Austria 105 175 101 318 120 890 120 072 120 215 0.1% 3.4%

Belgium-Lux. (2) 105 608 108 129 101 321 106 637 113 151 6.1% 1.7%

Bulgaria 0 0 65 828 67 280 74 588 10.9%

Croatia 0 0 7 474 17 352 11 944 -31.2%

Cyprus 15 334 17 253 18 695 20 335 22 234 9.3% 9.7%

Czech Republic 21 823 20 587 23 557 32 461 27 821 -14.3% 6.3%

Denmark 46 256 51 016 52 153 58 605 61 153 4.3% 7.2%

France (3) 679 283 674 825 696 748 729 271 750 575 2.9% 2.5%

FYROM 0 0 0 6 251 6 465 3.4%

Germany (2) 502 650 474 727 471 503 533 345 560 253 5.0% 2.7%

Greece 58 548 59 237 54 389 101 584 105 391 3.7% 15.8%

Hungary 25 766 32 194 31 658 36 230 42 974 18.6% 13.6%

Ireland 41 306 46 225 45 611 48 877 53 508 9.5% 6.7%

Italy 0 332 353 338 956 390 311 403 481 3.4%

Malta 5 607 6 233 7 330 7 567 7 851 3.8% 8.8%

Netherlands (2) 65 883 74 662 81 692 89 303 88 735 -0.6% 7.7%

Norway 45 836 50 938 53 638 56 879 57 770 1.6% 6.0%

Portugal Lisboa 52 921 61 968 61 343 71 229 79 717 11.9% 10.8%

Romania 0 0 71 016 89 796 85 688 -4.6%

Slovak Republic 0 15 364 17 565 22 301 19 882 -10.8%

Slovenia 6 325 6 878 8 374 7 611 8 294 9.0% 7.0%

Spain-Canarias 51 337 51 813 51 296 54 322 63 278 16.5% 5.4%

Spain-Continental 232 581 232 967 238 676 266 370 304 037 14.1% 6.9%

Sweden 0 95 748 92 720 105 763 109 749 3.8%

Switzerland 86 012 76 114 75 580 80 696 83 208 3.1% -0.8%

Turkey 125 413 162 265 137 565 165 981 140 893 -15.1% 3.0%

United Kingdom 451 095 558 763 637 946 621 983 718 567 15.5% 12.3%

EUROCONTROL Costs (1)

1996Actual

1997Actual

1998Actual

1999Actual

2000Actual

Variation2000/1999

Avg annualincrease

1996 - 2000

Titre I 232 919 260 077 265 691 279 008 311 378 11.6% 7.5%

Total Costs

1996Actual

1997Actual

1998Actual

1999Actual

2000Forecast

Variation2000/1999

Avg annualIncrease

1996 – 2000

Total 2 957 679 3 571 658 3 829 213 4 187 419 4 432 800 5.9% 10.6%

EURO 1996 2 957 679 3 128 193 3 235 654 3 488 365 3 721 002 6.7% 5.9%

EURO 1999 4 187 419 4 432 800 5.9%

(1) Maastricht and CRCO excluded.(2) Maastricht included.(3) Including contribution paid by France to the United Kingdom and Switzerland.

Source: Final estimates of the Cost Bases and Unit Rates for 2001(CE/R/00/61/2754/FIN); Final estimates of the routecharges Cost Bases and Unit Rate for 2001 (CE/R/00/61/2753/FIN).


ANNEX 7: TOP 30 CAPACITY-CONSTRAINED AIRPORTS

(Source: EUROCONTROL AOT)

Constraints (ranked)Airport

Runway/taxiwaysystem

Terminal/gates/Apron

Environment

TMA/CTR/ATZ

Trafficdepartures

('000)

ATFMDelay

(min)

Co-ord.

Airport constraints ranked in order of importance:1= most important, 4 = least important.

