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

direct control and responsibility of the ANSP. Detailed benchmarking analysis is
available in the forthcoming ACE 2008 Benchmarking Report [Ref. 36].
8.7.2 Figure 123 shows a detailed breakdown of gate-to-gate51 ATM/CNS provision costs.
Since there are differences in cost-allocation between en-route and terminal ANS among
ANSPs, it is important to keep a “gate-to-gate” perspective when comparing ANSPs costeffectiveness.
ATM/CNS provision costs (€ M) Total %
Staff costs 4 804 63.4%
Non-staff operating costs 1 297 17.1%
Depreciation costs 828 10.9%
Cost of capital 501 6.6%
Exceptional Items 144 1.9%
Total 7 574 100.0%
Exceptional
Items
1.9%
Cost of capital
6.6%
Staff costs
Non-staff 63.4%
operating costs
17.1%
Depreciation
costs
10.9%
Figure 123: Breakdown of gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (2008)
8.7.3 The cost-effectiveness analysis presented in this section is factual. It is important to note
that local performance is impacted by several factors which are different across European
States, and some of these are typically outside (exogenous) an ANSP’s direct control. A
genuine measurement of cost inefficiencies would require full account to be taken of
identified and measurable exogenous factors.
8.7.4 The quality of service provided by ANSPs has an impact on the efficiency of aircraft
operations, which carry with them additional costs that need to be taken into
consideration for a full economic assessment of ANSP performance. The quality of
service associated with ATM/CNS provision by ANSPs is, for the time being, assessed
only in terms of ATFM ground delays, which can be measured consistently, can be
attributed to ANSPs, and can be expressed in monetary terms. The indicator of
“economic” cost-effectiveness is therefore the ATM/CNS provision costs plus the costs of
ATFM ground delay, all expressed per composite flight-hour.
GATE-TO-GATE COST-EFFECTIVENESS
2004-2008 TRENDS
8.7.5 The top of Figure 125 displays the trend at European level of the gate-to-gate “economic”
cost-effectiveness indicator between 2004 and 2008 for a consistent sample of 33 ANSPs
for which data for a time-series analysis was available. At system level, unit economic
costs slightly reduced by -2.7% between 2004 and 2008 (-0.7% a year).
8.7.6 Figure 125 shows that unit economic costs fell steadily until 2006, stabilised in 2007 and
increased in 2008. The drivers for this increase are shown in Figure 124 which indicates
that in 2008, traffic growth slowed down from +4-6% a year to +1.6%. In the meantime,
ATM/CNS provision costs increased by +0.9% in real terms.
51 That is the aggregation of en-route and terminal ANS.
PRR 2009 106 Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness
+0.9% +1.6%
+4.4% +4.5% +5.5%
+17.8%
-2.2%
+7.1% +8.1%
+4.9%
+0.9%+1.6%
-4%
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours Unit costs of ATFM delays
Figure 124: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs, traffic and ATFM delays (2004-2008)
8.7.7 At the same time, the unit costs of ATFM delays increased substantially (+8.1%), which
is disappointing given the relatively low traffic growth in 2008. The result was an overall
rise in 2008 of +0.6% in the economic cost per composite flight-hour.
8.7.8 Figure 125 shows that economic costs per composite flight-hour have increased since
2004 in 11 ANSPs. The largest increases have been in NAVIAIR (+84%), DCAC Cyprus
(+75%) and Croatia Control (+55%). For these three ANSPs, the rise in unit economic
costs is mainly due to a significant increase of ATFM delays52. In particular, following
the implementation of the DATMAS system, NAVIAIR experienced significant delays
during four months in 2008. In several ANSPs, unit economic costs significantly
decreased as a result of improved quality of service and/or greater financial costeffectiveness.
The largest decreases have been observed for ATSA Bulgaria (-39%) and
Oro Navigacija (-31%).
8.7.9 The decrease in unit economic costs in three of the five largest ANSPs (DFS (-4%),
DSNA (-3%) and ENAV (-16%) significantly contributed to the fall observed at
European system level. On the other hand, unit economic costs increased for NATS +4%
since the reduction in ATM/CNS provision costs was not sufficient to compensate for the
rise in ATFM delays. For Aena, the combination of increases in ATM/CNS provision
costs and in ATFM delays led to an increase in unit economic costs (+7%) between 2004
and 2008. A main driver for this increase relates to Aena ATCO employment costs per
　
中國(guó)航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Performance Review Report 2009(77)