曝光臺 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

& other
(incl. SAR)
1%
Other
operating
costs
18%
Staff costs
66%
Cost of
capital
5%
Exceptional
items
1.2%
Depreciation
9%
Figure 120: Breakdown of terminal ANS costs at European system level (2008)
8.6.9 The unit costs for terminal ANS at European system level are obtained by dividing the
total real terminal ANS costs by the number of IFR airport movements. Figure 121
summarises the main data used to compute the terminal unit costs for 2008. According to
the available data in Figure 121, the unit costs for an IFR movement are €115.
Unfortunately, the data required to compute a 5-years planned profile of terminal ANS
unit costs at European system level was not available for Belgium, Ireland, Portugal,
Romania, Sweden and the UK.
2008 2009P 2010P 2011P 11/08
States (reporting terminal ANS charges) 22 22 22 22 22
Total terminal ANS costs (M€2008) 1.492 1.530 1.535 1.554 4%
IFR airport movements (M) 13,0
Real unit costs (€2008 / IFR airport movement) 115
Figure 121: Terminal ANS unit costs at European system level (€2008)
8.6.10 Figure 121 indicates that at system level, terminal ANS costs are planned to increase by
+4% in real terms between 2008 and 2011. An increase similar as for en-route ANS costs
on the same period (see Figure 103).
PRR 2009 104 Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness
TERMINAL ANS UNIT COSTS AT STATE LEVEL
8.6.11 Figure 122 shows the terminal ANS unit costs for each of the 22 States that provided
actual 2008 data in November 2009. The year 2008 is the latest for which actual figures
are available at the time of this analysis.
188
173
146
140
135
94
87
75
106
113 112
126
87 86
137
116
71
84
132
102
82 82
0
40
80
120
160
200
Spain
Greece
Belgium
Czech Republic
Bulgaria
France
Romania
Italy
Hungary
Cyprus
Netherlands
Portugal
Finland
Poland
Austria
Germany
Slovenia
United Kingdom
Denmark
Ireland
Lithuania
Sweden
€ per IFR airport movement
European system average: €115
Figure 122: Terminal IFR ANS costs per IFR airport movement, 2008
8.6.12 Figure 122 indicates that there is a wide dispersion in unit costs for terminal ANS which
vary from €188 for Spain to €71 for Sweden49. In Sweden, most terminal ANS assets (e.g.
TWR buildings, ILS, etc.) and capital-related costs are allocated to the airport division of
LFV and not to the ANS department. As a result, these costs are mainly recovered
through landing fees rather than terminal ANS charges. Therefore, the rather low terminal
unit costs for Sweden illustrate the difficulty of fair cost comparisons where ANS
provision is integrated with airport management50.
8.6.13 Consequently, it is difficult to determine whether the differences shown in Figure 122
above are driven by economic and operational factors (for example, size of operations,
economies of scale, or traffic complexity), differences in charging policy, or purely costallocation
differences between en-route and terminal charges which are known to exist
across States/ANSPs. To limit cost-allocation distortions, for benchmarking purposes the
PRC considers that it is preferable to compare gate-to-gate ANSPs cost-effectiveness (i.e.
en-route plus terminal ANS costs, see Section 8.7 below). It is expected that the
application of EC Regulation 1794/2006 [Ref. 33] contributes to reducing these costallocation
differences.
8.6.14 The PRC considers that, in the context of SES II performance scheme, it is important to
start monitoring terminal ANS cost-effectiveness. This monitoring will ensure that there
is no distortion in cost-allocation between en-route and terminal ANS during the first
Reference Period. Furthermore, this analysis would constitute a solid ground for the
setting of a EU-wide cost-efficiency target on terminal ANS for future Reference Periods
(i.e. from 2015 onwards).
49 The 2008 unit terminal ANS costs reported for Greece in Figure 122 (i.e. €173) have been computed using the
information submitted by Greece in June 2009 since no information relating to 2008 was provided in November
2009.
50 In fact the situation can be even different across airports operated by the same ANSP.
PRR 2009 105 Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness
8.7 ANSP’s cost-effectiveness benchmarking
8.7.1 The ANSP cost-effectiveness focuses on ATM/CNS provision costs which are under the
　
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(76)