1. AMSTERDAM 3 - 1 2 214 0.70m Full

2. ATHENS 1 - - 2 93 0.76m Full

3. BALE/ MULHOUSE 2 3 4 1 55 0.20m Co-ord.

4. BARCELONA 1 2 3 4 129 0.32m Full

5. BERLIN TEGEL - 1 - - 66 Full

6. BRUSSELS 2 3 4 1 159 0.21m Full

7. DUSSELDORF - 2 1 - 96 Full

8. FRANKFURT 1 - 2 - 231 1.09m Full

9. GENEVA 1 - - 2 73 Full

10. HAMBURG 1 3 2 - 75 0.06m Co-ord.

11. HERAKLION 2 1 3 - 22 0.14m Full

12. KERKIRA 2 1 - - 9 No

13. LANZAROTE 1 - - 2 22 Full

14. LISBON 2 1 - 3 56 Full

15. LONDON GATWICK 1 2 3 - 130 0.13m Full

16. LONDON HEATHROW 1 2 3 - 234 0.49m Full

17. LUTON 1 3 4 2 40 No

18. MADRID 1 2 3 - 181 0.28m Full

19. MANCHESTER 1 2 - 3 96 Full

20. MILAN MALPENSA 2 3 1 - 126 0.40m Full

21. MUNICH 1 - 2 3 157 0.10m Full

22. NICE - - - 1 78 0.06m No

23. OSLO - - 1 101 Co-ord.

24. PARIS ORLY 2 3 1 - 123 0.08m Full

25. PARIS DE CAULLE - 3 - 1 261 0.49m Full

26. RHODES - 1 - - 15 No

27. ROME FIUMICINO 2 1 - - 143 Full

28. STUTTGART - 1 2 - 67 Full

29. VIENNA 1 2 3 - 102 0.07m Full

30. ZURICH - 3 4 1 158 0.44m Full


ANNEX 8: FOLLOW-UP TO PRC RECOMMENDATIONS

PRC recommendations requiring action that have been made to theProvisional Council

Note: The numbering assigned to the recommendations listed in this table is for easeof reference only. It does not correlate to the numbering that was used in each of thereference documents listed below.

The PRC submitted the following recommendations for action to the Fifth Session of theProvisional Council (PC 5, July 1999).

Reference: PC/99/5/3, dated 30.6.99

First Performance Review Report (PRR 1, 1998)

PRC Recommendation Provisional Council’s Decision Comment

1. The Provisional Council is invited toestablish urgently a harmonisedsafety performance reportingsystem.

{Considered under “Safety” agenda item”}

The Provisional Council recognised theneed to establish urgently a harmonisedsafety performance reporting system.

SRC approved ESARR 2,which is in force since01/01/00.

2. The Provisional Council is invited toencourage all States to recognisethat the collection of safety data isfacilitated by the adoption of “nopenalty” reporting policies.

{Considered under “Safety” agenda item”}

The Provisional Council urged all States toadopt “no penalty” safety incidentreporting policies where these were notalready in place.

SRC pursuing this issue.

3. The Provisional Council is invited torequest all air traffic serviceproviders concerned to support thePRU and/or the Agency ininvestigating the root causes ofdelays in the most critical controlcentres and sectors in Europe.

The Provisional Council agreed that itsMembers should request their air trafficservice providers to support the PRUand/or the Agency in investigating the rootcauses of delays in the most critical controlcentres and sectors in Europe on theunderstanding that the Agency shouldprepare the text of a standard letter whichthey could use for this purpose and thatthe Director General would request ECACStates which are not members ofEUROCONTROL to do likewise;

PRU visited the most-critical centres and theAgency and obtained anadequate response.

4. The Provisional Council is invited torequest that aircraft operatorsoperating in European airspace, whoare in a position to do so, provideOOOI data to the Agency and assistin the development of its use,according to a procedure to bedefined under Agency leadership.

The Provisional Council agreed that aircraftoperators operating in European airspace,who are in a position to do so, shouldprovide OOOI data to the Agency andassist in the development of its use,according to a procedure to be definedunder Agency leadership and requestedMember States to take the appropriatesteps to ensure compliance on theunderstanding that the Director Generalwould request ECAC States which are notmembers of EUROCONTROL to do likewise.

OOOI data are now beingprovided by 5 airlines toCODA on a regular basis.

Agency proposal onreporting of air transportpunctuality wassubmitted to PC 9(November 2000).

EU legislation inpreparation.


