Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness
PRR 2009 87 Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness
8 Cost-effectiveness
KEY MESSAGES OF THIS CHAPTER
The PRC cost-effectiveness target proposed back in 2003 (i.e. -14% decrease in unit costs for the
period 2003-2008) has been achieved. The positive traffic growth during the 2003-2008 period has
greatly contributed to this achievement, along with greater cost-effectiveness awareness among a
majority of ANSPs.
The economic downturn, which became apparent in summer 2008, has affected the aviation
community throughout 2009 with unprecedented severity. As a result of the significant decrease in
traffic, en-route unit costs are planned to increase sharply in 2009 and 2010. Greater flexibility is
required for ANSPs to adjust to these unfavourable economic conditions.
Several European ANSPs reacted and implemented cost-containment measures for 2009 and 2010 to
smooth the impact of the traffic downturn on airspace users. It is important that these measures
effectively result into actual 2009 and 2010 costs lower than planned, without compromising the
provision of future ATC capacity.
The current economic crisis clearly shows the limits of the full cost-recovery regime where the underrecoveries
generated in 2008 and 2009 will have to be borne by airspace users in future years.
In the context of SES II, the EC is developing Implementing Rules on the performance scheme and
also amending the Implementing Rules on the Charging Scheme. These Implementing Rules foresee
the introduction of an incentive scheme based on a risk-sharing mechanism and on the principle of
determined costs. This should contribute to better incentivise performance improvements and balance
risks between ANSPs and airspace users.
The transparency of terminal ANS costs charged to airspace users is gradually improving with the
setting of the 2010 terminal navigation charges according to the EC Charging Scheme Regulation.
The PRC considers that, in the context of SES II performance scheme, it is important to start effective
monitoring of terminal ANS cost-effectiveness in order to pave the way for the setting of future EUwide
cost-efficiency targets.
8.1 Introduction
8.1.1 In 2008, total en-route and terminal ANS costs amounted to some €8 630M.
Around 80% of these costs relate to the provision of en-route ANS;
Around 20% relate to the provision of terminal ANS.
En-route ANS costs
ATM/CNS
Payments to regulatory
& gov. authorities
MET
EUROCONTROL
€ 5 830 M
€ 340 M
€ 90 M
€ 530 M
€ 6 790 M
Terminal ANS costs
ATM/CNS
Payments to regulatory
& gov. authorities
MET
€ 1 740 M
€ 80 M
€ 20 M
€ 1 840 M
EN-route ANS
costs
79%
Terminal ANS
costs
21%
Gate-to-gate ANS costs
(European level) 2008
€ 8 630 M
Source: EUROCONTROL/ PRC
Figure 102: Breakdown of gate-to-gate ANS costs, 2008
PRR 2009 88 Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness
8.1.2 En-route ANS costs can be broken down into ATM/CNS, MET, EUROCONTROL and
payment to regulatory and national authorities as shown in Figure 102. The aggregation
of the en-route cost and traffic data provided by the various States for the purposes of the
Enlarged Committee for Route Charges allows computing the en-route cost-effectiveness
KPI for the EUROCONTROL Area. The analysis on the en-route cost-effectiveness is
presented in Sections 8.2-8.5.
8.1.3 For the first time in the PRR, data on terminal ANS costs (reported to the EC by EU
Member States in accordance with EC Regulation 1796/2006 [Ref. 33]) are used in order
to provide a first overview and assessment of terminal ANS cost-effectiveness. The
analysis on the terminal ANS cost-effectiveness is presented in Section 8.6.
8.1.4 Finally, for the purposes of benchmarking ANSPs performance and comparing like with
like, the PRC is monitoring since 2001 a gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness KPI which
focuses on ATM/CNS costs incurred by ANSPs. A dedicated benchmarking report is
available (ACE 2008) and highlights of the main results are presented in Section 8.7.
8.2 En-route cost-effectiveness KPI for EUROCONTROL Area
中國航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Performance Review Report 2009(64)