5. The Provisional Council is invited toexpress full support for thecollaborative short and medium termcapacity planning processes led bythe Agency, with full co-operation ofall air traffic service providersconcerned, and furthermore torequest that this is developed by allair traffic service providers intorolling five-year capacity plans.

The Provisional Council expressed fullsupport for the collaborative short andmedium term capacity planning processesled by the Agency, with full co-operation ofall air traffic service providers concerned,and agreed it would examine the issuesinvolved in developing these processes into5-year capacity plans at its 6th Session onthe basis of a more detailed proposal.

Done

6. The Provisional Council is invited torequest the Agency and concernedStates, in addition to initiatives thatare being taken by theEUROCONTROL Organisation, todevelop top-down airspace designsin the most critical areas in Europe,with the objective of meeting theATM 2000+ safety objective, and toincrease airspace capacity, flightefficiency and, where possible, cost-effectiveness. Priority should begiven to upper airspace in criticalareas, in particular the “Area South”and “Area North identified in PRR 1.

The Provisional Council requested theAgency and the States concerned, inaddition to initiatives being taken byEUROCONTROL, to develop airspacedesigns in the most critical areas in Europe,with the objective of meeting the ATM2000+ safety objective, and to increaseairspace capacity, flight efficiency and,where possible, cost-effectiveness, withpriority being given to upper airspace incritical areas, in particular the “Area South”and “Area North” identified in PRR 1 on theunderstanding that it would examine theseproposals at its 6th Session.

Agency and Statesconcerned takinginitiatives e.g. CHIEF and5-States, meetings ofDirectors OPS, capacityenhancement function,but more still remains tobe done.

7.

8.

The Provisional Council is invited tonote that 80% of ATFM delaysoriginated from upper airspace inSummer 1998, reiterates its plea toall concerned parties to ensuretimely implementation of RVSM, andencourages early RVSM applicationwhere possible.

The Provisional Council is invited torequest the Agency and concernedATSPs to sign agreements by mid2001, which specify agreed upperairspace capacity increase profilesupon implementation of RVSM, andattempt to reduce any temporarydecrease to the minimum possible.

{Both PRC recommendations were takentogether by the Provisional Council}

The Provisional Council noted that 80% ofATFM delays originated from upperairspace and ground-unlimited sectors inSummer 1998, reiterated its plea to allparties concerned for timelyimplementation of RVSM, and encouragedearly RVSM application where possibletaking into the conditions required in theICAO 70/30 document.

At its 10th Session (April2001) the ProvisionalCouncil “supported theneed for setting up strongcapacity planning actionsaimed at ensuring that fullcapacity benefits will beobtained after theimplementation of RVSM”.

9. The Provisional Council is invited toencourage air traffic serviceproviders and the CFMU to adopt amore pro-active interaction in orderto establish and manage capacitymore efficiently.

The Provisional Council agreed thatMember States should request air trafficservice providers to adopt a betterinteraction with the CFMU in order toestablish and manage capacity moreefficiently, and urged the CFMU toreciprocate accordingly.

In progress.

Recommendations of theindependent ATFM studywere discussed at specialEAG in January 2001.DG’s conclusions areawaited.


The PRC submitted the following recommendations for action to the Sixth Session of theProvisional Council (PC 6, November 1999).


Second Performance Review Report (PRR 2, January–September 1999)


10. The Provisional Council is invited tocall a special Provisional CouncilSession on the delay crisis, to takeplace before MATSE 6, which wouldexamine, inter alia, States’ ability tomeet agreed performance targetsand solve bottlenecks identified inPRR2, particularly in Switzerland,Italy, Spain and France (CH, I, E, F),and a report by the Agency on themedium-term action plan.

The Provisional Council invited Switzerland,Italy, Spain and France together with theAgency to present a written report to theProvisional Council, describing proposedaction and related time-scale to addressthe bottlenecks identified in PRR 2, on theunderstanding that this written reportshould be available before the 7th Sessionof the Provisional Council;

An ad hoc PC Session washeld on 22/03/00 (afterMATSE 6) to addresscapacity issues.

11.

12.

The Provisional Council is invited torequire ATSPs to publish 5-yearcapacity plans annually (seeeconomic information disclosure),and evidence that plans have beenconsulted with airspace users.

The Provisional Council is invited toensure that ATSPs are committed todelivering agreed capacity,answerable before the ProvisionalCouncil.


The Provisional Council agreed that Stateswould require their air traffic serviceproviders (ATSPs) to publish 5-yearcapacity improvement plans annually,developed in consultation with airspaceusers; and that States would also requiretheir ATSPs to be committed to deliveringagreed capacity enhancement measures.In this regard, States shall account to theProvisional Council;

All 36 ECAC States haveproduced capacity plans.

However, these plans arenon-binding (see Chapter4).

13. The Provisional Council is invited torequire the Agency to consolidatecapacity plans and check againsttraffic forecasts.

The Provisional Council instructed theAgency to consolidate capacity plans in co-operation with air traffic service providers;

Agency publishes updatesregularly.

14. The Provisional Council is invited torequest the Director General of theAgency to commission anindependent study into how tooptimise the use of existing capacity,and to improve ATFM principles,processes and operation, in order toreduce delay, with the involvementof the PRC/PRU.

The Provisional Council requested theDirector General of the Agency tocommission an independent study into howto optimise the use of existing capacity,and to improve ATFM strategy, processesand operation, in order to reduce delay,with the involvement of the PRC/PRU andCMIC/EMEU;

Independent ATFM Studyreport is available. DG’sconclusions awaited.

15. The Provisional Council is invited torequest the Director General of theAgency to reinforce existing co-operative capabilities for airspacedesign (e.g. fast time simulations)and to resource them adequately.

The Provisional Council requested theDirector General of the Agency to reinforceexisting co-operative capabilities forairspace design (e.g. fast time simulations)and to resource them adequately

Progress is being made onairspace and simulationissues.


16. The Provisional Council is invited toinvite the EUROCONTROLCommission to establish a taskforce, involving the EuropeanCommunity and the PRC, to designterms of reference for an AirspacePolicy Commission (APC) which hasthe objective of making best use ofEuropean airspace and ATMresources, with an establishmentdate of 30/6/2000 for the APC.

The Provisional Council recognising theimportance of airspace issues, invited theDirector General to develop proposals, inconsultation with all interested parties, thePRC and CMIC, for effective airspaceregulation, design and managementdecision-making process, with the objectiveof making best use of European airspacefor civil and military purposes and of ATMresources on the understanding that theseproposals should be presented to the 7thSession of the Provisional Council;

The Agency has presentedproposals for airspaceregulation, design andmanagement to the PC.This subject is alsoaddressed in the finalreport of the High LevelGroup. An EC-sponsoredstudy is ongoing.

Information Disclosure (see also Recommendations 28 and 29)

17. The Provisional Council is invited toagree that Member States shouldrequire Air Traffic Service Providersto provide the following informationto users, other ATSPs and thePRC/PRU:� Separate accounts for their air

traffic management activities,prepared in accordance withGenerally Accepted AccountingPrinciples (GAAP) andindependently audited;

� A limited separation of keyrevenue, cost and asset itemsinto those for en-route andthose for approach and airportactivities, also independentlyaudited;

� Information on the physicalinputs used by the ATSP andthe outputs/capacity produced;

require Air Traffic Service Providersto also provide plans which showhow they will meet projecteddemand, covering staff, investmentand training, and supported byappropriate resourcing plansincluding projected charges;

encourage Air Traffic ServiceProviders, which are in position todo so, to participate in the pilotproject.

The Provisional Council agreed that Statesshould require Air Traffic Service Providersto provide the following information tousers, other ATSPs and the PRC/PRU:

- Separate accounts for their air trafficmanagement activities, prepared inaccordance with Generally AcceptedAccounting Principles (GAAP) andindependently audited;

- A limited separation of key revenue,cost and asset items into those for en-route and those for approach andairport activities, also independentlyaudited;

- Information on the physical inputsused by the ATSP and theoutputs/capacity produced;

agreed to ensure that States should requireAir Traffic Service Providers to also provideplans which show how they will meetprojected demand, covering staff,investment and training, and supported byappropriate resourcing plans includingprojected charges;

encouraged Air Traffic Service Providerswhich are in position to do so, toparticipate in the pilot project;

The PRC submitted aSpecification forInformation Disclosure toPC 9 (November 2000).Consequently, furtherwork is required, and avalidation project hasbeen launched.

Full text of PC 9 decisionis given inRecommendation 28below.


The PRC submitted the following recommendations for action to the Eighth Session of theProvisional Council (PC 8, July 2000).


Third Performance Review Report (PRR 3, 1999)


18. The Provisional Council is invitedto request the Director General ofEUROCONTROL to produce officialair transport departure and arrivalpunctuality data in co-operationwith the European Commission,investigate causes of air transportdelays and publish findings on aregular basis.

The Provisional Council requested theDirector General to produce official airtransport departure and arrival punctualitydata in co-operation with the EuropeanCommission, and to investigate causes ofair transport delays and publish findings ona regular basis.

The Agency hasprepared proposals. TheEuropean Commission isalso working on thisissue.

19. The Provisional Council is invitedto request the Director General ofEUROCONTROL to developspecifications for airline reporting,in consultation with all interestedparties, and to report to theNovember 2000 Session of theProvisional Council.

The Provisional Council requested theDirector General to develop specificationsfor airline reporting, in consultation with allinterested parties, and to report to the9th Session of the Provisional Council.

Specifications areawaited.

20. The Provisional Council is invitedto request the Director General ofEUROCONTROL to developproposals for transparentprocesses to share information onairport slots, airline schedules andANSP capacity plans at strategiclevel.

The Provisional Council requested theDirector General to develop proposals fortransparent processes to share informationon airport slots, airline schedules and ANSPcapacity plans at strategic level.

Work on CDM processesis underway.

21. The Provisional Council is invitedto urge States to incorporate andimplement in their nationalregulatory frameworks the initialelements of the safetymeasurement and improvementprogramme (ESARR 2), inaccordance with CommissionDecision No. 80.

The Provisional Council agreed to urgeStates to incorporate and implement intheir national regulatory frameworks theinitial elements of the safety measurementand improvement programme (ESARR 2),in accordance with Commission DecisionNo. 80.

AGC of SRC and SRU willdevelop implementationplans for States.

22. The Provisional Council is invitedto request States to supplement,where possible, the detection ofsafety occurrences and safetydata collection by usingautomated tools, harmonised atEuropean level. This should bedone in a non-punitiveenvironment, as decided at PC 5(July 1999) and supported atMATSE 6

The Provisional Council requested States tosupplement, where possible, the detectionof safety occurrences and safety datacollection by using automated tools,harmonised at European level, on theunderstanding that this should be done in anon-punitive environment, as decided at its5th Session and supported at MATSE 6.

Being pursued by SRC.


23. The Provisional Council is invitedto request the Director General ofEUROCONTROL to reinforce theinteractions between airspaceplanning, capacity planning andflow management; so that theycan act as one cohesive process.

The Provisional Council requested theDirector General to reinforce theinteractions between airspace planning,capacity planning and flow management sothat they can act as one cohesive process.

DG’s proposal awaited.

24. The Provisional Council is invitedto ask the Director General ofEUROCONTROL to identifyaccountabilities of all partiesconcerned (States, ANSPs, Aircraftoperators, Airports,EUROCONTROL Agency) forobtaining overall ATM systemperformance enhancements thatresult from EUROCONTROLprogrammes.

The Provisional Council asked the DirectorGeneral to identify accountabilities of allparties concerned (States, ANSPs, Aircraftoperators, Airports, EUROCONTROLAgency) for obtaining overall ATM systemperformance enhancements that resultfrom EUROCONTROL programmes.

ENPRM process wasapproved. Agency tracksimplementation progressfor several programmes(e.g. RVSM).

25. The Provisional Council is invitedto transform the five-Statesprogramme into a project similarto CHIEF with a view to ensuringprompt delivery of capacity inArea North, in liaison with theUnited Kingdom. A report shouldbe made to the November 2000Session of the Provisional Council.

The Provisional Council noted that the FiveStates Route Structure Steering Groupwould be examining this recommendationand that a report on the outcome would begiven to the Provisional Council's Spring2001 Session.

No report was submittedto PC 10 (April 2001).

26. The Provisional Council is invitedto request the Director General ofEUROCONTROL to prepare aproposal for a complete Europeanairspace re-design for applicationin the medium-term (i.e. 2005+),taking into account civil andmilitary airspace requirementsfrom the outset. As a first step,areas where civil and militarytraffic interact significantly shouldbe identified.

The Provisional Council requested theDirector General to prepare a proposal fora complete European airspace re-design forapplication in the medium-term (i.e.2005+), taking into account civil andmilitary airspace requirements from theoutset and, as a first step, identifying areaswhere civil and military traffic interactsignificantly.

Work undertaken by theAgency

27. The Provisional Council is invitedto request the Director General ofEUROCONTROL to examine theimplementation status of FlexibleUse of Airspace (FUA) in EuropeanStates, and to put in place aprogramme to ensure bestpractice and to foster integrationof civil/military air traffic services.Real-time information should bemade readily available to civil andmilitary authorities to enable themto maximise the use of airspaceand existing capacity.

The Provisional Council requested theDirector General to examine theimplementation status of Flexible Use ofAirspace (FUA) in European States, and toput in place a programme to ensure bestpractice and to foster integration ofcivil/military air traffic services, makingreal-time information readily available tocivil and military authorities to enable themto maximise the use of airspace andexisting capacity.

FUA status reportpublished by the ANT.

Civil-military studylaunched in co-operationwith Agency and PRU.Phase 1 report due inJune 2001.


The PRC submitted the following recommendations for action to the Ninth Session of theProvisional Council (PC 9, November 2000).


Information Disclosure (see also Recommendation 17 above)

28.

29.

The Provisional Council is invitedto recommend the Commission toagree that States should directtheir respective ANSPs to publishinformation in conformity with the“Specification for InformationDisclosure” (see Annex) on ayearly basis. The first submissionrelating to year 2000 to beprovided by 1 June 2001.

The Provisional Council is invitedto recommend the Commission toagree that the informationprovided should be publiclydisclosed unless the ANSP candemonstrate that disclosure wouldnot be in the long-term interest ofthe stakeholder community.


The Provisional Council welcomed thereport submitted by the PRC in PC/00/9/2and requested the PRC to re-examine theissues raised, in the light of theobservations made in discussion, and toreport back to the Provisional Council atthe earliest opportunity.

Validation projectlaunched. Progressreport made to PC 10,(April 2001).


ANNEX 9: AIR NAVIGATION SERVICE PROVIDERS (2000)

As recent governance and institutional changes have taken place among the Europeanair navigation services providers, the following table is an attempt to provide a snapshotof the situation at 1 January 2001. The table has been compiled using different sourcesof information, including Annual Reports, Web sites, CIP documents, and personalcommunications.

Drawing upon the CANSO definition, a corporatised body is one that exists outside theGovernment Civil Service, and has certain commercial freedoms to act in the provision ofservices. In principle, a corporatised air navigation services provider does not carrygeneral regulatory responsibilities. In practice, whether there is a formal separation ofresponsibilities between regulation and provision will depend on each case at hand, evenwhen the provider has a separate legal entity from the Government.

Provider of Civil Air NavigationServices

Separation fromRegulatory Authority

Governance Ownership

Deutsche Flugsicherung (DFS)German Air Navigation Services(www.dfs.de)

Separation from Ministry ofTransport

Corporatised since01/01/1993

100% state-owned

Direction de la Navigation Aérienne (DNA)Directorate of Air Navigation - France(www.dgac.fr)

No separation from GeneralDirectorate of CA6

GovernmentDepartment

100% state-owned


100% state-owned

National Air Traffic Services Ltd NATS - UK(www.nats.co.uk)

Separation from CA Authority

Public PrivatePartnership April 2001.New ownershipstructure.

49% state-owned,5% employees46% privateowned

Aeropuertos Espanoles Y Navegacion Aerea(AENA)Spanish Airports and Air Navigation(www.aena.es)

Separation from GeneralDirectorate of CA

Corporatised since01/01/1991 (PublicEntity)

100% state-owned

Ente Nazionale di Assistenza al Volo (ENAV)Italian Agency for Air Navigation Services(www.enav.it)

Separation from Department ofCA

State Enterprisecorporatised as ofJanuary 2001

100% state-owned

Swisscontrol S.A. – Switzerland(www.swisscontrol.com)New corporate name: Skyguide as ofJanuary 2001

Separation from Federal Officefor CA


99.85% state-owned0.15% others

Austro control - Austria(www.austrocontrol.co.at)

Separation from CA Authority Corporatised since01/01/1994

100% state-owned

Luftfartsverket (LFV) - Air NavigationServices Department of Sweden(www.lfv.se)

No separation from CAAdministration

State Enterprise 100% state-owned

Statens Luftfartsvaesen - SLV – Denmark(www.slv.dk)


State EnterpriseDue to be corporatisedin 01/04/2001

100% state-owned

Belgocontrol – Belgium(www.belgocontrol.be)

Separation from AeronauticalAdministration

Corporatised since01/10/1998 (PublicBusiness Entity)

100% state-owned

Luchtverkeerleiding (LVNL)Air Traffic Control The Netherlands(www.lvnl.nl)

Separation from CA Authority Corporatised since01/01/1993(Public Entity)

100% state-owned

Devlet Hava Meydanlari Isletmesi (DHMI)Air Navigation Department of DirectorateGeneral of State Airports of Turkey(www.dhmiata.gov.tr)

No separation from DirectorateGeneral of CA


100% state-owned

6 CA: Civil Aviation


Provider of Civil Air NavigationServices

Separation fromRegulatory Authority

Governance Ownership

Norwegian Air Traffic and AirportManagement (NATAM)(www.luftfartsverket.no)

Separation from CAAdministration


Legiforgalmi es Repuloteri Igazgatosag (LRI)Air Traffic and Airport Administration ofHungary(www.budapest-airport.lri.hu)


State EnterpriseDue to be corporatisedin 2001

100% state-owned

Irish Aviation AuthorityDepartment of Air Navigation Services(www.iaa.ie)

No separation from CA Authority Semi-State Companysince 01/01/1994

100% state-owned

Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority No separation from CA Authority State Agency 100% state-owned

Navegaçao Aerea de PortugalNAV, EP. (www.nav.pt)

Separation from NationalInstitute of CA

Corporatised since18/12/1998 (PublicEntity)

100% state-owned

Air Traffic Services Authority of Bulgaria(ATSA)(www.bulatsa.com)


State Enterprisesince 01/02/1997

100% state-owned

Rizeni Letoveho Provozu - ANS - CzechRepublic(www.ans.cz)

Separation from CA Department Corporatised since01/01/1995

100% state-owned

Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration(ROMATSA)(www.romatsa.ro)



100% state-owned

IlmailulaitosAir Navigation Services Department –Finland(www.ilmailulaitos.com/english)



Agencja Ruchu LotniczegoPolish Air Traffic Agency (PATA)

Separation from CA Department Division of PolishAirports StateEnterprise

100% state-owned

Department of Civil Aviation – Cyprus No separation from Departmentof CA


100% state-owned

Air Navigation Services Department of CivilAviation Authority – Slovenia (www.caa-rs.si)

No separation from CA Authority GovernmentDepartment

100% state-owned

Letové Prevádzkové SluzbyLPS – Slovak Republic (www.lps.sk)



100% state-owned

Croatia Control Ltd.Croatian Air Navigation Services



100% state-owned

Ministry of Transport and CommunicationAir Navigation Services – FYROM

No separation from Ministry ofTransport


100% state-owned

Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme (LGS)Latvian Air Navigation Service Enterprise



100% state-owned joint-stock company

Estonian Air Navigation ServicesLennuliiklusteeninduse AS(www.eans.ee)



100% state-owned

Lietuvos Respublikos Civilines AviacijosDirekcija Directorate of Civil Aviation –Lithuania

No separation from CA Authority GovernmentDepartment

100% state-owned

Malta International Airport Plc.(www.maltairport.com)



100% state-owned

Albanian National Air Traffic Agency N/A N/A N/A

Moldovian Air Traffic Services Authority(MOLDASTA)


Corporatised 100% state-owned

ARMATSAir Navigation Services Armenia

Separation from CA Authority Corporatised 100% state-owned

annexes to the performance review report · more details, examples and a methodology for...

Documents